Transnational Institute | ideas into movement

https://www.tni.org

  • Smoking guns. How European arms exports are forcing millions from their homes

    The #nexus between the arms trade and forced displacement is rarely explored and the role of European arms trade policies that facilitate gross human rights violations in third countries is often absent from displacement and migration studies. This report joins the dots between Europe’s arms trade and forced displacement and migration.

    Key findings

    - Arms and military equipment manufactured and licensed in Europe and sold to third countries provokes forced displacement and migration. This arms trade is motivated by how highly lucrative the industry is and current control and monitoring mechanisms facilitate rather than curtail problematic licensing and exportation.

    – The arms trade is political and is driven by profit but is under-regulated. Although other sectors, such as food and agriculture, do not undermine the fundamental right to life and other human rights in the same way that the arms trade does, they are far more stringently regulated.

    - It is possible to methodically trace arms, military equipment and technology, from the point of origin and export to where these were eventually used, and document their devastating impact on the local population. The report confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that European arms are directly used not to defend populations or to enhance local or regional security as is often claimed, but to destabilise entire countries and regions.

    - The arms industry is involved in clear violations of non-transfer clauses and end user agreements (EUAs) despite a supposedly robust system of controls. The evidence shows that once arms are traded, and although they may be traced, it is virtually impossible to control how they may eventually be used. Furthermore, although importing countries were known to have breached EUAs, EU member states continued to sell them arms and military equipment.

    - Regardless of whether arms were exported to official state security forces or were eventually used by non-state armed actors, or whether EUAs and other control mechanisms were respected, the result was the same – European arms were used in military operations that led to destabilisation and resulting forced displacement and migration. The destabilisation, facilitated by arms supplied by Europe, then contributed to Europe hugely expanding its border security apparatus to respond to the apparent threat posed by refugees attempting to arrive and seek asylum.

    - European countries are among the top exporters of lethal arms equipment worldwide, comprising approximately 26% of global arms exports since 2015. The top five European arms exporters are France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK – together accounting for 22% of global arms exports in the 2016–2020 period.

    - Arms exports from Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania have soared in recent years, a large proportion of which is exported to West Asian countries. For example, before 2012, Croatia exported ammunition worth less than €1 million a year, but with the start of the Syrian war this surged every year to reach €82 million in 2016. The European Parliament called on Bulgaria and Romania to stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the US (if there was a risk that these arms may be diverted), so far to no avail.

    – In Syria an estimated 13 million people need humanitarian assistance and more than half of the population remains displaced from their homes – including 6.6 million refugees living in neighbouring countries, such as Jordan and Lebanon, who subsequently attempt to flee to Europe in a reverse movement to the arms that displaced them. Another 6.7 million are internally displaced persons (IDPs) inside Syria.

    –-

    Five case studies document that:

    Italian T-129 ATAK helicopter components were exported to Turkey and used in 2018 and 2019 in two attacks in the district of Afrin in Northern Syria as part of Operation Olive Branch and in Operation Peace Spring on the Turkish–Syrian border. According to UN figures, 98,000 people were displaced during the Afrin offensive between January and March 2018, while 180,000, of whom 80,000 were children, were displaced, in October 2019 as a result of Operation Peace Spring.

    Bulgaria exported missile tubes and rockets to Saudi Arabia and the US, which eventually ended up in the hands of IS fighters in Iraq. The equipment was diverted and used in Ramadi and the surrounding region, where the International Organisation for Migration reported that from April 2015, following the outbreak of the Ramadi crisis, over half a million people were displaced from Anbar province, of which Ramadi is the capital city, while 85,470 were displaced specifically from Ramadi City between November 2015 and February 2016. Around 80% of all housing in Ramadi was severely damaged after the offensive. In 2017 another missile tube originating in Bulgaria was found to have been used by IS forces in the town of Bartella, located to the east of Mosul. At least 200,000 people from minority groups were displaced from the greater Mosul area between 2014 and January 2017. By July 2019, over two years after military operations had ended in Mosul, there were still over 300,000 people displaced from the city.

    British, French, and German components and production capacity, including missiles, missile batteries, and a bomb rack, were exported to Turkey, where they were mounted on Turkish-made drones and exported to Azerbaijan. These same drones, loaded with European-manufactured arms components, were used in the 44-day conflict in Naghorno- Karabakh, which provoked the forced displacement of half of the region’s Armenian population – approximately 90,000 people.

    Between 2012 and 2015 Bulgaria exported assault rifles, large-calibre artillery systems, light machine guns, hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) national police and military. The conflict in DRC is one of the world’s longest, yet Europe continues to supply arms that are used to perpetrate gross human rights violations. In 2017, Serbia exported 920 assault rifles and 114 light machine guns that were originally manufactured in Bulgaria. That same year, 2,166,000 people were forcibly displaced, making it one of the worst since the conflict began. Specifically, Bulgarian weapons were in use in North Kivu in 2017 coinciding with the forced displacement of 523,000 people.

    At least four Italian Bigliani-class patrol boats were donated to Libya and used by its coastguard to forcibly pull back and detain migrants who were fleeing its shores. In 2019, the Libyan coastguard mounted a machine gun on at least one of these boats and used it in the internal conflict against the Libyan National Army. Many of those fleeing Libya had most likely already fled other conflicts in other African and West Asian countries that may have purchased or were in receipt of European arms, so that at each step along their journey from displacement to migration, the European arms trade is making massive profits by firstly displacing them, and then later deterring and pushing them back.

    The arms companies we identified in these case studies include: Airbus (Franco-German), ARSENAL (Bulgaria), BAE Systems (UK), Baykar Makina (Turkey), EDO MBM (UK), Intermarine (Italy), Kintex (Bulgaria), Leonardo (Italy), Roketsan (Turkey), SB Aerospatiale (France), TDW (Germany), Turkish Aerospace Industry (Turkey), and Vazovski Mashinostroitelni Zavodi ЕAD (Bulgaria).

    https://www.tni.org/en/publication/smoking-guns
    #rapport #tni
    #armes #commerce_d'armes #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Europe #armée #militaire #industrie_de_l'armement #droits_humains #droits_fondamentaux #France #Allemagne #Italie #UK #Angleterre #Espagne #Bulgarie #Croatie #Roumanie #Arabie_Saoudite #Syrie #T-129_ATAK #Turquie #Operation_Olive_Branch #Operation_Peace_Spring #Irak #Ramadi #Bartella #Azerbaïjan #arméniens #Congo #RDC #République_démocratique_du_Congo #Serbie #Kivu #Nord_Kivu #Bigliani #Libye #gardes-côtes_libyiens #complexe_militaro-industriel
    #Airbus #ARSENAL #BAE_Systems #Baykar_Makina #EDO_MBM #Intermarine #Kintex #Leonardo #Roketsan #SB_Aerospatiale #TDW #Turkish_Aerospace_Industry #Vazovski_Mashinostroitelni_Zavodi_ЕAD

  • #Biden and the Border Security-Industrial Complex

    Successive administrations have poured money into the business of militarizing immigration control—and lobbyists have returned the favors. Will this president stop the juggernaut?

    There are many ways I wish I’d spent my last days of freedom before the coronavirus’s inexorable and deadly advance through the US began last year, but attending the 2020 Border Security Expo was not one of them. On March 9, 2020, President Trump told us the flu was more deadly than coronavirus and that nothing would be shut down. “Think about that!” he tweeted. On March 13, he declared the pandemic a national emergency. In the days between, I flew to San Antonio, Texas, to attend the Expo in an attempt to better understand the border security industry and its links to government. I soon found myself squeezing through dozens of suited men with buzz cuts clapping each other on the back and scarfing bagels at the catering table, with scant mention of the coming catastrophe.

    Instead, the focus was on how best to spend the ever-increasing budgets of the Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which had discretionary spending allocations that totaled $27 billion. Together, that was up 20 percent on the previous year’s budgets; and for decades now, under Democrats and Republicans alike, the border security industry has generally received more and more money each year. For the first time in years, the agencies’ latest combined budget records a modest reduction, of $1.5 billion (though the expenditure on ICE continues to grow unchecked).

    President Biden is working to undo some of the most violent anti-immigrant policies of his predecessor, including lifting the travel ban on thirteen nations, almost all in the Middle East or Africa, and working to end the Migrant Protection Protocols, which forced some 25,000 asylum seekers to stay in Mexico as they awaited their day in court. He has also created a task force to reunite families separated at the US–Mexico border and has already sent a comprehensive immigration reform bill to lawmakers. And he has halted construction of Donald Trump’s notorious border wall.

    Does this all signify that he is ready to consider taming the vast militarized machine that is the border security industry? Or will he, like Democratic presidents before him, quietly continue to expand it?

    (#paywall)

    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2021/03/02/biden-and-the-border-security-industrial-complex

    #USA #complexe_militaro-industriel #Etats-Unis #migrations #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #business #réfugiés #migrations #militarisation_des_frontières #Joe_Biden #Customs_and_Border_Protection_agency (#CBP) #Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement (#ICE)

    • Biden’s Border. The industry, the Democrats and the 2020 elections

      This briefing profiles the leading US border security contractors, their related financial campaign contributions during the 2020 elections, and how they have shaped a bipartisan approach in favor of border militarization for more than three decades. It suggests that a real change in border and immigration policies will require the Democrats to break with the industry that helps finance them.

      Key findings:

      – Early into his presidency, Joe Biden has already indicated through 10 executive orders that he wants to end the brutality associated with Trump’s border and immigration policies. However undoing all the harmful dimensions of the US border regime will require substantial structural change and an end to the close ties between the Democrats and the border industry.

      - The border security and immigration detention industry has boomed in the last decades thanks to constant increases in government spending by both parties—Democrats and Republicans. Between 2008 and 2020, CBP and ICE issued 105,997 contracts worth $55.1 billion to private corporations.The industry is now deeply embedded in US government bodies and decision-making, with close financial ties to strategic politicians.

      – 13 companies play a pivotal role in the US border industry: #CoreCivic, #Deloitte, #Elbit_Systems, #GEO_Group, #General_Atomics, #General_Dynamics, #G4S, #IBM, #Leidos, #Lockheed_Martin, #L3Harris, #Northrop_Grumman, and #Palantir. Some of the firms also provide other services and products to the US government, but border and detention contracts have been a consistently growing part of all of their portfolios.

      - These top border contractors through individual donations and their #Political_Action_Committees (PACs) gave more than $40 million during the 2020 electoral cycle to the two parties ($40,333,427). Democrats overall received more contributions from the big border contractors than the Republicans (55 percent versus 45 percent). This is a swing back to the Democrats, as over the last 10 years contributions from 11 of the 13 companies have favored Republicans. It suggests an intention by the border industry to hedge their political bets and ensure that border security policies are not rolled back to the detriment of future profits.

      – The 13 border security companies’ executives and top employees contributed three times more to Joe Biden ($5,364,994) than to Donald Trump ($1,730,435).

      - A few border security companies show preferences towards one political party. Detention-related companies, in particular CoreCivic, G4S and GEO Group, strongly favor Republicans along with military contractors Elbit Systems and General Atomics, while auditing and IT companies Deloitte, IBM and Palantir overwhelmingly favor the Democrats.

      – The 13 companies have contributed $10 million ($9,674,911) in the 2020 electoral cycle to members of strategic legislative committees that design and fund border security policies: the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the House Homeland Security Committee. The biggest contributors are Deloitte, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Leidos, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, and nearly all donate substantially to both parties, with a preference for Republican candidates. Democrat Senator Jack Reed ($426,413), Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger ($442,406) and Republican Senator Richard Shelby ($430,150) all received more than $400,000 in 2020.

      – Biden is opposed to the wall-building of Trump, but has along with many Democrats voiced public support for a more hidden ‘virtual wall’ and ‘smart borders’, deploying surveillance technologies that will be both more lucrative for the industry and more hidden in terms of the abuses they perpetrate.

      - Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas developed and implemented DACA under Obama’s administration, but also as a lawyer with the firm WilmerHale between 2018 and 2020 earned $3.3 million representing companies including border contractors Northrop Grumman and Leidos.

      - Over the last 40 years, Biden has a mixed voting record on border policy, showing some support for immigrant rights on several occasions but also approving legislation (the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigration Reform Act) that enabled the mass deportations under Obama, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which extended the wall long before Trump’s election.

      – The Democrat Party as a whole also has a mixed record. Under President Bill Clinton, the Democrats approved the 1994 Prevention through Deterrence national border strategy and implemented the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act that dramatically increased the pace of border militarization as well as deportations. Later Obama became the first president to deport nearly 3 million people during his eight-year term.

      – Nearly 8,000 bodies have been recovered in the U.S.–Mexico borderlands between 1998 and 2019 as a result of policies by both parties. The organization No More Deaths has estimated that three to ten times as many people may have died or disappeared since today’s border-enforcement strategy was implemented. The border industrial complex’s profits are based on border and immmigration policies that have deadly consequences.

      https://www.tni.org/en/bidensborder

      #rapport #TNI #murs #barrières_frontalières #démocrates #républicains #industrie_frontalière #smart_borders #murs_virtuels #technologie #morts #décès #mortalité

  • #Aqua_publica_europea

    Aqua Publica Europea (#APE) is the European Association of Public Water Operators. It unites publicly owned water and sanitation services and other stakeholders working to promote public water management at both European and international level. APE is an operator-led association that looks for efficient solutions that serve public interests rather than corporate ones.

    https://www.aquapublica.eu
    #remunicipalisation #municipalisme #néo-municipalisme #eau #accès_à_l'eau

    A noter, dans le management board, composé de 18 personnes, devinez combien de femmes ?


    –-> cherchez-là, car elle est bien cachée... une !!

    Et dans le secrétariat ?
    2/3 sont femmes !

    • Remunicipalización. Cómo ciudades y ciudadanía están escribiendo el futuro de los servicios públicos

      ‘La recuperación de los servicios públicos’ es un libro de obligada lectura para toda aquella persona que esté interesada en el futuro democrático de servicios como la energía, el agua y la salud. Os invitamos a un fabuloso viaje en el que conoceréis novedosas iniciativas en todo el mundo para fomentar la propiedad pública y acabar con las privatizaciones.

      De Nueva Delhi a Barcelona y de Argentina a Alemania, miles de políticos, funcionarios públicos, trabajadores y sindicatos, y movimientos sociales están trabajando para reivindicar o crear servicios públicos que satisfagan las necesidades básicas de las personas y respondan a los desafíos ambientales.

      Normalmente, lo hacen en el ámbito local. Nuestro estudio demuestra que en los últimos años se han producido al menos 835 casos de (re)municipalización de los servicios públicos en todo el mundo, que afectan a más de 1600 ciudades en 45 países.

      ¿Por qué hay comunidades de todo el mundo que están recuperando servicios básicos que antes gestionaban operadores privados y volviendo a situarlos en el ámbito de lo público? Este tipo de iniciativas —de lo que se conoce como “remunicipalización”, es decir, la recuperación de servicios desde el ámbito municipal o local— responden a muchos y diversos motivos: el objetivo de acabar con las prácticas abusivas o el incumplimiento de las normas laborales por parte del sector privado, el deseo de reconquistar el control de la economía y los recursos locales, el afán de ofrecer a las personas unos servicios asequibles, o la intención de poner en práctica unas estrategias ambiciosas a favor del medioambiente o de la transición energética, por citar algunos.

      Las remunicipalizaciones están ganando terreno tanto en ciudades pequeñas como en grandes capitales, siguiendo distintos modelos de titularidad pública y con distintos niveles de implicación por parte de la ciudadanía y la propia plantilla del servicio. Sin embargo, pese a la gran pluralidad de experiencias, se puede dibujar un panorama con un denominador común: es posible recuperar o construir unos servicios públicos eficaces, democráticos y asequibles.

      El constante deterioro de la calidad de los servicios y el incremento de los precios no es algo inevitable. Por ese motivo, cada vez son más las comunidades y las ciudades que están acabando con las privatizaciones y volviendo a poner en manos públicas servicios esenciales

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFG2T_fR3H0&feature=emb_logo

      https://www.tni.org/es/publicacion/remunicipalizacion-1

  • Artificial intelligence : #Frontex improves its maritime surveillance

    Frontex wants to use a new platform to automatically detect and assess „risks“ on the seas of the European Union. Suspected irregular activities are to be displayed in a constantly updated „threat map“ with the help of self-learning software.

    The EU border agency has renewed a contract with Israeli company Windward for a „maritime analytics“ platform. It will put the application into regular operation. Frontex had initially procured a licence for around 800,000 Euros. For now 2.6 million Euros, the agency will receive access for four workstations. The contract can be extended three times for one year at a time.

    Windward specialises in the digital aggregation and assessment of vessel tracking and maritime surveillance data. Investors in the company, which was founded in 2011, include former US CIA director David Petraeus and former CEO’s of Thomson Reuters and British Petroleum. The former chief of staff of the Israeli military, Gabi Ashkenazi, is considered one of the advisors.

    Signature for each observed ship

    The platform is based on artificial intelligence techniques. For analysis, it uses maritime reporting systems, including position data from the AIS transponders of larger ships and weather data. These are enriched with information about the ship owners and shipping companies as well as the history of previous ship movements. For this purpose, the software queries openly accessible information from the internet.

    In this way, a „fingerprint“ is created for each observed ship, which can be used to identify suspicious activities. If the captain switches off the transponder, for example, the analysis platform can recognise this as a suspicuous event and take over further tracking based on the recorded patterns. It is also possible to integrate satellite images.

    Windward uses the register of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) as its database, which lists about 70,000 ships. Allegedly, however, it also processes data on a total of 400,000 watercraft, including smaller fishing boats. One of the clients is therefore the UN Security Council, which uses the technology to monitor sanctions.

    Against „bad guys“ at sea

    The company advertises its applications with the slogan „Catch the bad guys at sea“. At Frontex, the application is used to combat and prevent unwanted migration and cross-border crime as well as terrorism. Subsequently, „policy makers“ and law enforcement agencies are to be informed about results. For this purpose, the „risks“ found are visualised in a „threat map“.

    Windward put such a „threat map“ online two years ago. At the time, the software rated the Black Sea as significantly more risky than the Mediterranean. Commercial shipping activity off the Crimea was interpreted as „probable sanction evasions“. Ship owners from the British Guernsey Islands as well as Romania recorded the highest proportion of ships exhibiting „risky“ behaviour. 42 vessels were classified as suspicious for drug smuggling based on their patterns.

    Frontex „early warning“ units

    The information from maritime surveillance is likely to be processed first by the „Risk Analysis Unit“ (RAU) at Frontex. It is supposed to support strategic decisions taken by the headquarters in Warsaw on issues of border control, return, prevention of cross-border crime as well as threats of a „hybrid nature“. Frontex calls the applications used there „intelligence products“ and „integrated data services“. Their results flow together in the „Common Integrated Risk Analysis Model“ (CIRAM).

    For the operational monitoring of the situation at the EU’s external borders, the agency also maintains the „Frontex Situation Centre“ (FSC). The department is supposed to provide a constantly updated picture of migration movements, if possible in real time. From these reports, Frontex produces „early warnings“ and situation reports to the border authorities of the member states as well as to the Commission and the Council in Brussels.

    More surveillance capacity in Warsaw

    According to its own information, Windward’s clients include the Italian Guardia di Finanza, which is responsible for controlling Italian territorial waters. The Ministry of the Interior in Rome is also responsible for numerous EU projects aimed at improving surveillance of the central Mediterranean. For the training and equipment of the Libyan coast guard, Italy receives around 67 million euros from EU funds in three different projects. Italian coast guard authorities are also installing a surveillance system for Tunisia’s external maritime borders.

    Frontex now wants to improve its own surveillance capacities with further tenders. Together with the fisheries agency, The agency is awarding further contracts for manned maritime surveillance. It has been operating such a „Frontex Aerial Surveillance Service“ (FASS) in the central Mediterranean since 2017 and in the Adriatic Sea since 2018. Frontex also wants to station large drones in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, it is testing Aerostats in the eastern Mediterranean for a second time. These are zeppelins attached to a 1,000-metre long line.

    https://digit.site36.net/2021/01/15/artificial-intelligence-frontex-improves-its-maritime-surveillance
    #intelligence_artificielle #surveillance #surveillance_maritime #mer #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #AI #Windward #Israël #complexe_militaro-industriel #militarisation_des_frontières #David_Petraeus #Thomson_Reuters #British_Petroleum #armée_israélienne #Gabi_Ashkenazi #International_Maritime_Organisation (#IMO) #thread_map #Risk_Analysis_Unit (#RAU) #Common_Integrated_Risk_Analysis_Model (#CIRAM) #Frontex_Situation_Centre (#FSC) #Frontex_Aerial_Surveillance_Service (#FASS) #zeppelins

    ping @etraces

    • Data et nouvelles technologies, la face cachée du contrôle des mobilités

      Dans un rapport de juillet 2020, l’Agence européenne pour la gestion opérationnelle des systèmes d’information à grande échelle (#EU-Lisa) présente l’intelligence artificielle (IA) comme l’une des « technologies prioritaires » à développer. Le rapport souligne les avantages de l’IA en matière migratoire et aux frontières, grâce, entre autres, à la technologie de #reconnaissance_faciale.

      L’intelligence artificielle est de plus en plus privilégiée par les acteurs publics, les institutions de l’UE et les acteurs privés, mais aussi par le #HCR et l’#OIM. Les agences de l’UE, comme Frontex ou EU-Lisa, ont été particulièrement actives dans l’#expérimentation des nouvelles technologies, brouillant parfois la distinction entre essais et mise en oeuvre. En plus des outils traditionnels de surveillance, une panoplie de technologies est désormais déployée aux frontières de l’Europe et au-delà, qu’il s’agisse de l’ajout de nouvelles #bases_de_données, de technologies financières innovantes, ou plus simplement de la récupération par les #GAFAM des données laissées volontairement ou pas par les migrant·e·s et réfugié∙e∙s durant le parcours migratoire.

      La pandémie #Covid-19 est arrivée à point nommé pour dynamiser les orientations déjà prises, en permettant de tester ou de généraliser des technologies utilisées pour le contrôle des mobilités sans que l’ensemble des droits des exilé·e·s ne soit pris en considération. L’OIM, par exemple, a mis à disposition des Etats sa #Matrice_de_suivi_des_déplacements (#DTM) durant cette période afin de contrôler les « flux migratoires ». De nouvelles technologies au service de vieilles obsessions…

      http://www.migreurop.org/article3021.html

      Pour télécharger le rapport :
      www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/note_12_fr.pdf

      ping @karine4 @rhoumour @_kg_ @i_s_

    • La #technopolice aux frontières

      Comment le #business de la #sécurité et de la #surveillance au sein de l’#Union_européenne, en plus de bafouer des #droits_fondamentaux, utilise les personnes exilées comme #laboratoire de recherche, et ce sur des #fonds_publics européens.

      On a beaucoup parlé ici ces derniers mois de surveillance des manifestations ou de surveillance de l’espace public dans nos villes, mais la technopolice est avant tout déployée aux #frontières – et notamment chez nous, aux frontières de la « forteresse Europe ». Ces #dispositifs_technopoliciers sont financés, soutenus et expérimentés par l’Union européenne pour les frontières de l’UE d’abord, et ensuite vendus. Cette surveillance des frontières représente un #marché colossal et profite grandement de l’échelle communautaire et de ses programmes de #recherche_et_développement (#R&D) comme #Horizon_2020.

      #Roborder – des essaims de #drones_autonomes aux frontières

      C’est le cas du projet Roborder – un « jeu de mots » entre robot et border, frontière en anglais. Débuté en 2017, il prévoit de surveiller les frontières par des essaims de #drones autonomes, fonctionnant et patrouillant ensemble. L’#intelligence_artificielle de ces drones leur permettrait de reconnaître les humains et de distinguer si ces derniers commettent des infractions (comme celui de passer une frontière ?) et leur dangerosité pour ensuite prévenir la #police_aux_frontières. Ces drones peuvent se mouvoir dans les airs, sous l’eau, sur l’eau et dans des engins au sol. Dotés de multiples capteurs, en plus de la détection d’activités criminelles, ces drones seraient destinés à repérer des “#radio-fréquences non fiables”, c’est-à-dire à écouter les #communications et également à mesurer la #pollution_marine.
      Pour l’instant, ces essaims de drones autonomes ne seraient pas pourvus d’armes. Roborder est actuellement expérimenté en #Grèce, au #Portugal et en #Hongrie.

      Un #financement européen pour des usages « civils »

      Ce projet est financé à hauteur de 8 millions d’euros par le programme Horizon 2020 (subventionné lui-même par la #Cordis, organe de R&D de la Commission européenne). Horizon 2020 représente 50% du financement public total pour la recherche en sécurité de l’UE. Roborder est coordonné par le centre de recherches et technologie de #Hellas (le #CERTH), en Grèce et comme le montre l’association #Homo_Digitalis le nombre de projets Horizon 2020 ne fait qu’augmenter en Grèce. En plus du CERTH grec s’ajoutent environ 25 participants venus de tous les pays de l’UE (où on retrouve les services de police d’#Irlande_du_Nord, le ministère de la défense grecque, ou encore des entreprises de drones allemandes, etc.).

      L’une des conditions pour le financement de projets de ce genre par Horizon 2020 est que les technologies développées restent dans l’utilisation civile, et ne puissent pas servir à des fins militaires. Cette affirmation pourrait ressembler à un garde-fou, mais en réalité la distinction entre usage civil et militaire est loin d’être clairement établie. Comme le montre Stephen Graham, très souvent les #technologies, à la base militaires, sont réinjectées dans la sécurité, particulièrement aux frontières où la migration est criminalisée. Et cette porosité entre la sécurité et le #militaire est induite par la nécessité de trouver des débouchés pour rentabiliser la #recherche_militaire. C’est ce qu’on peut observer avec les drones ou bien le gaz lacrymogène. Ici, il est plutôt question d’une logique inverse : potentiellement le passage d’un usage dit “civil” de la #sécurité_intérieure à une application militaire, à travers des ventes futures de ces dispositifs. Mais on peut aussi considérer la surveillance, la détection de personnes et la #répression_aux_frontières comme une matérialisation de la #militarisation de l’Europe à ses frontières. Dans ce cas-là, Roborder serait un projet à fins militaires.

      De plus, dans les faits, comme le montre The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2019/05/11/drones-artificial-intelligence-europe-roborder), une fois le projet terminé celui-ci est vendu. Sans qu’on sache trop à qui. Et, toujours selon le journal, beaucoup sont déjà intéressés par Roborder.

      #IborderCtrl – détection d’#émotions aux frontières

      Si les essaims de drones sont impressionnants, il existe d’autres projets dans la même veine. On peut citer notamment le projet qui a pour nom IborderCtrl, testé en Grèce, Hongrie et #Lettonie.

      Il consiste notamment en de l’#analyse_d’émotions (à côté d’autres projets de #reconnaissances_biométriques) : les personnes désirant passer une frontière doivent se soumettre à des questions et voient leur #visage passer au crible d’un #algorithme qui déterminera si elles mentent ou non. Le projet prétend « accélérer le #contrôle_aux_frontières » : si le #détecteur_de_mensonges estime qu’une personne dit la vérité, un code lui est donné pour passer le contrôle facilement ; si l’algorithme considère qu’une personne ment, elle est envoyée dans une seconde file, vers des gardes-frontières qui lui feront passer un #interrogatoire. L’analyse d’émotions prétend reposer sur un examen de « 38 #micro-mouvements du visage » comme l’angle de la tête ou le mouvement des yeux. Un spectacle de gadgets pseudoscientifiques qui permet surtout de donner l’apparence de la #neutralité_technologique à des politiques d’#exclusion et de #déshumanisation.

      Ce projet a également été financé par Horizon 2020 à hauteur de 4,5 millions d’euros. S’il semble aujourd’hui avoir été arrêté, l’eurodéputé allemand Patrick Breyer a saisi la Cour de justice de l’Union Européenne pour obtenir plus d’informations sur ce projet, ce qui lui a été refusé pour… atteinte au #secret_commercial. Ici encore, on voit que le champ “civil” et non “militaire” du projet est loin de représenter un garde-fou.

      Conclusion

      Ainsi, l’Union européenne participe activement au puissant marché de la surveillance et de la répression. Ici, les frontières et les personnes exilées sont utilisées comme des ressources de laboratoire. Dans une optique de militarisation toujours plus forte des frontières de la forteresse Europe et d’une recherche de profit et de développement des entreprises et centres de recherche européens. Les frontières constituent un nouveau marché et une nouvelle manne financière de la technopolice.

      Les chiffres montrent par ailleurs l’explosion du budget de l’agence européenne #Frontex (de 137 millions d’euros en 2015 à 322 millions d’euros en 2020, chiffres de la Cour des comptes européenne) et une automatisation toujours plus grande de la surveillance des frontières. Et parallèlement, le ratio entre le nombre de personnes qui tentent de franchir la Méditerranée et le nombre de celles qui y laissent la vie ne fait qu’augmenter. Cette automatisation de la surveillance aux frontières n’est donc qu’une nouvelle façon pour les autorités européennes d’accentuer le drame qui continue de se jouer en Méditerranée, pour une “efficacité” qui finalement ne profite qu’aux industries de la surveillance.

      Dans nos rues comme à nos frontières nous devons refuser la Technopolice et la combattre pied à pied !

      https://technopolice.fr/blog/la-technopolice-aux-frontieres

    • Artificial Intelligence - based capabilities for European Border and Coast Guard

      In 2019, Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, commissioned #RAND Europe to carry out an Artificial intelligence (AI) research study.

      The purpose of the study was to provide an overview of the main opportunities, challenges and requirements for the adoption of AI-based capabilities in border managament. Frontex’s intent was also to find synergies with ongoing AI studies and initiatives in the EU and contribute to a Europe-wide AI landscape by adding the border security dimension.

      Some of the analysed technologies included automated border control, object recognition to detect suspicious vehicles or cargo and the use of geospatial data analytics for operational awareness and threat detection.

      As part of the study, RAND provided Frontex in 2020 with a comprehensive report and an executive summary with conclusions and recommendations.

      The findings will support Frontex in shaping the future landscape of AI-based capabilities for Integrated Border Management, including AI-related research and innovation projects which could be initiated by Frontex (e.g. under #EU_Innovation_Hub) or recommended to be conducted under the EU Research and Innovation Programme (#Horizon_Europe).

      https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/artificial-intelligence-based-capabilities-for-european-border-and-co

    • Pour les réfugiés, la #biométrie tout au long du chemin

      Par-delà les murs qui poussent aux frontières du monde depuis les années 1990, les réfugiés, migrants et demandeurs d’asile sont de plus en plus confrontés à l’extension des bases de #données_biométriques. Un « #mur_virtuel » s’étend ainsi à l’extérieur, aux frontières et à l’intérieur de l’espace Schengen, construit autour de programmes et de #bases_de_données.

      Des réfugiés qui paient avec leurs #iris, des migrants identifiés par leurs #empreintes_digitales, des capteurs de #reconnaissance_faciale, mais aussi d’#émotions… Réunis sous la bannière de la « #frontière_intelligente », ces #dispositifs_technologiques, reposant sur l’#anticipation, l’#identification et l’#automatisation du franchissement de la #frontière grâce aux bases de données biométriques, ont pour but de trier les voyageurs, facilitant le parcours des uns et bloquant celui des autres.

      L’Union européenne dispose ainsi d’une batterie de bases de données qui viennent compléter les contrôles aux frontières. Depuis 2011, une agence dédiée, l’#Agence_européenne_pour_la_gestion_opérationnelle_des_systèmes_d’information_à_grande_échelle, l’#EU-Lisa, a pour but d’élaborer et de développer, en lien avec des entreprises privées, le suivi des demandeurs d’asile.

      Elle gère ainsi plusieurs bases compilant des #données_biométriques. L’une d’elles, le « #Entry_and_Exit_System » (#EES), sera déployée en 2022, pour un coût évalué à 480 millions d’euros. L’EES a pour mission de collecter jusqu’à 400 millions de données sur les personnes non européennes franchissant les frontières de l’espace Schengen, afin de contrôler en temps réel les dépassements de durée légale de #visa. En cas de séjour prolongé devenu illégal, l’alerte sera donnée à l’ensemble des polices européennes.

      Se brûler les doigts pour ne pas être enregistré

      L’EU-Lisa gère également le fichier #Eurodac, qui consigne les empreintes digitales de chacun des demandeurs d’asile de l’Union européenne. Utilisé pour appliquer le #règlement_Dublin III, selon lequel la demande d’asile est déposée et traitée dans le pays européen où le migrant a été enregistré la première fois, il entraîne des stratégies de #résistance.

      « On a vu des migrants refuser de donner leurs empreintes à leur arrivée en Grèce, ou même se brûler les doigts pour ne pas être enregistrés dans Eurodac, rappelle Damien Simonneau, chercheur à l’Institut Convergences Migrations du Collège de France. Ils savent que s’ils ont, par exemple, de la famille en Allemagne, mais qu’ils ont été enregistrés en Grèce, ils seront renvoyés en Grèce pour que leur demande y soit traitée, ce qui a des conséquences énormes sur leur vie. » La procédure d’instruction dure en effet de 12 à 18 mois en moyenne.

      La collecte de données biométriques jalonne ainsi les parcours migratoires, des pays de départs jusqu’aux déplacements au sein de l’Union européenne, dans un but de limitation et de #contrôle. Pour lutter contre « la criminalité transfrontalière » et « l’immigration clandestine », le système de surveillance des zones frontières #Eurosur permet, via un partage d’informations en temps réel, d’intercepter avant leur arrivée les personnes tentant d’atteindre l’Union européenne.

      Des contrôles dans les pays de départ

      Pour le Transnational Institute, auteur avec le think tank Stop Wapenhandel et le Centre Delàs de plusieurs études sur les frontières, l’utilisation de ces bases de données témoigne d’une stratégie claire de la part de l’Union européenne. « Un des objectifs de l’expansion des #frontières_virtuelles, écrivent-ils ainsi dans le rapport Building Walls (https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/building_walls_-_full_report_-_english.pdf), paru en 2018, est d’intercepter les réfugiés et les migrants avant même qu’ils n’atteignent les frontières européennes, pour ne pas avoir à traiter avec eux. »

      Si ces techniques permettent de pré-trier les demandes pour fluidifier le passage des frontières, en accélérant les déplacements autorisés, elles peuvent également, selon Damien Simonneau, avoir des effets pervers. « L’utilisation de ces mécanismes repose sur l’idée que la #technologie est un facilitateur, et il est vrai que l’#autonomisation de certaines démarches peut faciliter les déplacements de personnes autorisées à franchir les frontières, expose-t-il. Mais les technologies sont faillibles, et peuvent produire des #discriminations. »

      Ces #techniques_virtuelles, aux conséquences bien réelles, bouleversent ainsi le rapport à la frontière et les parcours migratoires. « Le migrant est confronté à de multiples points "frontière", disséminés un peu partout, analyse Damien Simonneau. Cela crée des #obstacles supplémentaires aux parcours migratoires : le contrôle n’est quasiment plus lié au franchissement d’une frontière nationale, il est déterritorialisé et peut se produire n’importe où, en amont comme en aval de la frontière de l’État. »

      Ainsi, la « politique d’#externalisation de l’Union européenne » permet au contrôle migratoire de s’exercer dans les pays de départ. Le programme européen « #SIV » collecte par exemple dès leur formulation dans les #consulats les données biométriques liées aux #demandes_de_visas.

      Plus encore, l’Union européenne délègue une partie de la gestion de ses frontières à d’autres pays : « Dans certains États du Sahel, explique Damien Simonneau, l’aide humanitaire et de développement est conditionnée à l’amélioration des contrôles aux frontières. »

      Un programme de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), le programme #MIDAS, financé par l’Union européenne, est ainsi employé par 23 pays, majoritairement en Afrique, mais aussi en Asie et en Amérique. Son but est de « collecter, traiter, stocker et analyser les informations [biométriques et biographiques] des voyageurs en temps réel » pour aider les polices locales à contrôler leurs frontières. Mais selon le réseau Migreurop, ces données peuvent également être transmises aux agences policières européennes. L’UE exerce ainsi un droit de regard, via Frontex, sur le système d’information et d’analyse de données sur la migration, installé à Makalondi au Niger.

      Des réfugiés qui paient avec leurs yeux

      Un mélange des genres, entre organisations humanitaires et États, entre protection, logistique et surveillance, qui se retrouve également dans les #camps_de_réfugiés. Dans les camps jordaniens de #Zaatari et d’#Azarq, par exemple, près de la frontière syrienne, les réfugiés paient depuis 2016 leurs aliments avec leurs iris.

      L’#aide_humanitaire_alimentaire distribuée par le Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM) leur est en effet versée sur un compte relié à leurs données biométriques. Il leur suffit de passer leurs yeux dans un scanner pour régler leurs achats. Une pratique qui facilite grandement la gestion #logistique du camp par le #HCR et le PAM, en permettant la #traçabilité des échanges et en évitant les fraudes et les vols.

      Mais selon Léa Macias, anthropologue à l’EHESS, cela a aussi des inconvénients. « Si ce paiement avec les yeux peut rassurer certains réfugiés, dans la mesure où cela les protège contre les vols, développe-t-elle, le procédé est également perçu comme une #violence. Les réfugiés ont bien conscience que personne d’autre au monde, dans une situation normale, ne paie ainsi avec son #corps. »

      Le danger de la fuite de données

      La chercheuse s’inquiète également du devenir des données ainsi collectées, et se pose la question de l’intérêt des réfugiés dans ce processus. « Les humanitaires sont poussés à utiliser ces nouvelles technologies, expose-t-elle, qui sont vues comme un gage de fiabilité par les bailleurs de fonds. Mais la #technologisation n’est pas toujours dans l’intérêt des réfugiés. En cas de fuite ou de hackage des bases de données, cela les expose même à des dangers. »

      Un rapport de Human Rights Watch (HRW) (https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/15/un-shared-rohingya-data-without-informed-consent), publié mardi 15 juin, alerte ainsi sur des #transferts_de_données biométriques appartenant à des #Rohingyas réfugiés au Bangladesh. Ces données, collectées par le Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) de l’ONU, ont été transmises par le gouvernement du Bangladesh à l’État birman. Si le HCR a réagi (https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/press/2021/6/60c85a7b4/news-comment-statement-refugee-registration-data-collection-bangladesh.html) en affirmant que les personnes concernées avaient donné leur accord à ce #transfert_de_données pour préparer un éventuel retour en Birmanie, rien ne permet cependant de garantir qu’ils seront bien reçus si leur nom « bipe » au moment de passer la frontière.

      https://www.rfi.fr/fr/technologies/20210620-pour-les-r%C3%A9fugi%C3%A9s-la-biom%C3%A9trie-tout-au-long-du-chemin

      #smart_borders #tri #catégorisation #déterritorialisation #réfugiés_rohingyas

      –---

      Sur les doigts brûlés pour ne pas se faire identifier par les empreintes digitales, voir la scène du film Qu’ils reposent en paix de Sylvain George, dont j’ai fait une brève recension :

      Instant tragique : ce qu’un migrant appelle la « prière ». Ce moment collectif où les migrants tentent de faire disparaître leurs empreintes digitales. Étape symbolique où ils se défont de leur propre identité.

      https://visionscarto.net/a-calais-l-etat-ne-peut-dissoudre

  • Deportation Union: The role of Frontex | Transnational Institute
    https://www.tni.org/en/event/deportation-union-the-role-of-frontex

    Deportation Union: The role of Frontex
    14 December 2020 - Event

    Join us with guests on December 14 for examining the increased role of Frontex, the EU Border and Coast Guard Agency, in coordinating and conducting forced removal operations.

    #frontex #frontières
    @cdb_77 @karine4

  • 6 out of 10 people worldwide live in a country that has built border walls

    Days after the drawn-out U.S. elections, a new report reveals that the wall sold by Trump as a supposed achievement of his administration is just one of more than 63 new border walls built along borders or in occupied territories worldwide.

    Today, 31 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we find ourselves in a world with more walls than ever. 4.679 billion people in the world (60.98%) live in a country that has built one of these walls on its borders, concludes the report “Walled world: towards Global Apartheid” co published by the Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau, Transnational Institute, Stop Wapenhandel and Stop the Wal Campaign.

    Beyond the surge in physical walls, many more countries have militarized their frontiers through the deployment of troops, ships, aircraft, drones, and digital surveillance, patrolling land, sea and air. If we counted these ‘walls’, they would number hundreds. As a result, it is now more dangerous and deadly than ever to cross borders for people fleeing poverty and violence.

    In addition, the research highlights that, as in the United States, immigration and terrorism are the main reasons given by states for the construction of walls, both justifications together represent 50%, half of the world’s walls.

    Israel tops the list of countries that have built the most walls, with a total of 6. It is followed by Morocco, Iran and India with 3 walls each. Countries with 2 border walls are South Africa, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Hungary and Lithuania.

    “The global trend in border management policies is to build a world in which segregation and inequality are reinforced. In this walled world, commerce and capital are not restricted, yet it increasingly excludes people based on their class and origin”, states Ainhoa ​​Ruiz Benedicto, co-author of the report and researcher at the Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau.

    The report focuses on a few specific walls in different regions, highlighting the following:

    Four of the five countries bordering Syria have built walls: Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq.
    India has built 6,540 km of barriers against its neighboring countries, covering 43% of its borders.
    Morocco built an occupation wall with Western Sahara considered “the greatest functional military barrier in the world”, 2,720 km long.

    In addition to physical walls, the militarization of border areas continues to increase, in which walls are just one means of stopping people crossing territories.. The report highlights two cases:

    Mexico has notably militarized its border with Guatemala with equipment and financing through the US funded Frontera Sur program.
    Australia has turned the sea into a barrier with the deployment of its armed forces and the Maritime Border Command of the Australian Border Force, in addition to an offshore detention system that violates human rights.

    The business of building walls

    Finally, the report analyzes the industry that profits from this surge in wall-building and the criminalization of people fleeing poverty and violence. The report concludes that the border security industry is diverse, as shown by the number of companies involved in the construction of Israel’s walls, with more than 30 companies from the military, security, technology and construction sectors.

    “Many walls and fences are built by local construction companies or by state entities, such as the military. However, the walls are invariably accompanied by a range of technological systems, such as monitoring, detection and identification equipment, vehicles, aircraft and arms, which military and security firms provide”, explains Mark Akkerman, co-author of the report and researcher at Stop Wapenhandel. Companies such as Airbus, Thales, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and L3 Technologies are the main beneficiaries of border contracts - in particular providing the technology that accompanies the walls in both the US and in EU member states. In the specific cases studied in the report, companies such as Elbit, Indra, Dat-Con, CSRA, Leidos and Raytheon also stand out as key contractors.

    “Three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is extremely sad that the wall has become the symbol of our time. Not only is it a betrayal of people’s hopes in 1989, but it also locks us into a fortress with no way out in which we lose our very humanity. All the research tells us that we can expect more migration in the coming decades. Therefore, it is of profound importance to seek other dignified and humane ways to respond to the needs of people who are forced to flee their homes for reasons of poverty, violence and climate change”, warns Nick Buxton, co-editor of the report and researcher at TNI.

    https://www.tni.org/en/article/6-out-of-10-people-worldwide-live-in-a-country-that-has-built-border-walls

    #murs #barrières_frontalières #cartographie #visualisation #frontières #business #complexe_militaro-industriel #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Airbus #Thales #Leonardo #Lockheed_Martin #General_Dynamics #Northrop_Grumman #L3_Technologies #Elbit #Indra #Dat-Con #CSRA #Leidos #Raytheon #chiffres #statistiques #militarisation_des_frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #terrorisme #anti-terrorisme #Israël #Maroc #Inde #Iran #ségrégation #monde_ségrégué #monde_muré #technologie

    #rapport #TNI

    ping @reka @karine4 @_kg_

  • War & Pacification

    TNI’s War & Pacification work concerns the nexus between militarisation, security and globalisation. It confronts the structures and interests that underpin a new era of permanent war, makes visible the technologies of control and repression, highlights the impacts on people considered threatening or worthless by the powerful, and advocates alternatives based on peacebuilding, conflict transformation and respect for fundamental human rights.

    TNI uses the term ‘pacification’ to describe what is frequently presented as ‘security’. Our research has long shown that the effect of many policies adopted in the name of security is increased social control, allowing the maintenance of social orders that are deeply unequal and unjust. Pacification thus encompasses elite attempts to police the contours of globalisation’s discontents – the unworthy and expendable, the restive and resistant – and close down the progressive spaces occupied by civil society.

    –-> avec une série d’articles et analyses sur le sujet à trouver sur le site web du TNI :

    https://www.tni.org/en/war-pacification

    #militarisation #globalisation #répression #contrôle #technologie #guerre #exclusion #dépossession #coercition #conflits #peace-building #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #militarisation_des_frontières #privatisation #violence #mouvements_sociaux

    –-

    @karine4 :

    TNI uses the term ‘pacification’ to describe what is frequently presented as ‘security’.

    #terminologie #pacification #sécurité #mots #vocabulaire

    ping @isskein

  • #Webinars. #COVID-19 Capitalism #Webinar Series

    Since 1 April, #TNI with allies has brought together experts and activists weekly to discuss how this pandemic health crisis exposes the injustices of the global economic order and how it must be a turning point towards creating the systems, structures and policies that can always protect those who are marginalised and allow everyone to live with dignity. Every Wednesday at 4pm CET.

    TNI works closely with allied organisations and partners around the world in organising these webinars. AIDC and Focus on the Global South are co-sponsors for the full series.

    –—

    Les conférences déjà en ligne sont ci-dessous en commentaire.

    –----

    Les prochains webinars:

    On 10 June, TNI will hold a webinar on Taking on the Tech Titans: Reclaiming our Data Commons.

    Upcoming webinars - Wednesdays at 4pm CET

    17 June: Borders and migration
    #frontières #migrations

    24 June: Broken Trade System
    #commerce

    https://www.tni.org/en/webinars
    #capitalisme #vidéo #conférence #coronavirus

    ping @isskein @reka

    • Building an internationalist response to Coronavirus
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qN35qeB1w&feature=emb_logo


      Panellists:

      Sonia Shah, award-winning investigative science journalist and author of Pandemic: Tracking contagions from Cholera to Ebola and Beyond (2017).
      Luis Ortiz Hernandez, public health professor in UAM-Xochimilco, Mexico. Expert on social and economic health inequities.
      Benny Kuruvilla, Head of India Office, Focus on the Global South, working closely with Forum For Trade Justice.
      Mazibuko Jara, Deputy Director, Tshisimani Centre for Activist Education, helping to coordinate a national platform of civic organisations in South Africa to confront COVID-19.
      Umyra Ahmad, Advancing Universal Rights and Justice Associate, Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), Malaysia

      #internationalisme

    • The coming global recession: building an internationalist response

      Recording of a TNI-hosted webinar on Wednesday, 8 April with Professor Jayati Ghosh, Quinn Slobodian, Walden Bello and Lebohang Pheko on the likely global impacts of the economic fallout from the Coronavirus and how we might be better prepared than the 2008 economic crisis to put forward progressive solutions.

      The webinar explored what we can expect in terms of a global recession that many predict could have bigger social impacts than the virus itself. How should we prepare? What can social movements learn from our failures to advance alternative progressive policies in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiP5qJhHsjw&feature=emb_logo

      Panellists:

      Professor Jayati Ghosh, award-winning economist Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. Author of India and the International Economy (2015) and co-editor of Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Development, 2018.
      Quinn Slobodian, associate professor of history, Wellesley College. Author of Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (2018)
      Walden Bello, author of Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash (2019) and Capitalism’s Last Stand?: Deglobalization in the Age of Austerity (2013)

      Lebohang Liepollo Pheko, Senior Research Fellow of Trade Collective, a thinktank in South Africa that works on international trade, globalisation, regional integration and feminist economics

      #récession #crise_économique

    • A Recipe for Disaster: Globalised food systems, structural inequality and COVID-19

      A dialogue between Rob Wallace, author of Big Farms Make Big Flu and agrarian justice activists from Myanmar, Palestine, Indonesia and Europe.

      The webinar explored how globalised industrial food systems set the scene for the emergence of COVID-19, the structural connections between the capitalist industrial agriculture, pathogens and the precarious conditions of workers in food systems and society at large. It also touched on the kind of just and resilient food systems we need to transform food and agriculture today?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A6WkeqPss&feature=emb_logo

      Panellists:

      Rob Wallace author of Big Farms Make Big Flu and co-author of Neoliberal Ebola: Modeling Disease Emergence from Finance to Forest and Farm.
      Moayyad Bsharat of Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), member organization of La Via Campesina in Palestine.
      Arie Kurniawaty of Indonesian feminist organization Solidaritas Perempuan (SP) which works with women in grassroots communities across the urban-rural spectrum.
      Sai Sam Kham of Metta Foundation in Myanmar.
      Paula Gioia, peasant farmer in Germany and member of the Coordination Committee of the European Coordination Via Campesina.

      #inégalités #agriculture #alimentation

      –—

      #livre:
      Big Farms Make Big Flu

      In this collection of dispatches, by turns harrowing and thought-provoking, #Rob_Wallace tracks the ways #influenza and other pathogens emerge from an agriculture controlled by multinational corporations. With a precise and radical wit, Wallace juxtaposes ghastly phenomena such as attempts at producing featherless chickens with microbial time travel and neoliberal Ebola. While many books cover facets of food or outbreaks, Wallace’s collection is the first to explore infectious disease, agriculture, economics, and the nature of science together.


      https://monthlyreview.org/press/new-big-farms-make-big-flu-by-rob-wallace
      #multinationales

    • Taking Health back from Corporations: pandemics, big pharma and privatized health

      This webinar brought together experts in healthcare and activists at the forefront of struggles for equitable universal public healthcare from across the globe. It examined the obstacles to access to medicines, the role of Big Pharma, the struggles against health privatisation, and the required changes in global governance of health to prevent future pandemics and bring about public healthcare for all.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KSIRFYF3W8&feature=emb_logo

      Panellists:

      Susan George, Author and President of the Transnational Institute
      Baba Aye, Health Officer, Public Services International
      Mark Heywood, Treatment Action Campaign, Section27 and editor at the Daily Maverick
      Kajal Bhardwaj, Independent lawyer and expert on health, trade and human rights
      David Legge, Peoples Health Movement Moderator: Monica Vargas, Corporate Power Project, Transnational Institute

      #santé #big-pharma #industrie_pharmaceutique #privatisation #système_de_santé

    • States of Control – the dark side of pandemic politics

      In response to an unprecedented global health emergency, many states are rolling out measures from deploying armies and drones to control public space, to expanding digital control through facial recognition technology and tracker apps.

      This webinar explored the political dimension of state responses, particularly the securitisation of COVID-19 through the expansion of powers for military, police, and security forces. It examined the impact of such repression on certain groups who are unable to socially distance, as well as how digital surveillance is being rolled out with little, if any democratic oversight.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KI515hJud8&feature=emb_logo

      Panellists:

      Fionnuala Ni Aolain, UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism, University of Minnesota
      Arun Kundnani, New York University, author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, extremism, and the domestic War on Terror and The End of Tolerance: racism in 21st century Britain
      Anuradha Chenoy, School of International Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University (retired), and author of Militarisation and Women in South Asia
      María Paz Canales, Derechos Digitales (Digital Rights campaign), Chile

      #contrôle #surveillance #drones #reconnaissance_faciale #démocratie

      ping @etraces

    • A Global Green New Deal

      This sixth webinar in our COVID Capitalism series asked what a truly global #Green_New_Deal would look like. It featured Richard Kozul-Wright (UNCTAD), and leading activists from across the globe leading the struggle for a just transition in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbNhmPXpSAA&feature=emb_logo

      Panellists:

      Richard Kozul-Wright, Director of the Division on Globalization and Development Strategies at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, author of Transforming Economies: Making Industrial Policy Work for Growth, Jobs and Development
      Karin Nansen, chair of Friends of the Earth International, founding member of REDES – Friends of the Earth Uruguay
      Sandra van Niekerk, Researcher for the One Million Climate Jobs campaign, South Africa

      #transition

    • Proposals for a democratic just economy

      Outgoing UN rapporteur, #Philip_Alston in conversation with trade unionists and activists in Italy, Nigeria and India share analysis on the impacts of privatisation in a time of COVID-19 and the strategies for resistance and also constructing participatory public alternatives.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-IvJq9QJnI&feature=emb_logo

      Panellists:

      Philip Alston, outgoing UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
      Rosa Pavanelli, General Secretary of the global union federation Public Services International (PSI)
      Aderonke Ige, Our Water, Our Rights Campaign in Lagos / Environmental Rights Action /Friends of The Earth Nigeria
      Sulakshana Nandi, Co-chair, People’s Health Movement Global (PHM Global)

      #privatisation #participation #participation_publique #résistance

    • Feminist Realities – Transforming democracy in times of crisis

      An inspiring global panel of feminist thinkers and activists reflect and discuss how we can collectively reorganise, shift power and pivot towards building transformative feminist realities that can get us out of the worsening health, climate and capitalist crises.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFEBlNxZUAQ&feature=emb_logo

      Panellists:

      Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of History and the Director of Global Studies at Purdue University and co-author of the manifesto Feminism for the 99%.
      Laura Roth, Lecturer of legal and political philosophy at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, member of Minim Municipalist Observatory and co-author of the practice-oriented report Feminise Politics Now!
      Awino Okech, Lecturer at the Centre for Gender Studies at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London who brings over twelve years of social justice transformation work in Eastern Africa, the Great Lakes region, and South Africa to her teaching, research and movement support work.
      Khara Jabola-Carolus, Executive Director of the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, co-founder of AF3IRM Hawaii (the Association of Feminists Fighting Fascism, Imperialism, Re-feudalization, and Marginalization) and author of Hawaii’s Feminist Economic Recovery Plan for COVID-19.
      Felogene Anumo, Building Feminist Economies, AWID presenting the #feministbailout campaign

      #féminisme

    • COVID-19 and the global fight against mass incarceration

      November 3rd, 2015, Bernard Harcourt (Columbia Law School) and Naomi Murakawa (Princeton) present rival narratives about mass incarceration in America. In The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order , Harcourt shows the interdependence of contract enforcements in global markets and punitive authority. InThe First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, by contrast, Murakawa traces prison growth to liberal campaigns and progressive legislation. Together, Murakawa and Harcourt offer fresh ideas about into the political, economic and ethical dimensions of mass incarceration.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLeXbi4aIno&feature=emb_rel_pause

      Olivia Rope, Director of Policy and International Advocacy, Penal Reform International
      Isabel Pereira, Principal investigator at the Center for the Study of Law, Justice & Society (Dejusticia), Colombia
      Sabrina Mahtani, Advocaid Sierra Leone
      Maidina Rahmawati, Institute of Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), Indonesia
      Andrea James, Founder and Exec Director, and Justine Moore, Director of Training, National Council For Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, USA

      #prisons #emprisonnement_de_masse #USA #Etats-Unis

  • Coronavirus : the need for a progressive internationalist response
    Transnational Institute, le 26 mars 2020
    https://www.tni.org/en/article/coronavirus-the-need-for-a-progressive-internationalist-response

    COVID-19 shows that neoliberalism has led far too many to accept the dogma that there is no alternative, depriving us of key tools and policies needed to confront injustice and today’s systemic crises. COVID-19 has shown that dramatic policies are both needed and can be implemented in the face of a crisis. The fact that states have dramatically enacted policies considered politically impossible within hours shows it is entirely possible to address the climate crisis with bold and ambitious policies by 2030 as science demands. They are also going to be absolutely necessary to protect people’s livelihoods in the face of an economic crisis that will result from this pandemic.

    #coronavirus #solidarité #le_jour_d'après

    Voir compile des effets délétères indirects de la pandémie :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/832147

  • The business of building walls

    Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe is once again known for its border walls. This time Europe is divided not so much by ideology as by perceived fear of refugees and migrants, some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

    Who killed the dream of a more open Europe? What gave rise to this new era of walls? There are clearly many reasons – the increasing displacement of people by conflict, repression and impoverishment, the rise of security politics in the wake of 9/11, the economic and social insecurity felt across Europe after the 2008 financial crisis – to name a few. But one group has by far the most to gain from the rise of new walls – the businesses that build them. Their influence in shaping a world of walls needs much deeper examination.

    This report explores the business of building walls, which has both fuelled and benefited from a massive expansion of public spending on border security by the European Union (EU) and its member states. Some of the corporate beneficiaries are also global players, tapping into a global market for border security estimated to be worth approximately €17.5 billion in 2018, with annual growth of at least 8% expected in coming years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAuv1QyP8l0&feature=emb_logo

    It is important to look both beyond and behind Europe’s walls and fencing, because the real barriers to contemporary migration are not so much the fencing, but the vast array of technology that underpins it, from the radar systems to the drones to the surveillance cameras to the biometric fingerprinting systems. Similarly, some of Europe’s most dangerous walls are not even physical or on land. The ships, aircrafts and drones used to patrol the Mediterranean have created a maritime wall and a graveyard for the thousands of migrants and refugees who have no legal passage to safety or to exercise their right to seek asylum.

    This renders meaningless the European Commission’s publicized statements that it does not fund walls and fences. Commission spokesperson Alexander Winterstein, for example, rejecting Hungary’s request to reimburse half the costs of the fences built on its borders with Croatia and Serbia, said: ‘We do support border management measures at external borders. These can be surveillance measures. They can be border control equipment...But fences, we do not finance’. In other words, the Commission is willing to pay for anything that fortifies a border as long as it is not seen to be building the walls themselves.

    This report is a sequel to Building Walls – Fear and securitization in the European Union, co-published in 2018 with Centre Delàs and Stop Wapenhandel, which first measured and identified the walls that criss-cross Europe. This new report focuses on the businesses that have profited from three different kinds of wall in Europe:

    The construction companies contracted to build the land walls built by EU member states and the Schengen Area together with the security and technology companies that provide the necessary accompanying technology, equipment and services;

    The shipping and arms companies that provide the ships, aircraft, helicopters, drones that underpin Europe’s maritime walls seeking to control migratory flows in the Mediterranean, including Frontex operations, Operation Sophia and Italian operation Mare Nostrum;
    And the IT and security companies contracted to develop, run, expand and maintain EU’s systems that monitor the movement of people – such as SIS II (Schengen Information System) and EES (Entry/Exit Scheme) – which underpin Europe’s virtual walls.

    Booming budgets

    The flow of money from taxpayers to wall-builders has been highly lucrative and constantly growing. The report finds that companies have reaped the profits from at least €900 million spent by EU countries on land walls and fences since the end of the Cold War. The partial data (in scope and years) means actual costs will be at least €1 billion. In addition, companies that provide technology and services that accompany walls have also benefited from some of the steady stream of funding from the EU – in particular the External Borders Fund (€1.7 billion, 2007-2013) and the Internal Security Fund – Borders Fund (€2.76 billion, 2014-2020).

    EU spending on maritime walls has totalled at least €676.4 million between 2006 to 2017 (including €534 million spent by Frontex, €28.4 million spent by the EU on Operation Sophia and €114 million spent by Italy on Operation Mare Nostrum) and would be much more if you include all the operations by Mediterranean country coastguards. Total spending on Europe’s virtual wall equalled at least €999.4m between 2000 and 2019. (All these estimates are partial ones because walls are funded by many different funding mechanisms and due to lack of data transparency).

    This boom in border budgets is set to grow. Under its budget for the next EU budget cycle (2021–2027) the European Commission has earmarked €8.02 billion to its Integrated Border Management Fund (2021-2027), €11.27bn to Frontex (of which €2.2 billion will be used for acquiring, maintaining and operating air, sea and land assets) and at least €1.9 billion total spending (2000-2027) on its identity databases and Eurosur (the European Border Surveillance System).
    The big arm industry players

    Three giant European military and security companies in particular play a critical role in Europe’s many types of borders. These are Thales, Leonardo and Airbus.

    Thales is a French arms and security company, with a significant presence in the Netherlands, that produces radar and sensor systems, used by many ships in border security. Thales systems, were used, for example, by Dutch and Portuguese ships deployed in Frontex operations. Thales also produces maritime surveillance systems for drones and is working on developing border surveillance infrastructure for Eurosur, researching how to track and control refugees before they reach Europe by using smartphone apps, as well as exploring the use of High Altitude Pseudo Satellites (HAPS) for border security, for the European Space Agency and Frontex. Thales currently provides the security system for the highly militarised port in Calais. Its acquisition in 2019 of Gemalto, a large (biometric) identity security company, makes it a significant player in the development and maintenance of EU’s virtual walls. It has participated in 27 EU research projects on border security.
    Italian arms company Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica or Leonardo-Finmeccanica) is a leading supplier of helicopters for border security, used by Italy in the Mare Nostrum, Hera and Sophia operations. It has also been one of the main providers of UAVs (or drones) for Europe’s borders, awarded a €67.1 million contract in 2017 by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to supply them for EU coast-guard agencies. Leonardo was also a member of a consortium, awarded €142.1 million in 2019 to implement and maintain EU’s virtual walls, namely its EES. It jointly owns Telespazio with Thales, involved in EU satellite observation projects (REACT and Copernicus) used for border surveillance. Leonardo has participated in 24 EU research projects on border security and control, including the development of Eurosur.
    Pan-European arms giant Airbus is a key supplier of helicopters used in patrolling maritime and some land borders, deployed by Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Spain, including in maritime Operations Sophia, Poseidon and Triton. Airbus and its subsidiaries have participated in at least 13 EU-funded border security research projects including OCEAN2020, PERSEUS and LOBOS.
    The significant role of these arms companies is not surprising. As Border Wars (2016), showed these companies through their membership of the lobby groups – European Organisation for Security (EOS) and the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) – have played a significant role in influencing the direction of EU border policy. Perversely, these firms are also among the top four biggest European arms dealers to the Middle East and North Africa, thus contributing to the conflicts that cause forced migration.

    Indra has been another significant corporate player in border control in Spain and the Mediterranean. It won a series of contracts to fortify Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish enclaves in northern Morocco). Indra also developed the SIVE border control system (with radar, sensors and vision systems), which is in place on most of Spain’s borders, as well as in Portugal and Romania. In July 2018 it won a €10 million contract to manage SIVE at several locations for two years. Indra is very active in lobbying the EU and is a major beneficiary of EU research funding, coordinating the PERSEUS project to further develop Eurosur and the Seahorse Network, a network between police forces in Mediterranean countries (both in Europe and Africa) to stop migration.

    Israeli arms firms are also notable winners of EU border contracts. In 2018, Frontex selected the Heron drone from Israel Aerospace Industries for pilot-testing surveillance flights in the Mediterranean. In 2015, Israeli firm Elbit sold six of its Hermes UAVs to the Switzerland’s Border Guard, in a controversial €230 million deal. It has since signed a UAV contract with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), as a subcontractor for the Portuguese company CEIIA (2018), as well as contracts to supply technology for three patrol vessels for the Hellenic Coast Guard (2019).
    Land wall contractors

    Most of the walls and fences that have been rapidly erected across Europe have been built by national construction companies, but one European company has dominated the field: European Security Fencing, a Spanish producer of razor wire, in particular a coiled wire known as concertinas. It is most known for the razor wire on the fences around Ceuta and Melilla. It also delivered the razor wire for the fence on the border between Hungary and Serbia, and its concertinas were installed on the borders between Bulgaria and Turkey and Austria and Slovenia, as well as at Calais, and for a few days on the border between Hungary and Slovenia before being removed. Given its long-term market monopoly, its concertinas are very likely used at other borders in Europe.

    Other contractors providing both walls and associated technology include DAT-CON (Croatia, Cyprus, Macedonia, Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine), Geo Alpinbau (Austria/Slovenia), Indra, Dragados, Ferrovial, Proyectos Y Tecnología Sallén and Eulen (Spain/Morocco), Patstroy Bourgas, Infra Expert, Patengineeringstroy, Geostroy Engineering, Metallic-Ivan Mihaylov and Indra (Bulgaria/Turkey), Nordecon and Defendec (Estonia/Russia), DAK Acélszerkezeti Kft and SIA Ceļu būvniecības sabiedrība IGATE (Latvia/Russia), Gintrėja (Lithuania/Russia), Minis and Legi-SGS(Slovenia/Croatia), Groupe CW, Jackson’s Fencing, Sorhea, Vinci/Eurovia and Zaun Ltd (France/UK).

    In many cases, the actual costs of the walls and associated technologies exceed original estimates. There have also been many allegations and legal charges of corruption, in some cases because projects were given to corporate friends of government officials. In Slovenia, for example, accusations of corruption concerning the border wall contract have led to a continuing three-year legal battle for access to documents that has reached the Supreme Court. Despite this, the EU’s External Borders Fund has been a critical financial supporter of technological infrastructure and services in many of the member states’ border operations. In Macedonia, for example, the EU has provided €9 million for patrol vehicles, night-vision cameras, heartbeat detectors and technical support for border guards to help it manage its southern border.
    Maritime wall profiteers

    The data about which ships, helicopters and aircraft are used in Europe’s maritime operations is not transparent and therefore it is difficult to get a full picture. Our research shows, however, that the key corporations involved include the European arms giants Airbus and Leonardo, as well as large shipbuilding companies including Dutch Damen and Italian Fincantieri.

    Damen’s patrol vessels have been used for border operations by Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Portugal, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the UK as well as in key Frontex operations (Poseidon, Triton and Themis), Operation Sophia and in supporting NATO’s role in Operation Poseidon. Outside Europe, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey use Damen vessels for border security, often in cooperation with the EU or its member states. Turkey’s €20 million purchase of six Damen vessels for its coast guard in 2006, for example, was financed through the EU Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), intended for peace-building and conflict prevention.

    The sale of Damen vessels to Libya unveils the potential troubling human costs of this corporate trade. In 2012, Damen supplied four patrol vessels to the Libyan Coast Guard, sold as civil equipment in order to avoid a Dutch arms export license. Researchers have since found out, however, that the ships were not only sold with mounting points for weapons, but were then armed and used to stop refugee boats. Several incidents involving these ships have been reported, including one where some 20 or 30 refugees drowned. Damen has refused to comment, saying it had agreed with the Libyan government not to disclose information about the ships.

    In addition to Damen, many national shipbuilders play a significant role in maritime operations as they were invariably prioritised by the countries contributing to each Frontex or other Mediterranean operation. Hence, all the ships Italy contributed to Operation Sophia were built by Fincantieri, while all Spanish ships come from Navantia and its predecessors. Similarly, France purchases from DCN/DCNS, now Naval Group, and all German ships were built by several German shipyards (Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, HDW, Lürssen Gruppe). Other companies in Frontex operations have included Greek company, Motomarine Shipyards, which produced the Panther 57 Fast Patrol Boats used by the Hellenic Coast Guard, Hellenic Shipyards and Israel Shipyards.

    Austrian company Schiebel is a significant player in maritime aerial surveillance through its supply of S-100 drones. In November 2018, EMSA selected the company for a €24 million maritime surveillance contract for a range of operations including border security. Since 2017, Schiebel has also won contracts from Croatia, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The company has a controversial record, with its drones sold to a number of countries experiencing armed conflict or governed by repressive regimes such as Libya, Myanmar, the UAE and Yemen.

    Finland and the Netherlands deployed Dornier aircraft to Operation Hermes and Operation Poseidon respectively, and to Operation Triton. Dornier is now part of the US subsidiary of the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. CAE Aviation (Luxembourg), DEA Aviation (UK) and EASP Air (Netherlands) have all received contracts for aircraft surveillance work for Frontex. Airbus, French Dassault Aviation, Leonardo and US Lockheed Martin were the most important suppliers of aircraft used in Operation Sophia.

    The EU and its member states defend their maritime operations by publicising their role in rescuing refugees at sea, but this is not their primary goal, as Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri made clear in April 2015, saying that Frontex has no mandate for ‘proactive search-and-rescue action[s]’ and that saving lives should not be a priority. The thwarting and criminalisation of NGO rescue operations in the Mediterranean and the frequent reports of violence and illegal refoulement of refugees, also demonstrates why these maritime operations should be considered more like walls than humanitarian missions.
    Virtual walls

    The major EU contracts for the virtual walls have largely gone to two companies, sometimes as leaders of a consortium. Sopra Steria is the main contractor for the development and maintenance of the Visa Information System (VIS), Schengen Information System (SIS II) and European Dactyloscopy (Eurodac), while GMV has secured a string of contracts for Eurosur. The systems they build help control, monitor and surveil people’s movements across Europe and increasingly beyond.

    Sopra Steria is a French technology consultancy firm that has to date won EU contracts worth a total value of over €150 million. For some of these large contracts Sopra Steria joined consortiums with HP Belgium, Bull and 3M Belgium. Despite considerable business, Sopra Steria has faced considerable criticism for its poor record on delivering projects on time and on budget. Its launch of SIS II was constantly delayed, forcing the Commission to extend contracts and increase budgets. Similarly, Sopra Steria was involved in another consortium, the Trusted Borders consortium, contracted to deliver the UK e-Borders programme, which was eventually terminated in 2010 after constant delays and failure to deliver. Yet it continues to win contracts, in part because it has secured a near-monopoly of knowledge and access to EU officials. The central role that Sopra Steria plays in developing these EU biometric systems has also had a spin-off effect in securing other national contracts, including with Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Romania and Slovenia GMV, a Spanish technology company, has received a succession of large contracts for Eurosur, ever since its testing phase in 2010, worth at least €25 million. It also provides technology to the Spanish Guardia Civil, such as control centres for its Integrated System of External Vigilance (SIVE) border security system as well as software development services to Frontex. It has participated in at least ten EU-funded research projects on border security.

    Most of the large contracts for the virtual walls that did not go to consortia including Sopra Steria were awarded by eu-LISA (European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) to consortia comprising computer and technology companies including Accenture, Atos Belgium and Morpho (later renamed Idema).
    Lobbying

    As research in our Border Wars series has consistently shown, through effective lobbying, the military and security industry has been very influential in shaping the discourse of EU security and military policies. The industry has succeeded in positioning itself as the experts on border security, pushing the underlying narrative that migration is first and foremost a security threat, to be combatted by security and military means. With this premise, it creates a continuous demand for the ever-expanding catalogue of equipment and services the industry supplies for border security and control.

    Many of the companies listed here, particularly the large arms companies, are involved in the European Organisation for Security (EOS), the most important lobby group on border security. Many of the IT security firms that build EU’s virtual walls are members of the European Biometrics Association (EAB). EOS has an ‘Integrated Border Security Working Group’ to ‘facilitate the development and uptake of better technology solutions for border security both at border checkpoints, and along maritime and land borders’. The working group is chaired by Giorgio Gulienetti of the Italian arms company Leonardo, with Isto Mattila (Laurea University of Applied Science) and Peter Smallridge of Gemalto, a digital security company recently acquired by Thales.

    Company lobbyists and representatives of these lobby organisations regularly meet with EU institutions, including the European Commission, are part of official advisory committees, publish influential proposals, organise meetings between industry, policy-makers and executives and also meet at the plethora of military and security fairs, conferences and seminars. Airbus, Leonardo and Thales together with EOS held 226 registered lobbying meetings with the European Commission between 2014 and 2019. In these meetings representatives of the industry position themselves as the experts on border security, presenting their goods and services as the solution for ‘security threats’ caused by immigration. In 2017, the same group of companies and EOS spent up to €2.65 million on lobbying.

    A similar close relationship can be seen on virtual walls, with the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission arguing openly for public policy to foster the ‘emergence of a vibrant European biometrics industry’.
    A deadly trade and a choice

    The conclusion of this survey of the business of building walls is clear. A Europe full of walls has proved to be very good for the bottom line of a wide range of corporations including arms, security, IT, shipping and construction companies. The EU’s planned budgets for border security for the next decade show it is also a business that will continue to boom.

    This is also a deadly business. The heavy militarisation of Europe’s borders on land and at sea has led refugees and migrants to follow far more hazardous routes and has trapped others in desperate conditions in neighbouring countries like Libya. Many deaths are not recorded, but those that are tracked in the Mediterranean show that the proportion of those who drown trying to reach Europe continues to increase each year.

    This is not an inevitable state of affairs. It is both the result of policy decisions made by the EU and its member states, and corporate decisions to profit from these policies. In a rare principled stand, German razor wire manufacturer Mutanox in 2015 stated it would not sell its product to the Hungarian government arguing: ‘Razor wire is designed to prevent criminal acts, like a burglary. Fleeing children and adults are not criminals’. It is time for other European politicians and business leaders to recognise the same truth: that building walls against the world’s most vulnerable people violates human rights and is an immoral act that history will judge harshly. Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is time for Europe to bring down its new walls.

    https://www.tni.org/en/businessbuildingwalls

    #business #murs #barrières_frontalières #militarisation_des_frontières #visualisation #Europe #UE #EU #complexe_militaro-industriel #Airbus #Leonardo #Thales #Indra #Israel_Aerospace_Industries #Elbit #European_Security_Fencing #DAT-CON #Geo_Alpinbau #Dragados #Ferrovial, #Proyectos_Y_Tecnología_Sallén #Eulen #Patstroy_Bourgas #Infra_Expert #Patengineeringstroy #Geostroy_Engineering #Metallic-Ivan_Mihaylov #Nordecon #Defendec #DAK_Acélszerkezeti_Kft #SIA_Ceļu_būvniecības_sabiedrība_IGATE #Gintrėja #Minis #Legi-SGS #Groupe_CW #Jackson’s_Fencing #Sorhea #Vinci #Eurovia #Zaun_Ltd #Damen #Fincantieri #Frontex #Damen #Turquie #Instrument_contributing_to_Stability_and_Peace (#IcSP) #Libye #exernalisation #Operation_Sophia #Navantia #Naval_Group #Flensburger_Schiffbau-Gesellschaft #HDW #Lürssen_Gruppe #Motomarine_Shipyards #Panther_57 #Hellenic_Shipyards #Israel_Shipyards #Schiebel #Dornier #Operation_Hermes #CAE_Aviation #DEA_Aviation #EASP_Air #French_Dassault_Aviation #US_Lockheed_Martin #murs_virtuels #Sopra_Steria #Visa_Information_System (#VIS) #données #Schengen_Information_System (#SIS_II) #European_Dactyloscopy (#Eurodac) #GMV #Eurosur #HP_Belgium #Bull #3M_Belgium #Trusted_Borders_consortium #économie #biométrie #Integrated_System_of_External_Vigilance (#SIVE) #eu-LISA #Accenture #Atos_Belgium #Morpho #Idema #lobby #European_Organisation_for_Security (#EOS) #European_Biometrics_Association (#EAB) #Integrated_Border_Security_Working_Group #Giorgio_Gulienetti #Isto_Mattila #Peter_Smallridge #Gemalto #murs_terrestres #murs_maritimes #coût #chiffres #statistiques #Joint_Research_Centre_of_the_European_Commission #Mutanox

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


    https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/business_of_building_walls_-_full_report.pdf

    déjà signalé par @odilon ici :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/809783
    Je le remets ici avec des mots clé de plus

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

      Trent’anni dopo la caduta del Muro di Berlino, l’Europa fa parlare di sé ancora una volta per i suoi muri di frontiera. Questa volta non è tanto l’ideologia che la divide, quanto la paura di rifugiati e migranti, alcune tra le persone più vulnerabili al mondo.

      Riassunto del rapporto «The Business of Building Walls» [1]:

      Chi ha ucciso il sogno di un’Europa più aperta? Cosa ha dato inizio a questa nuova era dei muri?
      Ci sono evidentemente molte ragioni: il crescente spostamento di persone a causa di conflitti, repressione e impoverimento, l’ascesa di politiche securitarie sulla scia dell’11 settembre, l’insicurezza economica e sociale percepita in Europa dopo la crisi finanziaria del 2008, solo per nominarne alcune. Tuttavia, c’è un gruppo che ha di gran lunga da guadagnare da questo innalzamento di nuovi muri: le imprese che li costruiscono. La loro influenza nel dare forma ad un mondo di muri necessita di un esame più profondo.

      Questo rapporto esplora il business della costruzione di muri, che è stato alimentato e ha beneficiato di un aumento considerevole della spesa pubblica dedicata alla sicurezza delle frontiere dall’Unione Europea (EU) e dai suoi Stati membri. Alcune imprese beneficiarie sono delle multinazionali che approfittano di un mercato globale per la sicurezza delle frontiere che si stima valere approssimativamente 17,5 miliardi di euro nel 2018, con una crescita annuale prevista almeno dell’8% nei prossimi anni.

      È importante guardare sia oltre che dietro i muri e le barriere d’Europa, perché i reali ostacoli alla migrazione contemporanea non sono tanto le recinzioni, quanto la vasta gamma di tecnologie che vi è alla base, dai sistemi radar ai droni, dalle telecamere di sorveglianza ai sistemi biometrici di rilevamento delle impronte digitali. Allo stesso modo, alcuni tra i più pericolosi muri d’Europa non sono nemmeno fisici o sulla terraferma. Le navi, gli aerei e i droni usati per pattugliare il Mediterraneo hanno creato un muro marittimo e un cimitero per i migliaia di migranti e di rifugiati che non hanno un passaggio legale verso la salvezza o per esercitare il loro diritto di asilo.

      Tutto ciò rende insignificanti le dichiarazioni della Commissione Europea secondo le quali essa non finanzierebbe i muri e le recinzioni. Il portavoce della Commissione, Alexander Winterstein, per esempio, nel rifiutare la richiesta dell’Ungheria di rimborsare la metà dei costi delle recinzioni costruite sul suo confine con la Croazia e la Serbia, ha affermato: “Noi sosteniamo le misure di gestione delle frontiere presso i confini esterni. Queste possono consistere in misure di sorveglianza o in equipaggiamento di controllo delle frontiere... . Ma le recinzioni, quelle non le finanziamo”. In altre parole, la Commissione è disposta a pagare per qualunque cosa che fortifichi un confine fintanto che ciò non sia visto come propriamente costruire dei muri.

      Questo rapporto è il seguito di “Building Walls - Fear and securitizazion in the Euopean Union”, co-pubblicato nel 2018 con Centre Delàs e Stop Wapenhandel, che per primi hanno misurato e identificato i muri che attraversano l’Europa.

      Questo nuovo rapporto si focalizza sulle imprese che hanno tratto profitto dai tre differenti tipi di muro in Europa:
      – Le imprese di costruzione ingaggiate per costruire i muri fisici costruiti dagli Stati membri UE e dall’Area Schengen in collaborazione con le imprese esperte in sicurezza e tecnologia che provvedono le tecnologie, l’equipaggiamento e i servizi associati;
      – le imprese di trasporto marittimo e di armamenti che forniscono le navi, gli aerei, gli elicotteri e i droni che costituiscono i muri marittimi dell’Europa per tentare di controllare i flussi migratori nel Mediterraneo, in particolare le operazioni di Frontex, l’operazione Sophia e l’operazione italiana Mare Nostrum;
      – e le imprese specializzate in informatica e in sicurezza incaricate di sviluppare, eseguire, estendere e mantenere i sistemi dell’UE che controllano i movimento delle persone, quali SIS II (Schengen Information System) e EES (Entry/Exii Scheme), che costituiscono i muri virtuali dell’Europa.
      Dei budget fiorenti

      Il flusso di denaro dai contribuenti ai costruttori di muri è stato estremamente lucrativo e non cessa di aumentare. Il report rivela che dalla fine della guerra fredda, le imprese hanno raccolto i profitti di almeno 900 milioni di euro di spese dei paesi dell’UE per i muri fisici e per le recinzioni. Con i dati parziali (sia nella portata e che negli anni), i costi reali raggiungerebbero almeno 1 miliardo di euro. Inoltre, le imprese che forniscono la tecnologia e i servizi che accompagnano i muri hanno ugualmente beneficiato di un flusso costante di finanziamenti da parte dell’UE, in particolare i Fondi per le frontiere esterne (1,7 miliardi di euro, 2007-2013) e i Fondi per la sicurezza interna - Fondi per le Frontiere (2,76 miliardi di euro, 2014-2020).

      Le spese dell’UE per i muri marittimi hanno raggiunto almeno 676,4 milioni di euro tra il 2006 e il 2017 (di cui 534 milioni sono stati spesi da Frontex, 28 milioni dall’UE nell’operazione Sophia e 114 milioni dall’Italia nell’operazione Mare Nostrum) e sarebbero molto superiori se si includessero tutte le operazioni delle guardie costiera nazionali nel Mediterraneo.

      Questa esplosione dei budget per le frontiere ha le condizioni per proseguire. Nel quadro del suo budget per il prossimo ciclo di bilancio dell’Unione Europea (2021-2027), la Commissione europea ha attribuito 8,02 miliardi di euro al suo fondo di gestione integrata delle frontiere (2021-2027), 11,27 miliardi a Frontex (dei quali 2,2 miliardi saranno utilizzati per l’acquisizione, il mantenimento e l’utilizzo di mezzi aerei, marittimi e terrestri) e almeno 1,9 miliardi di euro di spese totali (2000-2027) alle sue banche dati di identificazione e a Eurosur (il sistemo europeo di sorveglianza delle frontiere).
      I principali attori del settore degli armamenti

      Tre giganti europei del settore della difesa e della sicurezza giocano un ruolo cruciale nei differenti tipi di frontiere d’Europa: Thales, Leonardo e Airbus.

      – Thales è un’impresa francese specializzata negli armamenti e nella sicurezza, con una presenza significativa nei Paesi Bassi, che produce sistemi radar e sensori utilizzati da numerose navi della sicurezza frontaliera. I sistemi Thales, per esempio, sono stati utilizzati dalle navi olandesi e portoghesi impiegate nelle operazioni di Frontex.
      Thales produce ugualmente sistemi di sorveglianza marittima per droni e lavora attualmente per sviluppare una infrastruttura di sorveglianza delle frontiere per Eurosus, che permetta di seguire e controllare i rifugiati prima che raggiungano l’Europa con l’aiuto di applicazioni per Smartphone, e studia ugualmente l’utilizzo di “High Altitude Pseudo-Satellites - HAPS” per la sicurezza delle frontiere, per l’Agenzia spaziale europea e Frontex. Thales fornisce attualmente il sistema di sicurezza del porto altamente militarizzato di Calais.
      Con l’acquisto nel 2019 di Gemalto, multinazionale specializzata nella sicurezza e identità (biometrica), Thales diventa un attore importante nello sviluppo e nel mantenimento dei muri virtuali dell’UE. L’impresa ha partecipato a 27 progetti di ricerca dell’UE sulla sicurezza delle frontiere.

      – La società di armamenti italiana Leonardo (originariamente Finmeccanica o Leonardo-Finmeccanica) è uno dei principali fornitori di elicotteri per la sicurezza delle frontiere, utilizzati dalle operazioni Mare Nostrum, Hera e Sophia in Italia. Ha ugualmente fatto parte dei principali fornitori di UAV (o droni), ottenendo un contratto di 67,1 milioni di euro nel 2017 con l’EMSA (Agenzia europea per la sicurezza marittima) per fornire le agenzie di guardia costiera dell’UE.
      Leonardo faceva ugualmente parte di un consorzio che si è visto attribuire un contratto di 142,1 milioni di euro nel 2019 per attuare e assicurare il mantenimento dei muri virtuali dell’UE, ossia il Sistema di entrata/uscita (EES). La società detiene, con Thales, Telespazio, che partecipa ai progetti di osservazione dai satelliti dell’UE (React e Copernicus) utilizzati per controllare le frontiere. Leonardo ha partecipato a 24 progetti di ricerca dell’UE sulla sicurezza e il controllo delle frontiere, tra cui lo sviluppo di Eurosur.

      – Il gigante degli armamenti pan-europei Airbus è un importante fornitore di elicotteri utilizzati nella sorveglianza delle frontiere marittime e di alcune frontiere terrestri, impiegati da Belgio, Francia, Germania, Grecia, Italia, Lituania e Spagna, in particolare nelle operazioni marittime Sophia, Poseidon e Triton. Airbus e le sue filiali hanno partecipato almeno a 13 progetti di ricerca sulla sicurezza delle frontiere finanziati dall’UE, tra cui OCEAN2020, PERSEUS e LOBOS.

      Il ruolo chiave di queste società di armamenti in realtà non è sorprendente. Come è stato dimostrato da “Border Wars” (2016), queste imprese, in quanto appartenenti a lobby come EOS (Organizzazione europea per la sicurezza) e ASD (Associazione delle industrie aerospaziali e della difesa in Europa), hanno ampiamente contribuito a influenzare l’orientamento della politica delle frontiere dell’UE. Paradossalmente, questi stessi marchi fanno ugualmente parte dei quattro più grandi venditori europei di armi al Medio Oriente e all’Africa del Nord, contribuendo così ad alimentare i conflitti all’origine di queste migrazioni forzate.

      Allo stesso modo Indra gioca un ruolo non indifferente nel controllo delle frontiere in Spagna e nel Mediterraneo. L’impresa ha ottenuto una serie di contratti per fortificare Ceuta e Melilla (enclavi spagnole nel Nord del Marocco). Indra ha ugualmente sviluppato il sistema di controllo delle frontiere SIVE (con sistemi radar, di sensori e visivi) che è installato nella maggior parte delle frontiere della Spagna, così come in Portogallo e in Romania. Nel luglio 2018, Indra ha ottenuto un contratto di 10 milioni di euro per assicurare la gestione di SIVE su più siti per due anni. L’impresa è molto attiva nel fare lobby presso l’UE. È ugualmente una dei grandi beneficiari dei finanziamenti per la ricerca dell’UE, che assicurano il coordinamento del progetto PERSEUS per lo sviluppo di Eurosur e il Seahorse Network, la rete di scambio di informazioni tra le forze di polizia dei paesi mediterranei (in Europa e in Africa) per fermare le migrazioni.

      Le società di armamenti israeliane hanno anch’esse ottenuto numerosi contratti nel quadro della sicurezza delle frontiere in UE. Nel 2018, Frontex ha selezionato il drone Heron delle Israel Aerospace Industries per i voli di sorveglianza degli esperimenti pilota nel Mediterraneo. Nel 2015, la società israeliana Elbit Systems ha venduto sei dei suoi droni Hermes al Corpo di guardie di frontiera svizzero, nel quadro di un contratto controverso di 230 milioni di euro. Ha anche firmato in seguito un contratto per droni con l’EMSA (Agenzia europea per la sicurezza marittima), in quanto subappaltatore della società portoghese CEIIA (2018), così come dei contratti per equipaggiare tre navi di pattugliamento per la Hellenic Coast Guard (2019).
      Gli appaltatori dei muri fisici

      La maggioranza di muri e recinzioni che sono stati rapidamente eretti attraverso l’Europa, sono stati costruiti da società di BTP nazionali/società nazionali di costruzioni, ma un’impresa europea ha dominato nel mercato: la European Security Fencing, un produttore spagnolo di filo spinato, in particolare di un filo a spirale chiamato “concertina”. È famosa per aver fornito i fili spinati delle recinzioni che circondano Ceuta e Melilla. L’impresa ha ugualmente dotato di fili spinati le frontiere tra l’Ungheria e la Serbia, e i suoi fili spinati “concertina” sono stati installati alle frontiere tra Bulgaria e Turchia e tra l’Austria e la Slovenia, così come a Calais e, per qualche giorno, alla frontiera tra Ungheria e Slovenia, prima di essere ritirati. Dato che essi detengono il monopolio sul mercato da un po’ di tempo a questa parte, è probabile che i fili spinati “concertina” siano stati utilizzati presso altre frontiere in Europa.

      Tra le altre imprese che hanno fornito i muri e le tecnologie ad essi associate, si trova DAT-CON (Croazia, Cipro, Macedonia, Moldavia, Slovenia e Ucraina), Geo Alpinbau (Austria/Slovenia), Indra, Dragados, Ferrovial, Proyectos Y Tecnología Sallén e Eulen (Spagna/Marocco), Patstroy Bourgas, Infra Expert, Patengineeringstroy, Geostroy Engineering, Metallic-Ivan Mihaylov et Indra (Bulgaria/Turchia), Nordecon e Defendec (Estonia/Russia), DAK Acélszerkezeti Kft e SIA Ceļu būvniecības sabiedrība IGATE (Lettonia/Russia), Gintrėja (Lituania/Russi), Minis e Legi-SGS (Slovenia/Croazia), Groupe CW, Jackson’s Fencing, Sorhea, Vinci/Eurovia e Zaun Ltd (Francia/Regno Unito).

      I costi reali dei muri e delle tecnologie associate superano spesso le stime originali. Numerose accuse e denunce per corruzione sono state allo stesso modo formulate, in certi casi perché i progetti erano stati attribuiti a delle imprese che appartenevano ad amici di alti funzionari. In Slovenia, per esempio, accuse di corruzione riguardanti un contratto per la costruzione di muri alle frontiere hanno portato a tre anni di battaglie legali per avere accesso ai documenti; la questione è passata poi alla Corte suprema.

      Malgrado tutto ciò, il Fondo europeo per le frontiere esterne ha sostenuto finanziariamente le infrastrutture e i servizi tecnologici di numerose operazioni alle frontiere degli Stati membri. In Macedonia, per esempio, l’UE ha versato 9 milioni di euro per finanziare dei veicoli di pattugliamento, delle telecamere a visione notturna, dei rivelatori di battito cardiaco e sostegno tecnico alle guardie di frontiera nell’aiuto della gestione della sua frontiera meridionale.
      Gli speculatori dei muri marittimi

      I dati che permettono di determinare quali imbarcazioni, elicotteri e aerei sono utilizzati nelle operazioni marittime in Europa mancano di trasparenza. È dunque difficile recuperare tutte le informazioni. Le nostre ricerche mostrano comunque che tra le principali società implicate figurano i giganti europei degli armamenti Airbus e Leonardo, così come grandi imprese di costruzione navale come l’olandese Damen e l’italiana Fincantieri.

      Le imbarcazioni di pattugliamento di Damen sono servite per delle operazioni frontaliere portate avanti da Albania, Belgio, Bulgaria, Portogallo, Paesi Bassi, Romania, Svezia e Regno Unito, così come per le vaste operazioni di Frontex (Poseidon, Triton e Themis), per l’operazione Sophia e hanno ugualmente sostento la NATO nell’operazione Poseidon.

      Al di fuori dell’Europa, la Libia, il Marocco, la Tunisia e la Turchia utilizzano delle imbarcazioni Damen per la sicurezza delle frontiere, spesso in collaborazione con l’UE o i suoi Stati membri. Per esempio, le sei navi Damen che la Turchia ha comprato per la sua guardia costiera nel 2006, per un totale di 20 milioni di euro, sono state finanziate attraverso lo strumento europeo che contribuirebbe alla stabilità e alla pace (IcSP), destinato a mantenere la pace e a prevenire i conflitti.

      La vendita di imbarcazioni Damen alla Libia mette in evidenza l’inquietante costo umano di questo commercio. Nel 2012, Damen ha fornito quattro imbarcazioni di pattugliamento alla guardia costiera libica, che sono state vendute come equipaggiamento civile col fine di evitare la licenza di esportazione di armi nei Paesi Bassi. I ricercatori hanno poi scoperto che non solo le imbarcazioni erano state vendute con dei punti di fissaggio per le armi, ma che erano state in seguito armate ed utilizzate per fermare le imbarcazioni di rifugiati. Numerosi incidenti che hanno implicato queste imbarcazioni sono stati segnalati, tra i quali l’annegamento di 20 o 30 rifugiati. Damen si è rifiutata di commentare, dichiarando di aver convenuto col governo libico di non divulgare alcuna informazione riguardante le imbarcazioni.

      Numerosi costruttori navali nazionali, oltre a Damen, giocano un ruolo determinante nelle operizioni marittime poiché sono sistematicamente scelti con priorità dai paesi partecipanti a ogni operazione di Frontex o ad altre operazioni nel Mediterraneo. Tutte le imbarcazioni fornite dall’Italia all’operazione Sophia sono state costruite da Fincantieri e tutte quelle spagnole sono fornite da Navantia e dai suoi predecessori. Allo stesso modo, la Francia si rifornisce da DCN/DCNS, ormai Naval Group, e tutte le imbarcazioni tedesche sono state costruite da diversi cantieri navali tedeschi (Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, HDW, Lürssen Gruppe). Altre imprese hanno partecipato alle operazioni di Frontex, tra cui la società greca Motomarine Shipyards, che ha prodotto i pattugliatori rapidi Panther 57 utilizzati dalla guardia costiera greca, così come la Hellenic Shipyards e la Israel Shipyards.

      La società austriaca Schiebel, che fornisce i droni S-100, gioca un ruolo importante nella sorveglianza aerea delle attività marittime. Nel novembre 2018, è stata selezionata dall’EMSA per un contratto di sorveglianza marittima di 24 milioni di euro riguardante differenti operazioni che includevano la sicurezza delle frontiere. Dal 2017, Schiebel ha ugualmente ottenuto dei contratti con la Croazia, la Danimarca, l’Islanda, l’Italia, il Portogallo e la Spagna. L’impresa ha un passato controverso: ha venduto dei droni a numerosi paesi in conflitto armato o governati da regimi repressivi come la Libia, il Myanmar, gli Emirati Arabi Uniti e lo Yemen.

      La Finlandia e i Paesi Bassi hanno impiegato degli aerei Dornier rispettivamente nel quadro delle operazioni Hermès, Poseidon e Triton. Dornier appartiene ormai alla filiale americana della società di armamenti israeliana Elbit Systems.
      CAE Aviation (Lussemburgo), DEA Aviation (Regno Unito) e EASP Air (Paesi Bassi) hanno tutte ottenuto dei contratti di sorveglianza aerea per Frontex.
      Airbus, Dassault Aviation, Leonardo e l’americana Lockheed Martin hanno fornito il più grande numero di aerei utilizzati per l’operazione Sophia.

      L’UE e i suoi Stati membri difendono le loro operazioni marittime pubblicizzando il loro ruolo nel salvataggio dei rifugiati in mare. Ma non è questo il loro obiettivo principale, come sottolinea il direttore di Frontex Fabrice Leggeri nell’aprile 2015, dichiarando che “le azioni volontarie di ricerca e salvataggio” non fanno parte del mandato affidato a Frontex, e che salvare delle vite non dovrebbe essere una priorità. La criminalizzazione delle operazioni di salvataggio da parte delle ONG, gli ostacoli che esse incontrano, così come la violenza e i respingimenti illegali dei rifugiati, spesso denunciati, illustrano bene il fatto che queste operazioni marittime sono volte soprattutto a costituire muri piuttosto che missioni umanitarie.
      I muri virtuali

      I principali contratti dell’UE legati ai muri virtuali sono stati affidati a due imprese, a volte in quanto leader di un consorzio.
      Sopra Steria è il partner principale per lo sviluppo e il mantenimento del Sistema d’informazione dei visti (SIV), del Sistema di informazione Schengen (SIS II) e di Eurodac (European Dactyloscopy) e GMV ha firmato una serie di contratti per Eurosur. I sistemi che essi concepiscono permettono di controllare e di sorvegliare i movimenti delle persone attraverso l’Europa e, sempre più spesso, al di là delle sue frontiere.

      Sopra Steria è un’impresa francese di servizi per consultazioni in tecnologia che ha, ad oggi, ottenuto dei contratti con l’UE per un valore totale di più di 150 milioni di euro. Nel quadro di alcuni di questi grossi contratti, Sopra Steria ha formato dei consorzi con HP Belgio, Bull e 3M Belgio.

      Malgrado l’ampiezza di questi mercati, Sopra Steria ha ricevuto importanti critiche per la sua mancanza di rigore nel rispetto delle tempistiche e dei budget. Il lancio di SIS II è stato costantemente ritardato, costringendo la Commissione a prolungare i contratti e ad aumentare i budget. Sopra Steria aveva ugualmente fatto parte di un altro consorzio, Trusted Borders, impegnato nello sviluppo del programma e-Borders nel Regno Unito. Quest’ultimo è terminato nel 2010 dopo un accumulo di ritardi e di mancate consegne. Tuttavia, la società ha continuato a ottenere contratti, a causa del suo quasi monopolio di conoscenze e di relazioni con i rappresentanti dell’UE. Il ruolo centrale di Sopra Steria nello sviluppo dei sistemi biometrici dell’UE ha ugualmente portato alla firma di altri contratti nazionali con, tra gli altri, il Belgio, la Bulgaria, la Repubblica ceca, la Finlandia, la Francia, la Germania, la Romania e la Slovenia.

      GMV, un’impresa tecnologica spagnola, ha concluso una serie di grossi contratti per Eurosur, dopo la sua fase sperimentale nel 2010, per almeno 25 milioni di euro. Essa rifornisce ugualmente di tecnologie la Guardia Civil spagnola, tecnologie quali, ad esempio, i centri di controllo del suo Sistema integrato di sorveglianza esterna (SIVE), sistema di sicurezza delle frontiere, così come rifornisce di servizi di sviluppo logistico Frontex. L’impresa ha partecipato ad almeno dieci progetti di ricerca finanziati dall’UE sulla sicurezza delle frontiere.

      La maggior parte dei grossi contratti riguardanti i muri virtuali che non sono stati conclusi con consorzi di cui facesse parte Sopra Steria, sono stati attribuiti da eu-LISA (l’Agenzia europea per la gestione operazionale dei sistemi di informazione su vasta scale in seno allo spazio di libertà, di sicurezza e di giustizia) a dei consorzi di imprese specializzate nell’informazione e nelle nuove tecnologie, tra questi: Accenture, Atos Belgium e Morpho (rinominato Idemia).
      Lobby

      Come testimonia il nostro report “Border Wars”, il settore della difesa e della sicurezza, grazie ad una lobbying efficace, ha un’influenza considerabile nell’elaborazione delle politiche di difesa e di sicurezza dell’UE. Le imprese di questo settore industriale sono riuscite a posizionarsi come esperti della sicurezza delle frontiere, portando avanti il loro discorso secondo il quale la migrazione è prima di tutto una minaccia per la sicurezza che deve essere combattuta tramite mezzi militari e securitari. Questo crea così una domanda continua del catalogo sempre più fornito di equipaggiamenti e servizi che esse forniscono per la sicurezza e il controllo delle frontiere.

      Un numero alto di imprese che abbiamo nominato, in particolare le grandi società di armamenti, fanno parte dell’EOS (Organizzazione europea per la sicurezza), il più importante gruppo di pressione sulla sicurezza delle frontiere.

      Molte imprese informatiche che hanno concepito i muri virtuali dell’UE sono membri dell’EAB (Associazione Europea per la Biometria). L’EOS ha un “Gruppo di lavoro sulla sicurezza integrata delle frontiere” per “permettere lo sviluppo e l’adozione delle migliori soluzioni tecnologiche per la sicurezza delle frontiere sia ai checkpoint che lungo le frontiere marittime e terrestri”.
      Il gruppo di lavoro è presieduto da Giorgio Gulienetti, della società di armi italiana Leonardo, Isto Mattila (diplomato all’università di scienze applicate) e Peter Smallridge di Gemalto, multinazionale specializzata nella sicurezza numerica, recentemente acquisita da Thales.

      I lobbisti di imprese e i rappresentanti di questi gruppi di pressione incontrano regolarmente le istituzioni dell’UE, tra cui la Commissione europea, nel quadro di comitati di consiglio ufficiali, pubblicano proposte influenti, organizzano incontri tra il settore industriale, i policy-makers e i dirigenti e si ritrovano allo stesso modo in tutti i saloni, le conferenze e i seminari sulla difesa e la sicurezza.

      Airbus, Leonardo e Thales e l’EOS hanno anche assistito a 226 riunioni ufficiali di lobby con la Commissione europea tra il 2014 e il 2019. In queste riunioni, i rappresentanti del settore si presentano come esperti della sicurezza delle frontiere, e propongono i loro prodotti e servizi come soluzione alle “minacce alla sicurezza” costituite dall’immigrazione. Nel 2017, queste stesse imprese e l’EOS hanno speso fino a 2,56 milioni di euro in lobbying.

      Si constata una relazione simile per quanto riguarda i muri virtuali: il Centro comune della ricerca della Commissione europea domanda apertamente che le politiche pubbliche favoriscano “l’emergenza di una industria biometrica europea dinamica”.
      Un business mortale, una scelta

      La conclusione di questa inchiesta sul business dell’innalzamento di muri è chiara: la presenza di un’Europa piena di muri si rivela molto fruttuosa per una larga fetta di imprese del settore degli armamenti, della difesa, dell’informatica, del trasporto marittimo e delle imprese di costruzioni. I budget che l’UE ha pianificato per la sicurezza delle frontiere nei prossimi dieci anni mostrano che si tratta di un commercio che continua a prosperare.

      Si tratta altresì di un commercio mortale. A causa della vasta militarizzazione delle frontiere dell’Europa sulla terraferma e in mare, i rifugiati e i migranti intraprendono dei percorsi molto più pericolosi e alcuni si trovano anche intrappolati in terribili condizioni in paesi limitrofi come la Libia. Non vengono registrate tutte le morti, ma quelle che sono registrate nel Mediterraneo mostrano che il numero di migranti che annegano provando a raggiungere l’Europa continua ad aumentare ogni anno.

      Questo stato di cose non è inevitabile. È il risultato sia di decisioni politiche prese dall’UE e dai suoi Stati membri, sia dalle decisioni delle imprese di trarre profitto da queste politiche. Sono rare le imprese che prendono posizione, come il produttore tedesco di filo spinato Mutinox che ha dichiarato nel 2015 che non avrebbe venduto i suoi prodotti al governo ungherese per il seguente motivo: “I fili spinati sono concepiti per impedire atti criminali, come il furto. Dei rifugiati, bambini e adulti, non sono dei criminali”.

      È tempo che altri politici e capi d’impresa riconoscano questa stessa verità: erigere muri contro le popolazioni più vulnerabili viola i diritti umani e costituisce un atto immorale che sarà evidentemente condannato dalla storia.

      Trent’anni dopo la caduta del muro di Berlino, è tempo che l’Europa abbatta i suoi nuovi muri.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/La-costruzione-di-muri-un-business.html

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

      In recent years, rising calls for deterrence have intensified the physical violence migrants face at the EU border. The externalization of the border through deals with sending and transit countries signals the expansion of this securitization process. Financial gains by international arms firms in this militarization trend form an obstacle for policy change.

      In March, April, and May of this year, multiple European countries deployed military forces to their national borders. This was done to assist with controls and patrols in the wake of border closures and other movement restrictions due to the Covid-19 crisis. Poland deployed 1,460 soldiers to the border to support the Border Guard and police as part of a larger military operation in reaction to Covid-19. And the Portuguese police used military drones as a complement to their land border checks. According to overviews from NATO, the Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands (military police), Slovakia, and Slovenia all stationed armed forces at their national borders.

      While some of these deployments have been or will be rolled back as the Corona crisis dies down, they are not exceptional developments. Rather, using armed forces for border security and control has been a common occurrence at EU external borders since the so-called refugee crisis of 2015. They are part of the continuing militarisation of European border and migration policies, which is known to put refugees at risk but is increasingly being expanded to third party countries. Successful lobbying from the military and security industry has been an important driver for these policies, from which large European arms companies have benefited.

      The militarization of borders happens when EU member states send armies to border regions, as they did in Operation Sophia off the Libyan coast. This was the first outright EU military mission to stop migration. But border militarization also includes the use of military equipment for migration control, such as helicopters and patrol vessels, as well as the the EU-wide surveillance system Eurosur, which connects surveillance data from all individual member states. Furthermore, EU countries now have over 1,000 kilometers of walls and fences on their borders. These are rigged with surveillance, monitoring, and detection technologies, and accompanied by an increasing use of drones and other autonomous systems. The EU also funds a constant stream of Research & Technology (R&T) projects to develop new technologies and services to monitor and manage migration.

      This process has been going on for decades. The Schengen Agreement of 1985, and the subsequent creation of the Schengen Area, which coupled the opening of the internal EU borders with robust control at the external borders, can be seen as a starting point for these developments. After 2011, when the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ led to fears of mass migration to Europe, and especially since the ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015, the EU accelerated the boosting and militarising of border security, enormously. Since then, stopping migration has been at the top of the EU agenda.

      An increasingly important part of the process of border militarization isn’t happening at the European borders, but far beyond them. The EU and its member states are incentivizing third party countries to help stop migrants long before they reach Europe. This externalising of borders has taken many forms, from expanding the goals of EUCAP missions in Mali and Niger to include the prevention of irregular migration, to funding and training the Libyan Coast Guard to return refugees back to torture and starvation in the infamous detention centers in Libya. It also includes the donation of border security equipment, for example from Germany to Tunisia, and funding for purchases, such as Turkey’s acquisition of coast guard vessels to strengthen its operational capacities.

      Next to the direct consequences of European border externalisation efforts, these policies cause and worsen problems in the third party countries concerned: diverting development funds and priorities, ruining migration-based economies, and strengthening authoritarian regimes such as those in Chad, Belarus, Eritrea, and Sudan by providing funding, training and equipment to their military and security forces. Precisely these state organs are most responsible for repression and abuses of human rights. All this feeds drivers of migration, including violence, repression, and unemployment. As such, it is almost a guarantee for more refugees in the future.

      EU border security agency Frontex has also extended its operations into non-EU-countries. Ongoing negotiations and conclusions of agreements with Balkan countries resulted in the first operation in Albania having started in May 2019. And this is only a small part of Frontex’ expanding role in recent years. In response to the ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015, the European Commission launched a series of proposals that saw large increases in the powers of the agency, including giving member states binding advice to boost their border security, and giving Frontex the right to intervene in member states’ affairs (even without their consent) by decision of the Commission or Council.

      These proposals also included the creation of a 10,000 person strong standing corps of border guards and a budget to buy or lease its own equipment. Concretely, Frontex started with a budget of €6 million in 2005, which grew to €143 million in 2015. This was then quickly increased again from €239 million in 2016 to €460 million in 2020. The enormous expansion of EU border security and control has been accompanied by rapidly increasing budgets in general. In recent years, billions of euros have been spent on fortifying borders, setting up biometric databases, increasing surveillance capacities, and paying non-EU-countries to play their parts in this expansion process.

      Negotiations about the next seven-year-budget for the EU, the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, are still ongoing. In the European Commission’s latest proposal, which is clearly positioned as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the fund for strengthening member states’ border security, the Integrated Border Management Fund, has been allotted €12.5 billion. Its predecessors, the External Borders Fund (2007-2013) and the Internal Security Fund – Borders (2014-2020), had much smaller budgets: €1.76 billion and €2.70 billion, respectively. For Frontex, €7.5 billion is reserved, with €2.2 billion earmarked for purchasing or leasing equipment such as helicopters, drones, and patrol vessels. These huge budget increases are exemplary of the priority the EU attaches to stopping migration.

      The narrative underlying these policies and budget growths is the perception of migration as a threat; a security problem. As researcher, Ainhoa Ruiz (Centre Delàs) writes, “the securitisation process also includes militarisation,” because “the prevailing paradigm for providing security is based on military principles: the use of force and coercion, more weapons equating to more security, and the achievement of security by eliminating threats.”

      This narrative hasn’t come out of the blue. It is pushed by right wing politicians and often followed by centrist and leftist parties afraid of losing voters. Importantly, it is also promoted by an extensive and successful industrial lobby. According to Martin Lemberg-Pedersen (Assistant Professor in Global Refugee Studies, Aalborg University), arms companies “establish themselves as experts on border security, and use this position to frame immigration to Europe as leading to evermore security threats in need of evermore advanced [security] products.” The narrative of migration as a security problem thus sets the stage for militaries, and the security companies behind the commercial arms lobby, to offer their goods and services as the solution. The range of militarization policies mentioned so far reflects the broad adoption of this narrative.

      The lobby organizations of large European military and security companies regularly interact with the European Commission and EU border agencies. They have meetings, organise roundtables, and see each other at military and security fairs and conferences. Industry representatives also take part in official advisory groups, are invited to present new arms and technologies, and write policy proposals. These proposals can sometimes be so influential that they are adopted as policy, almost unamended.

      This happened, for instance, when the the Commission decided to open up the Instrument contributing to Security and Peace, a fund meant for peace-building and conflict prevention. The fund’s terms were expanded to cover provision of third party countries with non-lethal security equipment, for example, for border security purposes. The new policy document for this turned out to be a step-by-step reproduction of an earlier proposal from lobby organisation, Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). Yet, perhaps the most far-reaching success of this kind is the expansion of Frontex, itself, into a European Border Guard. Years before it actually happened, the industry had already been pushing for this outcome.

      The same companies that are at the forefront of the border security and control lobby are, not surprisingly, also the big winners of EU and member states’ contracts in these areas. These include three of the largest European (and global) arms companies, namely, Airbus (Paneuropean), Leonardo (Italy) and Thales (France). These companies are active in many aspects of the border security and control market. Airbus’ and Leonardo’s main product in this field are helicopters, with EU funds paying for many purchases by EU and third countries. Thales provides radar, for example, for border patrol vessels, and is heavily involved in biometric and digital identification, especially after having acquired market leader, Gemalto, last year.

      These three companies are the main beneficiaries of the European anti-migration obsession. At the same time, these very three companies also contribute to new migration streams to Europe’s shores through their trade in arms. They are responsible for significant parts of Europe’s arms exports to countries at war, and they provide the arms used by parties in internal armed conflicts, by human rights violators, and by repressive regimes. These are the forces fueling the reasons for which people are forced to flee in the first place.

      Many other military and security companies also earn up to hundreds of millions of euros from large border security and control projects oriented around logistics and transport. Dutch shipbuilder Damen provided not only many southern European countries with border patrol vessels, but also controversially sold those to Libya and Turkey, among others. Its ships have also been used in Frontex operations, in Operation Sophia, and on the Channel between Calais and Dover.

      The Spanish company, European Security Fencing, provided razor wire for the fences around the Spanish enclaves, Ceuta and Melilla, in Morocco, as well as the fence at Calais and the fences on the borders of Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Frontex, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), and Greece leased border surveillance drones from Elbit and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). These are Israeli military companies that routinely promote their products as ‘combat-proven’ or ‘battlefield tested’ against Palestinians.

      Civipol, a French public-private company owned by the state, and several large arms producers (including Thales, Airbus, and Safran), run a string of EU-/member state-funded border security projects in third party countries. This includes setting up fingerprint databases of the whole populations of Mali and Senegal, which facilitates identification and deportation of their nationals from Europe. These are just a few examples of the companies that benefit from the billions of euros that the EU and its member states spend on a broad range of purchases and projects in their bid to stop migration.

      The numbers of forcibly displaced people in the world grew to a staggering 79.5 million by the end of last year. Instead of helping to eliminate the root causes of migration, EU border and migration policies, as well as its arms exports to the rest of the world, are bound to lead to more refugees in the future. The consequences of these policies have already been devastating. As experts in the field of migration have repeatedly warned, the militarisation of borders primarily pushes migrants to take alternative migration routes that are often more dangerous and involve the risks of relying on criminal smuggling networks. The Mediterranean Sea has become a sad witness of this, turning into a graveyard for a growing percentage of refugees trying to cross it.

      The EU approach to border security doesn’t stand on its own. Many other countries, in particular Western ones and those with authoritarian leaders, follow the same narrative and policies. Governments all over the world, but particularly those in the US, Australia, and Europe, continue to spend billions of euros on border security and control equipment and services. And they plan to increase budgets even more in the coming years. For military and security companies, this is good news; the global border security market is expected to grow by over 7% annually for the next five years to a total of $65 billion in 2025. It looks like they will belong to the very few winners of increasingly restrictive policies targeting vulnerable people on the run.

      https://crisismag.net/2020/06/27/how-the-arms-industry-drives-fortress-europes-expansion
      #industrie_militaire #covid-19 #coronavirus #frontières_extérieures #Operation_Sophia #Eurosur #surveillance #drones #technologie #EUCAP #externalisation #Albanie #budget #Integrated_Border_Management_Fund #menace #lobby_industriel #Instrument_contributing_to_Security_and_Peace #conflits #paix #prévention_de_conflits #Aerospace_and_Defence_Industries_Association_of_Europe (#ASD) #Airbus #Leonardo #Thales #hélicoptères #radar #biométrie #identification_digitale #Gemalto #commerce_d'armes #armement #Damen #European_Security_Fencing #barbelé #European_Maritime_Safety_Agency (#EMSA) #Elbit #Israel_Aerospace_Industries (#IAI) #Civipol #Safran #base_de_données

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

      Civipol, a French public-private company owned by the state, and several large arms producers (including Thales, Airbus, and Safran), run a string of EU-/member state-funded border security projects in third party countries. This includes setting up fingerprint databases of the whole populations of Mali and Senegal, which facilitates identification and deportation of their nationals from Europe

    • GUARDING THE FORTRESS. The role of Frontex in the militarisation and securitisation of migration flows in the European Union

      The report focuses on 19 Frontex operations run by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (hereafter Frontex) to explore how the agency is militarising borders and criminalising migrants, undermining fundamental rights to freedom of movement and the right to asylum.

      This report is set in a wider context in which more than 70.8 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced, according to the 2018 figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (UNHCR, 2019). Some of these have reached the borders of the European Union (EU), seeking protection and asylum, but instead have encountered policy responses that mostly aim to halt and intercept migration flows, against the background of securitisation policies in which the governments of EU Member States see migration as a threat. One of the responses to address migration flows is the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (hereafter Frontex), established in 2004 as the EU body in charge of guarding what many have called ‘Fortress Europe’, and whose practices have helped to consolidate the criminalisation of migrants and the securitisation of their movements.

      The report focuses on analysing the tools deployed by Fortress Europe, in this case through Frontex, to prevent the freedom of movement and the right to asylum, from its creation in 2004 to the present day.

      The sources used to write this report were from the EU and Frontex, based on its budgets and annual reports. The analysis focused on the Frontex regulations, the language used and its meaning, as well as the budgetary trends, identifying the most significant items – namely, the joint operations and migrant-return operations.

      A table was compiled of all the joint operations mentioned in the annual reports since the Agency was established in 2005 up to 2018 (see annexes). The joint operations were found on government websites but were not mentioned in the Frontex annual reports. Of these operations, we analysed those of the longest duration, or that have showed recent signs of becoming long-term operations. The joint operations are analysed in terms of their objectives, area of action, the mandates of the personnel deployed, and their most noteworthy characteristics.

      Basically, the research sought to answer the following questions: What policies are being implemented in border areas and in what context? How does Frontex act in response to migration movements? A second objective was to analyse how Frontex securitises the movement of refugees and other migrants, with the aim of contributing to the analysis of the process of border militarisation and the security policies applied to non-EU migrants by the EU and its Member States.

      https://www.tni.org/en/guarding-the-fortress

      Pour télécharger le rapport_
      https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/informe40_eng_ok.pdf

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

      For three years, Frontex has been chartering small aircraft for the surveillance of the EU’s external borders. First Italy was thus supported, then Croatia followed. Frontex keeps the planes details secret, and the companies also switch off the transponders for position display during operations.

      The European Commission does not want to make public which private surveillance planes Frontex uses in the Mediterranean. In the non-public answer to a parliamentary question, the EU border agency writes that the information on the aircraft is „commercially confidential“ as it contains „personal data and sensitive operational information“.

      Frontex offers EU member states the option of monitoring their external borders using aircraft. For this „Frontex Aerial Surveillance Service“ (FASS), Frontex charters twin-engined airplanes from European companies. Italy first made use of the service in 2017, followed a year later by Croatia. In 2018, Frontex carried out at least 1,800 flight hours under the FASS, no figures are yet available for 2019.

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

      The FASS flights are carried out under the umbrella of „Multipurpose Aerial Surveillance“, which includes satellite surveillance as well as drones. Before the end of this year, the border agency plans to station large drones in the Mediterranean for up to four years. The situation pictures of the European Union’s „pre-frontier area“ are fed into the surveillance system EUROSUR, whose headquarter is located at Frontex in Warsaw. The national EUROSUR contact points, for example in Spain, Portugal and Italy, also receive this information.

      In addition to private charter planes, Frontex also uses aircraft and helicopters provided by EU Member States, in the central Mediterranean via the „Themis“ mission. The EU Commission also keeps the call signs of the state aircraft operating there secret. They would be considered „sensitive operational information“ and could not be disclosed to MEPs.

      Previously, the FOIA platform „Frag den Staat“ („Ask the State“) had also tried to find out details about the sea and air capacities of the member states in „Themis“. Frontex refused to provide any information on this matter. „Frag den Staat“ lost a case against Frontex before the European Court of Justice and is now to pay 23,700 Euros to the agency for legal fees.

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

      The confidentiality of Frontex comes as a surprise, because companies that monitor the Mediterranean for the agency are known through a tender. Frontex has signed framework contracts with the Spanish arms group Indra as well as the charter companies CAE Aviation (Canada), Diamond-Executive Aviation (Great Britain) and EASP Air (Netherlands). Frontex is spending up to 14.5 million euros each on the contracts.

      Finally, online service providers such as FlightAware can also be used to draw conclusions about which private and state airplanes are flying for Frontex in the Mediterranean. For real-time positioning, the providers use data from ADS-B transponders, which all larger aircraft must have installed. A worldwide community of non-commercial trackers receives this geodata and feeds it into the Internet. In this way, for example, Italian journalist Sergio Scandura documents practically all movements of Frontex aerial assets in the central Mediterranean.

      Among the aircraft tracked this way are the twin-engined „DA-42“, „DA-62“ and „Beech 350“ of Diamond-Executive Aviation, which patrol the Mediterranean Sea on behalf of Frontex as „Osprey1“, „Osprey3“ and „Tasty“, in former times also „Osprey2“ and „Eagle1“. They are all operated by Diamond-Executive Aviation and take off and land at airports in Malta and Sicily.

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

      In accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees, the EU Border Agency may not return people to states where they are at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations. Libya is not a safe haven; this assessment has been reiterated on several occasions by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, among others.

      Because these „push-backs“ are prohibited, Frontex has since 2017 been helping with so-called „pull-backs“ by bringing refugees back to Libya by the Libyan coast guard rather than by EU units. With the „Multipurpose Aerial Surveillance“, Frontex is de facto conducting air reconnaissance for Libya. By November 2019, the EU border agency had notified Libyan authorities about refugee boats on the high seas in at least 42 cases.

      Many international law experts consider this practice illegal. Since Libya would not be able to track down the refugees without the help of Frontex, the agency must take responsibility for the refoulements. The lawyers Omer Shatz and Juan Branco therefore want to sue responsibles of the European Union before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

      Frontex watches refugees drown

      This is probably the reason why Frontex disguises the exact location of its air surveillance. Private maritime rescue organisations have repeatedly pointed out that Frontex aircrafts occasionally switch off their transponders so that they cannot be tracked via ADS-B. In the answer now available, this is confirmed by the EU Commission. According to this, the visibility of the aircraft would disclose „sensitive operational information“ and, in combination with other kinds of information, „undermine“ the operational objectives.

      The German Ministry of the Interior had already made similar comments on the Federal Police’s assets in Frontex missions, according to which „general tracking“ of their routes in real time would „endanger the success of the mission“.

      However, Frontex claims it did not issue instructions to online service providers to block the real-time position display of its planes, as journalist Scandura described. Nonetheless, the existing concealment of the operations only allows the conclusion that Frontex does not want to be controlled when the deployed aircraft watch refugees drown and Italy and Malta, as neighbouring EU member states, do not provide any assistance.

      https://digit.site36.net/2020/06/11/frontex-aircraft-blind-flight-against-international-law
      #avions #Italie #Croatie #confidentialité #transparence #Frontex_Aerial_Surveillance_Service (#FASS) #Multipurpose_Aerial_Surveillance #satellites #Méditerranée #Thermis #information_sensible #Indra #CAE_Aviation #Diamond-Executive_Aviation #EASP_Air #FlightAware #ADS-B #DA-42 #DA-62 #Beech_350 #Osprey1 #Osprey3 #Tasty #Osprey2 #Eagle1 #Malte #Sicile #pull-back #push-back #refoulement #Sergio_Scandura

    • Walls Must Fall: Ending the deadly politics of border militarisation - webinar recording
      This webinar explored the trajectory and globalization of border militarization and anti-migrant racism across the world, the history, ideologies and actors that have shaped it, the pillars and policies that underpin the border industrial complex, the resistance of migrants, refugees and activists, and the shifting dynamics within this pandemic.

      - #Harsha_Walia, author of Undoing Border Imperialism (2013)
      - #Jille_Belisario, Transnational Migrant Platform-Europe (TMP-E)
      - #Todd_Miller, author of Empire of Borders (2020), Storming the Wall (2019) and TNI’s report More than A Wall (2019)
      - #Kavita_Krishnan, All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA).
      https://www.tni.org/en/article/walls-must-fall
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8B-cJ2bTi8&feature=emb_logo

      #conférence #webinar

    • Le business meurtrier des frontières

      Le 21ème siècle sera-t-il celui des barrières ? Probable, au rythme où les frontières nationales se renforcent. Dans un livre riche et documenté, publié aux éditions Syllepse, le géographe Stéphane Rosière dresse un indispensable état des lieux.

      Une nuit du mois de juin, dans un centre de rétention de l’île de Rhodes, la police grecque vient chercher une vingtaine de migrant·e·s, dont deux bébés. Après un trajet en bus, elle abandonne le groupe dans un canot de sauvetage sans moteur, au milieu des eaux territoriales turques. En août, le New York Times publie une enquête révélant que cette pratique, avec la combinaison de l’arrivée aux affaires du premier ministre conservateur Kyriakos Mitsotakis et de la diffusion de la pandémie de Covid-19, est devenue courante depuis mars.

      Illégales au regard du droit international, ces expulsions illustrent surtout le durcissement constant de la politique migratoire de l’Europe depuis 20 ans. Elles témoignent aussi d’un processus mondial de « pixellisation » des frontières : celles-ci ne se réduisent pas à des lignes mais à un ensemble de points plus ou moins en amont ou en aval (ports, aéroports, eaux territoriales…), où opèrent les polices frontalières.
      La fin de la fin des frontières

      Plus largement, le récent ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière, Frontières de fer, le cloisonnement du monde, permet de prendre la mesure d’un processus en cours de « rebordering » à travers le monde. À la fois synthèse des recherches récentes sur les frontières et résultats des travaux de l’auteur sur la résurgence de barrières frontalières, le livre est une lecture incontournable sur l’évolution contemporaine des frontières nationales.

      D’autant qu’il n’y a pas si longtemps, la mondialisation semblait promettre l’affaissement des frontières, dans la foulée de la disparition de l’Union soviétique et, corollairement, de la généralisation de l’économie de marché. La Guerre froide terminée annonçait la « fin de l’histoire » et, avec elle, la disparition des limites territoriales héritées de l’époque moderne. Au point de ringardiser, rappelle Stéphane Rosière, les études sur les frontières au sein de la géographie des années 1990, parallèlement au succès d’une valorisation tous azimuts de la mobilité dans le discours politique dominant comme dans les sciences sociales.

      Trente ans après, le monde se réveille avec 25 000 kilomètres de barrières frontalières – record pour l’Inde, avec plus de 3 000 kilomètres de clôtures pour prévenir l’immigration depuis le Bangladesh. Barbelés, murs de briques, caméras, détecteurs de mouvements, grilles électrifiées, les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier fleurissent en continu sur les cinq continents.
      L’âge des « murs anti-pauvres »

      La contradiction n’est qu’apparente. Les barrières du 21e siècle ne ferment pas les frontières mais les cloisonnent – d’où le titre du livre. C’est-à-dire que l’objectif n’est pas de supprimer les flux mondialisés – de personnes et encore moins de marchandises ni de capitaux – mais de les contrôler. Les « teichopolitiques », terme qui recouvre, pour Stéphane Rosière, les politiques de cloisonnement de l’espace, matérialisent un « ordre mondial asymétrique et coercitif », dans lequel on valorise la mobilité des plus riches tout en assignant les populations pauvres à résidence.

      De fait, on observe que les barrières frontalières redoublent des discontinuités économiques majeures. Derrière l’argument de la sécurité, elles visent à contenir les mouvements migratoires des régions les plus pauvres vers des pays mieux lotis économiquement : du Mexique vers les États-Unis, bien sûr, ou de l’Afrique vers l’Europe, mais aussi de l’Irak vers l’Arabie Saoudite ou du Pakistan vers l’Iran.

      Les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier sont des outils parmi d’autres d’une « implacable hiérarchisation » des individus en fonction de leur nationalité. Comme l’a montré le géographe Matthew Sparke à propos de la politique migratoire nord-américaine, la population mondiale se trouve divisée entre une classe hypermobile de citoyen·ne·s « business-class » et une masse entravée de citoyen·ne·s « low-cost ». C’est le sens du « passport index » publié chaque année par le cabinet Henley : alors qu’un passeport japonais ou allemand donne accès à plus de 150 pays, ce chiffre descend en-dessous de 30 avec un passeport afghan ou syrien.
      Le business des barrières

      Si les frontières revêtent une dimension économique, c’est aussi parce qu’elles sont un marché juteux. À l’heure où les pays européens ferment des lits d’hôpital faute de moyens, on retiendra ce chiffre ahurissant : entre 2005 et 2016, le budget de Frontex, l’agence en charge du contrôle des frontières de l’Union européenne, est passé de 6,3 à 238,7 millions d’euros. À quoi s’ajoutent les budgets colossaux débloqués pour construire et entretenir les barrières – budgets entourés d’opacité et sur lesquels, témoigne l’auteur, il est particulièrement difficile d’enquêter, faute d’obtenir… des fonds publics.

      L’argent public alimente ainsi une « teichoéconomie » dont les principaux bénéficiaires sont des entreprises du BTP et de la sécurité européennes, nord-américaines, israéliennes et, de plus en plus, indiennes ou saoudiennes. Ce complexe sécuritaro-industriel, identifié par Julien Saada, commercialise des dispositifs de surveillance toujours plus sophistiqués et prospère au rythme de l’inflation de barrières entre pays, mais aussi entre quartiers urbains.

      Un business d’autant plus florissant qu’il s’auto-entretient, dès lors que les mêmes entreprises vendent des armes. On sait que les ventes d’armes, alimentant les guerres, stimulent les migrations : un « cercle vertueux » s’enclenche pour les entreprises du secteur, appelées à la rescousse pour contenir des mouvements de population qu’elles participent à encourager.
      « Mourir aux frontières »

      Bénéfices juteux, profits politiques, les barrières font des heureux. Elles tuent aussi et l’ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière se termine sur un décompte macabre. C’est, dit-il, une « guerre migratoire » qui est en cours. Guerre asymétrique, elle oppose la police armée des puissances économiques à des groupes le plus souvent désarmés, venant de périphéries dominées économiquement et dont on entend contrôler la mobilité. Au nom de la souveraineté des États, cette guerre fait plusieurs milliers de victimes par an et la moindre des choses est de « prendre la pleine mesure de la létalité contemporaine aux frontières ».

      Sur le blog :

      – Une synthèse sur les murs frontaliers : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/01/28/lamour-des-murs

      – Le compte rendu d’un autre livre incontournable sur les frontières : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/08/03/frontieres-en-mouvement

      – Une synthèse sur les barricades à l’échelle intraurbaine : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/10/21/gated-communities-le-paradis-entre-quatre-murs

      http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/11/05/le-business-meurtrier-des-frontieres

    • How Private Security Firms Profit Off the Refugee Crisis

      The UK has pumped money to corporations turning #Calais into a bleak fortress.

      Tall white fences lined with barbed wire – welcome to Calais. The city in northern France is an obligatory stop for anyone trying to reach the UK across the channel. But some travellers are more welcome than others, and in recent decades, a slew of private security companies have profited millions of pounds off a very expensive – an unattractive – operation to keep migrants from crossing.

      Every year, thousands of passengers and lorries take the ferry at the Port of Calais-Fréthun, a trading route heavily relied upon by the UK for imports. But the entrance to the port looks more like a maximum-security prison than your typical EU border. Even before Brexit, the UK was never part of the Schengen area, which allows EU residents to move freely across 26 countries. For decades, Britain has strictly controlled its southern border in an attempt to stop migrants and asylum seekers from entering.

      As early as 2000, the Port of Calais was surrounded by a 2.8 metre-high fence to prevent people from jumping into lorries waiting at the ferry departure point. In 1999, the Red Cross set up a refugee camp in the nearby town of Sangatte which quickly became overcrowded. The UK pushed for it to be closed in 2002 and then negotiated a treaty with France to regulate migration between the two countries.

      The 2003 Le Toquet Treaty allowed the UK to check travellers on French soil before their arrival, and France to do the same on UK soil. Although the deal looks fair on paper, in practice it unduly burdens French authorities, as there are more unauthorised migrants trying to reach the UK from France than vice versa.

      The treaty effectively moved the UK border onto French territory, but people still need to cross the channel to request asylum. That’s why thousands of refugees from conflict zones like Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia have found themselves stranded in Calais, waiting for a chance to cross illegally – often in search of family members who’ve already made it to the UK. Many end up paying people smugglers to hide them in lorries or help them cross by boat.

      These underlying issues came to a head during the Syrian crisis, when refugees began camping out near Calais in 2014. The so-called Calais Jungle became infamous for its squalid conditions, and at its peak, hosted more than 7,000 people. They were all relocated to other centres in France before the camp was bulldozed in 2016. That same year, the UK also decided to build a €2.7 million border wall in Calais to block access to the port from the camp, but the project wasn’t completed until after the camp was cleared, attracting a fair deal of criticism. Between 2015 and 2018, the UK spent over €110 million on border security in France, only to top it up with over €56 million more in 2018.

      But much of this public money actually flows into the accounts of private corporations, hired to build and maintain the high-tech fences and conduct security checks. According to a 2020 report by the NGO Care4Calais, there are more than 40 private security companies working in the city. One of the biggest, Eamus Cork Solutions (ECS), was founded by a former Calais police officer in 2004 and is reported to have benefited at least €30 million from various contracts as of 2016.

      Stéphane Rosière, a geography professor at the University of Reims, wrote his book Iron Borders (only available in French) about the many border walls erected around the world. Rosière calls this the “security-industrial” complex – private firms that have largely replaced the traditional military-industrial sector in Europe since WW2.

      “These companies are getting rich by making security systems adaptable to all types of customers – individuals, companies or states,” he said. According to Rosière, three-quarters of the world’s border security barriers were built in the 21st century.

      Brigitte, a pensioner living close to the former site of the Calais Jungle, has seen her town change drastically over the past two decades. “Everything is cordoned off with wire mesh," she said. "I have the before and after photos, and it’s not a pretty sight. It’s just wire, wire, wire.” For the past 15 years, Brigitte has been opening her garage door for asylum seekers to stop by for a cup of tea and charge their phones and laptops, earning her the nickname "Mama Charge”.

      “For a while, the purpose of these fences and barriers was to stop people from crossing,” said François Guennoc, president of L’Auberge des Migrants, an NGO helping displaced migrants in Calais.

      Migrants have still been desperate enough to try their luck. “They risked a lot to get into the port area, and many of them came back bruised and battered,” Guennoc said. Today, walls and fences are mainly being built to deter people from settling in new camps near Calais after being evicted.

      In the city centre, all public squares have been fenced off. The city’s bridges have been fitted with blue lights and even with randomly-placed bike racks, so people won’t sleep under them.

      “They’ve also been cutting down trees for some time now,” said Brigitte, pointing to a patch near her home that was once woods. Guennoc said the authorities are now placing large rocks in areas where NGOs distribute meals and warm clothes, to prevent displaced people from receiving the donations. “The objective of the measures now is also to make the NGOs’ work more difficult,” he said.

      According to the NGO Refugee Rights Europe, about 1,500 men, women and minors were living in makeshift camps in and around Calais as of April 2020. In July 2020, French police raided a camp of over 500 people, destroying residents’ tents and belongings, in the largest operation since the Calais Jungle was cleared. An investigation by Slate found that smaller camps are cleared almost every day by the French police, even in the middle of winter. NGOs keep providing new tents and basic necessities to displaced residents, but they are frustrated by the waste of resources. The organisations are also concerned about COVID-19 outbreaks in the camps.

      As VICE World News has previously reported, the crackdown is only pushing people to take more desperate measures to get into the UK. Boat crossings reached record-highs in 2020, and four people have died since August 2020 while trying to cross, by land and sea. “When you create an obstacle, people find a way to get around it,” Guennoc said. “If they build a wall all the way along the coast to prevent boat departures, people will go to Normandy – and that has already started.” Crossing the open sea puts migrants at even greater risk.

      Rosière agrees security measures are only further endangering migrants.“All locks eventually open, no matter how complex they may be. It’s just a matter of time.”

      He believes the only parties who stand to profit from the status quo are criminal organisations and private security firms: “At the end of the day, this a messed-up use of public money.”

      https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8yax/how-private-security-firms-profit-off-the-refugee-crisis

      En français:
      À Calais, la ville s’emmure
      https://www.vice.com/fr/article/wx8yax/a-calais-la-ville-semmure

    • Financing Border Wars. The border industry, its financiers and human rights

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.

      Executive summary

      Migration will be one of the defining human rights issues of the 21st century. The growing pressures to migrate combined with the increasingly militarised state security response will only exacerbate an already desperate situation for refugees and migrants. Refugees already live in a world where human rights are systematically denied. So as the climate crisis deepens and intersects with other economic and political crises, forcing more people from their homes, and as states retreat to ever more authoritarian security-based responses, the situation for upholding and supporting migrants’ rights looks ever bleaker.

      States, most of all those in the richest countries, bear the ultimate responsibility to uphold the human rights of refugees and migrants recognised under International Human Rights Law. Yet corporations are also deeply implicated. It is their finance, their products, their services, their infrastructure that underpins the structures of state migration and border control. In some cases, they are directly involved in human rights violations themselves; in other cases they are indirectly involved as they facilitate the system that systematically denies refugees and migrants their rights. Most of all, through their lobbying, involvement in government ‘expert’ groups, revolving doors with state agencies, it becomes clear that corporations are not just accidental beneficiaries of the militarisation of borders. Rather they actively shape the policies from which they profit and therefore share responsibility for the human rights violations that result.

      This state-corporate fusion is best described as a Border Industrial Complex, drawing on former US President Eisenhower’s warning of the dangers of a Military-Industrial Complex. Indeed it is noticeable that many of the leading border industries today are also military companies, seeking to diversify their security products to a rapidly expanding new market.

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.
      A booming industry

      The border industry is experiencing spectacular growth, seemingly immune to austerity or economic downturns. Market research agencies predict annual growth of the border security market of between 7.2% and 8.6%, reaching a total of $65–68 billion by 2025. The largest expansion is in the global Biometrics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) markets. Markets and Markets forecasts the biometric systems market to double from $33 billion in 2019 to $65.3 billion by 2024—of which biometrics for migration purposes will be a significant sector. It says that the AI market will equal US$190.61 billion by 2025.

      The report investigates five key sectors of the expanding industry: border security (including monitoring, surveillance, walls and fences), biometrics and smart borders, migrant detention, deportation, and audit and consultancy services. From these sectors, it profiles 23 corporations as significant actors: Accenture, Airbus, Booz Allen Hamilton, Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Deloitte, Elbit, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, IBM, IDEMIA, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Mitie, Palantir, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Serco, Sopra Steria, Thales, Thomson Reuters, Unisys.

      – The border security and control field, the technological infrastructure of security and surveillance at the border, is led by US, Australian, European and Israeli firms including Airbus, Elbit, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Leonardo and Thales— all of which are among the world’s major arms sellers. They benefit not only from border contracts within the EU, US, and Australia but also increasingly from border externalisation programmes funded by these same countries. Jean Pierre Talamoni, head of sales and marketing at Airbus Defence and Space (ADS), said in 2016 that he estimates that two thirds of new military market opportunities over the next 10 years will be in Asia and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Companies are also trying to muscle in on providing the personnel to staff these walls, including border guards.

      - The Smart Borders sector encompasses the use of a broad range of (newer) technologies, including biometrics (such as fingerprints and iris-scans), AI and phone and social media tracking. The goal is to speed up processes for national citizens and other acceptable travellers and stop or deport unwanted migrants through the use of more sophisticated IT and biometric systems. Key corporations include large IT companies, such as IBM and Unisys, and multinational services company Accenture for whom migration is part of their extensive portfolio, as well as small firms, such as IDEMIA and Palantir Technologies, for whom migration-related work is central. The French public–private company Civipol, co-owned by the state and several large French arms companies, is another key player, selected to set up fingerprint databases of the whole population of Mali and Senegal.

      – Deportation. With the exception of the UK and the US, it is uncommon to privatise deportation. The UK has hired British company Mitie for its whole deportation process, while Classic Air Charter dominates in the US. Almost all major commercial airlines, however, are also involved in deportations. Newsweek reported, for example, that in the US, 93% of the 1,386 ICE deportation flights to Latin American countries on commercial airlines in 2019 were facilitated by United Airlines (677), American Airlines (345) and Delta Airlines (266).

      - Detention. The Global Detention Project lists over 1,350 migrant detention centres worldwide, of which over 400 are located in Europe, almost 200 in the US and nine in Australia. In many EU countries, the state manages detention centres, while in other countries (e.g. Australia, UK, USA) there are completely privatised prisons. Many other countries have a mix of public and private involvement, such as state facilities with private guards. Australia outsourced refugee detention to camps outside its territories. Australian service companies Broadspectrum and Canstruct International managed the detention centres, while the private security companies G4S, Paladin Solutions and Wilson Security were contracted for security services, including providing guards. Migrant detention in third countries is also an increasingly important part of EU migration policy, with the EU funding construction of migrant detention centres in ten non-EU countries.

      - Advisory and audit services are a more hidden part of public policies and practices, but can be influential in shaping new policies. A striking example is Civipol, which in 2003 wrote a study on maritime borders for the European Commission, which adopted its key policy recommendations in October 2003 and in later policy documents despite its derogatory language against refugees. Civipol’s study also laid foundations for later measures on border externalisation, including elements of the migration deal with Turkey and the EU’s Operation Sophia. Since 2003 Civipol has received funding for a large number of migration-related projects, especially in African countries. Between 2015 and 2017, it was the fourth most-funded organisation under the EU Trust Fund. Other prominent corporations in this sector include Eurasylum, as well as major international consultancy firms, particularly Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers, for which migration-related work is part of their expansive portfolio.

      Financing the industry

      The markets for military and border control procurement are characterized by massively capital intensive investments and contracts, which would not be possible without the involvement of financial actors. Using data from marketscreener.com, the report shows that the world’s largest investment companies are also among the major shareholders in the border industry.

      – The Vanguard Group owns shares in 15 of the 17 companies, including over 15% of the shares of CoreCivic and GEO Group that manage private prisons and detention facilities.

      - Other important investors are Blackrock, which is a major shareholder in 11 companies, Capital Research and Management (part of the Capital Group), with shares in arms giants Airbus and Lockheed Martin, and State Street Global Advisors (SsgA), which owns over 15% of Lockheed Martin shares and is also a major shareholder in six other companies.

      - Although these giant asset management firms dominate, two of the profiled companies, Cobham and IDEMIA, are currently owned by the private equity firm Advent International. Advent specialises in buyouts and restructuring, and it seems likely that it will attempt to split up Cobham in the hope of making a profit by selling on the component companies to other owners.

      - In addition, three large European arms companies, Airbus, Thales and Leonardo, active in the border security market, are partly owned by the governments of the countries where they are headquartered.

      In all cases, therefore, the financing depends on our money. In the case of state ownership, through our taxes, and in terms of asset management funds, through the way individual savings, pension funds, insurance companies and university endowments are directly invested in these companies via the giant Asset Management Funds. This financing means that the border industry survives on at least the tacit approved use of the public’s funds which makes it vulnerable to social pressure as the human rights costs of the industry become ever more clear.
      Human rights and the border industry

      Universal human rights apply to every single human being, including refugees and migrants. While the International Bill of Human Rights provides the foundation, including defining universal rights that are important in the context of migration, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to freedom from torture or cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and freedom from discrimination, there are other instruments such as the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention or Geneva Convention) of 1951 that are also relevant. There are also regional agreements, including the Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that play a role relevant to the countries that have ratified them.

      Yet despite these important and legally binding human rights agreements, the human rights situation for refugees and migrants has become ever more desperate. States frequently deny their rights under international law, such as the right to seek asylum or non-refoulement principles, or more general rights such as the freedom from torture, cruel or inhumane treatment. There is a gap with regard to effective legal means or grievance mechanisms to counter this or to legally enforce or hold to account states that fail to implement instruments such as the UDHR and the Refugee Convention of 1951. A Permanent Peoples Tribunal in 2019 even concluded that ‘taken together, the immigration and asylum policies and practices of the EU and its Member States constitute a total denial of the fundamental rights of people and migrants, and are veritable crimes against humanity’. A similar conclusion can be made of the US and Australian border and immigration regime.

      The increased militarisation of border security worldwide and state-sanctioned hostility toward migrants has had a deeply detrimental impact on the human rights of refugees and migrants.

      – Increased border security has led to direct violence against refugees, pushbacks with the risk of returning people to unsafe countries and inhumane circumstances (contravening the principle of non-refoulement), and a disturbing rise in avoidable deaths, as countries close off certain migration routes, forcing migrants to look for other, often more dangerous, alternatives and pushing them into the arms of criminal smuggling networks.

      – The increased use of autonomous systems of border security such as drones threaten new dangers related to human rights. There is already evidence that they push migrants to take more dangerous routes, but there is also concern that there is a gradual trend towards weaponized systems that will further threaten migrants’ lives.

      – The rise in deportations has threatened fundamental human rights including the right to family unity, the right to seek asylum, the right to humane treatment in detention, the right to due process, and the rights of children’. There have been many instances of violence in the course of deportations, sometimes resulting in death or permanent harm, against desperate people who try to do everything to prevent being deported. Moreover, deportations often return refugees to unsafe countries, where they face violence, persecution, discrimination and poverty.

      - The widespread detention of migrants also fundamentally undermines their human rights . There have been many reports of violence and neglect by guards and prison authorities, limited access to adequate legal and medical support, a lack of decent food, overcrowding and poor and unhealthy conditions. Privatisation of detention exacerbates these problems, because companies benefit from locking up a growing number of migrants and minimising costs.

      – The building of major migration databases such as EU’s Eurodac and SIS II, VIS gives rise to a range of human rights concerns, including issues of privacy, civil liberties, bias leading to discrimination—worsened by AI processes -, and misuse of collected information. Migrants are already subject to unprecedented levels of surveillance, and are often now treated as guinea pigs where even more intrusive technologies such as facial recognition and social media tracking are tried out without migrants consent.

      The trend towards externalisation of migration policies raises new concerns as it seeks to put the human costs of border militarisation beyond the border and out of public sight. This has led to the EU, US and Australia all cooperating with authoritarian regimes to try and prevent migrants from even getting close to their borders. Moreover as countries donate money, equipment or training to security forces in authoritarian regimes, they end up expanding and strengthening their capacities which leads to a rise in human rights violations more broadly. Nowhere are the human rights consequences of border externalisation policies clearer than in the case of Libya, where the EU and individual member states (in particular Italy and Malta) funding, training and cooperation with security forces and militias have led to violence at the borders, murder, disappearances, rape, enslavement and abuse of migrants in the country and torture in detention centres.

      The 23 corporations profiled in this report have all been involved in or connected to policies and practices that have come under fire because of violations of the human rights of refugees and migrants. As mentioned earlier, sometimes the companies are directly responsible for human rights violations or concerns. In other cases, they are indirectly responsible through their contribution to a border infrastructure that denies human rights and through lobbying to influence policy-making to prioritize militarized responses to migration. 11 of the companies profiled publicly proclaim their commitment to human rights as signatories to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), but as these are weak voluntary codes this has not led to noticeable changes in their business operations related to migration.

      The most prominent examples of direct human rights abuses come from the corporations involved in detention and deportation. Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, Mitie and Serco all have faced allegations of violence and abuse by their staff towards migrants. G4S has been one of the companies most often in the spotlight. In 2017, not only were assaults by its staff on migrants at the Brook House immigration removal centre in the UK broadcast by the BBC, but it was also hit with a class suit in Australia by almost 2,000 people who are or were detained at the externalised detention centre on Manus Island, because of physical and psychological injuries as a result of harsh treatment and dangerous conditions. The company eventually settled the case for A$70 million (about $53 million) in the largest-ever human rights class-action settlement. G4S has also faced allegations related to its involvement in deportations.

      The other companies listed all play a pivotal role in the border infrastructure that denies refugees’ human rights. Airbus P-3 Orion surveillance planes of the Australian Air Force, for example, play a part in the highly controversial maritime wall that prevents migrants arriving by boat and leads to their detention in terrible conditions offshore. Lockheed Martin is a leading supplier of border security on the US-Mexico border. Leonardo is one of the main suppliers of drones for Europe’s borders. Thales produces the radar and sensor systems, critical to patrolling the Mediterrean. Elbit Systems provides surveillance technologies to both the EU and US, marketed on their success as technologies used in the separation wall in the Palestinian occupied territories. Accenture, IDEMIA and Sopra Steria manage many border biometric projects. Deloitte has been one of the key consulting companies to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency since 2003, while PriceWaterhouseCoopers provides similar consultancy services to Frontex and the Australian border forces. IBM, Palantir and UNISYS provide the IT infrastructure that underpins the border and immigration apparatus.
      Time to divest

      The report concludes by calling for campaigns to divest from the border industry. There is a long history of campaigns and movements that call for divestment from industries that support human rights violations—from the campaigns to divest from Apartheid South Africa to more recent campaigns to divest from the fossil fuel industry. The border industry has become an equally morally toxic asset for any financial institution, given the litany of human rights abuses tied to it and the likelihood they will intensify in years to come.

      There are already examples of existing campaigns targeting particular border industries that have borne fruit. A spotlight on US migrant detention, as part of former President Trump’s anti- immigration policies, contributed to six large US banks (Bank of America, BNP Paribas, Fifth Third Bancorp, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust, and Wells Fargo) publicly announcing that they would not provide new financing to the private prison industry. The two largest public US pension funds, CalSTRS and CalPERS, also decided to divest from the same two companies. Geo Group acknowledged that these acts of ‘public resistance’ hit the company financially, criticising the banks as ‘clearly bow[ing] down to a small group of activists protesting and conducting targeted social media campaigns’.

      Every company involved or accused of human rights violations either denies them or says that they are atypical exceptions to corporate behavior. This report shows however that a militarised border regime built on exclusion will always be a violent apparatus that perpetuates human rights violations. It is a regime that every day locks up refugees in intolerable conditions, separates families causing untold trauma and heartbreak, and causes a devastating death toll as refugees are forced to take unimaginable dangerous journeys because the alternatives are worse. However well-intentioned, any industry that provides services and products for this border regime will bear responsibility for its human consequences and its human rights violations, and over time will suffer their own serious reputational costs for their involvement in this immoral industry. On the other hand, a widespread exodus of the leading corporations on which the border regime depends could force states to change course, and to embrace a politics that protects and upholds the rights of refugees and migrants. Worldwide, social movements and the public are starting to wake up to the human costs of border militarisation and demanding a fundamental change. It is time now for the border industry and their financiers to make a choice.

      https://www.tni.org/en/financingborderwars

      #TNI #rapport
      #industrie_frontalière #militarisation_des_frontières #biométrie #Intelligence_artificielle #AI #IA

      #Accenture #Airbus #Booz_Allen_Hamilton #Classic_Air_Charter #Cobham #CoreCivic #Deloitte #Elbit #Eurasylum #G4S #GEO_Group #IBM #IDEMIA #Leonardo #Lockheed_Martin #Mitie #Palantir #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Serco #Sopra_Steria #Thales #Thomson_Reuters #Unisys
      #contrôles_frontaliers #surveillance #technologie #Jean-Pierre_Talamoni #Airbus_Defence_and_Space (#ADS) #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes #iris #empreintes_digitales #réseaux_sociaux #IT #Civipol #Mali #Sénégal #renvois #expulsions #déportations #Mitie #Classic_Air_Charter #compagnies_aériennes #United_Airlines #ICE #American_Airlines #Delta_Airlines #rétention #détention_administrative #privatisation #Broadspectrum #Canstruct_International #Paladin_Solutions #Wilson_Security #Operation_Sophia #EU_Trust_Fund #Trust_Fund #externalisation #Eurasylum #Deloitte #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Vanguard_Group #CoreCivic #Blackrock #investisseurs #investissement #Capital_Research_and_Management #Capital_Group #Lockheed_Martin #State_Street_Global_Advisors (#SsgA) #Cobham #IDEMIA #Advent_International #droits_humains #VIS #SIS_II #P-3_Orion #Accenture #Sopra_Steria #Frontex #Australie

    • Outsourcing oppression. How Europe externalises migrant detention beyond its shores

      This report seeks to address the gap and join the dots between Europe’s outsourcing of migrant detention to third countries and the notorious conditions within the migrant detention centres. In a nutshell, Europe calls the shots on migrant detention beyond its shores but is rarely held to account for the deeply oppressive consequences, including arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearance, violence, sexual violence, and death.

      Key findings

      – The European Union (EU), and its member states, externalise detention to third countries as part of a strategy to keep migrants out at all costs. This leads to migrants being detained and subjected to gross human rights violations in transit countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, West Asia and Africa.

      – Candidate countries wishing to join the EU are obligated to detain migrants and stop them from crossing into the EU as a prerequisite for accession to the Union. Funding is made available through pre-accession agreements specifically for the purpose of detaining migrants.

      – Beyond EU candidate countries, this report identifies 22 countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and West Asia where the EU and its member states fund the construction of detention centres, detention related activities such as trainings, or advocate for detention in other ways such as through aggressively pushing for detention legislation or agreeing to relax visa requirements for nationals of these countries in exchange for increased migrant detention.

      - The main goal of detention externalisation is to pre-empt migrants from reaching the external borders of the EU by turning third countries into border outposts. In many cases this involves the EU and its member states propping up and maintaining authoritarian regimes.

      – Europe is in effect following the ‘Australian model’ that has been highly criticised by UN experts and human rights organisations for the torturous conditions inside detention centres. Nevertheless, Europe continues to advance a system that mirrors Australia’s outsourced model, focusing not on guaranteeing the rights of migrants, but instead on deterring and pushing back would-be asylum seekers at all costs.

      - Human rights are systematically violated in detention centres directly and indirectly funded by the EU and its member states, including cases of torture, arbitrary and prolonged detention, sexual violence, no access to legal recourse, humanitarian assistance, or asylum procedures, the detention of victims of trafficking, and many other serious violations in which Europe is implicated.

      - Particularly horrendous is the case of Libya, which continues to receive financial and political support from Europe despite mounting evidence of brutality, enslavement, torture, forced disappearance and death. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), implement EU policies in Libya and, according to aid officials, actively whitewash the consequences of European policies to safeguard substantial EU funding.

      - Not only does the EU deport and push back migrants to unsafe third countries, it actively finances and coercively pushes for their detention in these countries. Often they have no choice but to sign ‘voluntary’ agreements to be returned to their countries of origin as the only means of getting out of torturous detention facilities.

      - The EU implements a carrot and stick approach, in particular in its dealings with Africa, prolonging colonialist dynamics and uneven power structures – in Niger, for example, the EU pushed for legislation on detention, in exchange for development aid funding.

      – The EU envisages a greater role for migrant detention in third countries going forward, as was evidenced in the European Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      - The EU acts on the premise of containment and deterrence, namely, that if migrants seeking to reach Europe are intercepted and detained along that journey, they will be deterred from making the journey in the first place. This approach completely misses the point that people migrate to survive, often fleeing war and other forms of violence. The EU continues to overlook the structural reasons behind why people flee and the EU’s own role in provoking such migration.

      – The border industrial complex profits from the increased securitisation of borders. Far from being passive spectators, the military and security industry is actively involved in shaping EU border policies by positioning themselves as experts on the issue. We can already see a trend of privatising migrant detention, paralleling what is happening in prison systems worldwide.

      https://www.tni.org/en/outsourcingoppression

      pour télécharger le rapport :
      https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/outsourcingoppression-report-tni.pdf

      #externalisation #rétention #détention #détention_arbitraire #violence #disparitions #disparitions_forcées #violence #violence_sexuelle #morts #mort #décès #Afrique #Europe_de_l'Est #Balkans #Asie #modèle_australien #EU #UE #Union_européenne #torture #Libye #droits_humains #droits_fondamentaux #HCR #UNHCR #OIM #IOM #dissuasion #privatisation

  • The Business of Building Walls | Transnational Institute
    https://www.tni.org/en/businessbuildingwalls

    Who killed the dream of a more open Europe? What gave rise to this new era of walls? There are clearly many reasons – the increasing displacement of people by conflict, repression and impoverishment, the rise of security politics in the wake of 9/11, the economic and social insecurity felt across Europe after the 2008 financial crisis – to name a few. But one group has by far the most to gain from the rise of new walls – the businesses that build them. Their influence in shaping a world of walls needs much deeper examination.

    This report explores the business of building walls, which has both fuelled and benefited from a massive expansion of public spending on border security by the European Union (EU) and its member states. Some of the corporate beneficiaries are also global players, tapping into a global market for border security estimated to be worth approximately €17.5 billion in 2018, with annual growth of at least 8% expected in coming years.

    #industrie_du_mur #industrie_de_la_mort #business #conflit #migration

  • #Etats-Unis. Beaucoup plus qu’un simple #mur : le #business rentable et meurtrier de la militarisation des #frontières | A l’encontre
    http://alencontre.org/ameriques/americnord/usa/etats-unis-beaucoup-plus-quun-simple-mur-le-business-rentable-et-meurtri

    Le résumé du rapport du Transnational Institute examine le rôle des plus grandes firmes d’armement du monde (ainsi que d’un certain nombre d’autres entreprises de sécurité et d’informatique) dans le façonnement de la militarisation des frontières états-uniennes et les avantages qu’elles en tirent. Par leurs contributions à la campagne électorale, leurs activités de #lobbying, leur engagement constant auprès des représentants du gouvernement et la navette des cadres entre l’industrie et le gouvernement, ces sociétés de sécurité frontalière et leurs alliés gouvernementaux ont formé un puissant complexe industriel frontalier qui constitue un obstacle majeur à une réponse humaniste à la #migration.

  • Democracy not for sale
    The struggle for food sovereignty in the age of austerity in Greece

    19 November 2018
    Report
    Austerity measures led to increased rural poverty and food insecurity in Greece and violated her people’s human right to food. How did this happen and who is responsible?

    This Report examines the impacts of austerity in Greece on the right to food. It concludes that the Greek State and the Eurozone Member States violated the Greek people’s right to food as a result of the austerity measures required by three Memorandums of Understanding (2010, 2012 and 2015). In other words, the austerity packages imposed on Greece contravened international human rights law.

    The share of households with children unable to afford a protein-based meal on a daily basis doubled from 4.7% in 2009 to 8.9% in 2014. EU statistics estimate that 40.5% of children in 2016 faced material and social deprivation.

    Taxes as a proportion of agricultural net value added soared from 4% between 1993 and 2010 to 15.4% in 2016.

    Troika members claim that the sole responsibility for the impacts of the MoUs lies with the Greek State. This argument is false because they, with Greece, were joint signatures of the three MoUs. Therefore, the responsibility for violations of the right to food is a shared one too. Indeed it can be argued that the responsibility of the Eurozone Member States is much bigger, given the evidence of direct interference or even coercion by the Member States of the Troika on Greece to sign the MoUs.

    Eurozone Member States – as States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and other international human rights instruments – have therefore breached their extraterritorial obligations to respect the human right to food in Greece.

    https://www.tni.org/en/democracy-not-for-sale

    #grèce #austérité #nourriture #UE #EU #souveraineté_alimentaire

  • #Expanding_the_fortress

    La politique d’#externalisation_des_frontières de l’UE, ses bénéficiaires et ses conséquences pour les #droits_humains.

    Résumé du rapport

    La situation désespérée des 66 millions de personnes déplacées dans le monde ne semble troubler la conscience européenne que lorsqu’un drame a lieu à ses frontières et se retrouve sous le feu des projecteurs médiatiques. Un seul État européen – l’Allemagne – se place dans les dix premiers pays au monde en termes d’accueil des réfugiés : la grande majorité des personnes contraintes de migrer est accueillie par des États se classant parmi les plus pauvres au monde. Les migrations ne deviennent visibles aux yeux de l’Union européenne (UE) que lorsque les médias s’intéressent aux communautés frontalières de Calais, Lampedusa ou Lesbos et exposent le sort de personnes désespérées, fuyant la violence et qui finissent par mourir, être mises en détention ou se retrouver bloquées.

    Ces tragédies ne sont pas seulement une conséquence malheureuse des conflits et des guerres en cours dans différents endroits du monde. Elles sont aussi le résultat des politiques migratoires européennes mises en œuvre depuis les accords de Schengen de 1985. Ces politiques se sont concentrées sur le renforcement des frontières, le développement de méthodes sophistiquées de surveillance et de traque des personnes, ainsi que l’augmentation des déportations, tout en réduisant les possibilités de résidence légale malgré des besoins accrus. Cette approche a conduit un grand nombre de personnes fuyant la violence et les conflits et incapables d’entrer en Europe de manière légale à emprunter des routes toujours plus dangereuses.

    Ce qui est moins connu, c’est que les tragédies causées par cette politique européenne se jouent également bien au-delà de nos frontières, dans des pays aussi éloignés que le Sénégal ou l’Azerbaïdjan. Il s’agit d’un autre pilier de la gestion européenne des flux migratoires : l’externalisation des frontières. Depuis 1992, et plus encore depuis 2005, l’UE a mis en œuvre des politiques visant à externaliser les frontières du continent et empêcher les populations déplacées de parvenir à ses portes. Cela implique la conclusion d’accords avec les pays voisins de l’UE afin qu’ils reprennent les réfugiés déportés et adoptent, comme l’Europe, des mesures de contrôle des frontières, de surveillance accrue des personnes et de renforcement de leurs frontières. En d’autres termes, ces accords ont fait des pays voisins de l’UE ses nouveaux garde-frontières. Et parce qu’ils sont loin des frontières européennes et de l’attention médiatique, les impacts de ces politiques restent relativement invisibles aux yeux des citoyens européens.

    Ce rapport cherche à mettre en lumière les politiques qui fondent l’externalisation des frontières européennes et les accords conclus, mais aussi les multinationales et sociétés privées qui en bénéficient, et les conséquences pour les personnes déplacées ainsi que pour les pays et les populations qui les accueillent. Il est le troisième de la série Border Wars, qui vise à examiner les politiques frontalières européennes et à montrer comment les industries des secteurs de l’armement et de la sécurité ont contribué à façonner les politiques de sécurisation des frontières de l’Europe, puis en ont tiré les bénéfices en obtenant un nombre croissant de contrats dans le secteur.

    Ce rapport étudie l’augmentation significative du nombre de mesures et d’accords d’externalisation des frontières depuis 2005, le phénomène s’accélérant massivement depuis le sommet Europe-Afrique de La Valette en novembre 2015. Via une série de nouveaux instruments, tels que le Fonds fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique (EUTF), le Cadre pour les partenariats avec les pays tiers en matière de gestion des migrations et la Facilité en faveur des réfugiés en Turquie, l’UE et les États membres injectent des millions d’euros dans un ensemble de projets visant à prévenir la migration de certaines populations vers le territoire européen.

    Cela implique la collaboration avec des pays tiers en matière d’accueil des personnes déportées, de formation des forces de police et des garde-frontières ou le développement de systèmes biométriques complets, ainsi que des donations d’équipements incluant hélicoptères, bateaux et véhicules, mais aussi des équipements de surveillance et de contrôle. Si de nombreux projets sont coordonnés par la Commission européenne, un certain nombre d’États membres, tels que l’Espagne, l’Italie et l’Allemagne, prennent également des initiatives individuelles plus poussées en finançant et en soutenant les efforts d’externalisation des frontières par le biais d’accords bilatéraux.

    Ce qui rend cette collaboration particulièrement problématique est le fait que de nombreux gouvernements qui en bénéficient sont profondément autoritaires, et que les financements sont souvent destinés aux organes de l’État les plus responsables des actes de répression et de violations des droits humains. L’UE fait valoir, à travers l’ensemble de ses politiques, une rhétorique consensuelle autour de l’importance des droits humains, de la démocratie et de l’état de droit ; il semble cependant qu’aucune limite ne soit posée lorsque l’Europe soutient des régimes dictatoriaux pour que ces derniers s’engagent à empêcher « l’immigration irrégulière » vers le sol européen. Le résultat concret se traduit par des accords et des financements conclus entre l’UE et des régimes aussi tristement célèbres que ceux du Tchad, du Niger, de Biélorussie, de Libye ou du Soudan.

    Les politiques européennes dans ce domaine ont des conséquences considérables pour les personnes déplacées, que le statut « illégal » rend déjà vulnérables et plus susceptibles de subir des violations de droits humains. Nombre d’entre elles finissent exploitées, avec des conditions de travail inacceptables, ou encore sont mises en détention ou directement déportées dans le pays qu’elles ont fui. Les femmes réfugiées sont particulièrement menacées par les violences basées sur le genre, les agressions et l’exploitation sexuelles.

    La violence et la répression que subissent les déplacés favorisent également l’immigration clandestine, reconfigurant les activités des passeurs et renforçant le pouvoir des réseaux criminels. De fait, les personnes déplacées sont souvent forcées de se lancer sur des routes alternatives, plus dangereuses, et de s’en remettre à des trafiquants de moins en moins scrupuleux. En conséquence, le nombre de morts sur les routes migratoires s’élève de jour en jour.

    En outre, le renforcement des organes de sécurité de l’Etat dans l’ensemble des pays du MENA (Moyen Orient Afrique du Nord), du Maghreb, du Sahel et de la Corne de l’Afrique constitue une menace directe contre les droits humains et la responsabilité démocratique dans ces zones, notamment en détournant des ressources essentielles qui pourraient suppress être destinées à des mesures économiques ou sociales. En effet, ce rapport montre que l’obsession européenne à prévenir les flux migratoires réduit non seulement les ressources disponibles, mais dénature également les échanges, l’aide et les relations internationales entre l’Europe et ces régions. Comme l’ont signalé de nombreux experts, ce phénomène crée un terreau favorable à toujours plus d’instabilité et d’insécurité, et a pour conséquence de pousser toujours plus de personnes à prendre la route de l’exil.

    Un secteur économique a cependant grandement tiré parti des programmes d’externalisation des frontières de l’UE. En effet, comme l’ont montré les premiers rapports Border Wars, les secteurs de l’industrie militaire et de sécurité ont été les principaux bénéficiaires des contrats de fourniture d’équipements et de services pour la sécurité frontalière. Les entreprises de ces secteurs travaillent en partenariat avec un certain nombre d’institutions intergouvernementales et (semi) publiques qui ont connu une croissance significative ces dernières années, à mesure qu’étaient mise en oeuvre des dizaines de projets portant sur la sécurité et le contrôle des frontières dans des pays tiers.
    Le rapport révèle que :

    La grande majorité des 35 pays considérés comme prioritaires par l’UE pour l’externalisation de ses frontières sont gouvernés par des régimes autoritaires, connus pour leurs violation des droits humains et avec des indicateurs de développement humain faibles.
    48% d’entre eux (17) ont un gouvernement autoritaire, et seulement quatre d’entre eux sont considérés comme démocratiques (mais toujours imparfaits)
    448% d’entre eux (17) sont listés comme « non-libres », et seulement trois sont listés comme « libres » ; 34% d’entre eux (12) présentent des risques extrêmes en matière de droits humains et les 23 autres présentent des risques élevés.
    51% d’entre eux (18) sont caractérisés par un « faible développement humain », seulement huit ont un haut niveau de développement humain.
    Plus de 70% d’entre eux (25) se situent dans le dernier tiers des pays du monde en termes de bien-être des femmes (inclusion, justice et sécurité)

    Les États européens continuent à vendre des armes à ces pays, et cela en dépit du fait que ces ventes alimentent les conflits, les actes de violence et de répression, et de ce fait contribuent à l’augmentation du nombre de réfugiés. La valeur totale des licences d’exportations d’armes délivrées par les États membres de l’UE à ces 35 pays sur la décennie 2007-2016 dépasse les 122 milliards d’euros. Parmi eux, 20% (7) sont sous le joug d’un embargo sur les ventes d’armes demandé par l’UE et/ou les Nations Unies, mais la plupart reçoivent toujours des armes de certains États membres, ainsi qu’un soutien à leurs forces armées et de sécurité dans le cadre des efforts liés aux politiques migratoires.

    Les dépenses de l’UE en matière de sécurité des frontières dans les pays tiers ont considérablement augmenté. Bien qu’il soit difficile de trouver des chiffres globaux, il existe de plus en plus d’instruments de financement pour les projets liés aux migrations, la sécurité et les migrations provient de plus en plus d’instruments, la sécurité et les migrations irrégulières étant les principales priorités. Ces fonds proviennent aussi de l’aide au développement. Plus de 80% du budget de l’EUTF vient du Fonds européen de développement et d’autres fonds d’aide au développement et d’aide humanitaire.

    L’augmentation des dépenses en matière de sécurité des frontières a bénéficié à un large éventail d’entreprises, en particulier des fabricants d’armes et des sociétés de sécurité biométrique. Le géant de l’armement français Thales, qui est également un exportateur incontournable d’armes dans la région, est par exemple un fournisseur reconnu de matériel militaire et de sécurité pour la sécurisation des frontières et de systèmes et équipements biométriques. D’autres fournisseurs importants de systèmes biométriques incluent Véridos, OT Morpho et Gemalto (qui sera bientôt racheté par Thales). L’Allemagne et l’Italie financent également leurs propres groupes d’armement – Hensoldt, Airbus et Rheinmetall pour l’Allemagne et Leonardo et Intermarine pour l’Italie – afin de soutenir des programmes de sécurisation des frontières dans un certain nombre de pays du MENA, en particulier l’Égypte, la Tunisie et la Libye. En Turquie, d’importants contrats de sécurisation des frontières ont été remportés par les groupes de défense turcs, notamment Aselsan et Otokar, qui utilisent les ressources pour subventionner leurs propres efforts de défense, également à l’origine des attaques controversées de la Turquie contre les communautés kurdes.

    Un certain nombre d’entreprises semi-publiques et d’organisations internationales ont également conclu des contrats de conseil, de formation et de gestion de projets en matière de sécurité des frontières. On y trouve la société para-gouvernementale française Civipol, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) et le Centre international pour le développement des politiques migratoires (ICMPD). Les groupes Thales, Airbus et Safran sont présents au capital de Civipol, qui a rédigé en 2003, à titre de consultant pour la Commission Européenne, un document très influent établissant les fondations pour les mesures actuelles d’externalisation des frontières, dont elle bénéficie aujourd’hui.

    Les financements et les dons en matière d’équipements militaires et de sécurité ainsi que la pression accrue sur les pays tiers pour qu’ils renforcent leurs capacités de sécurité aux frontières ont fait croître le marché de la sécurité en Afrique. Le groupe de lobbying Association européenne des industries aérospatiales et défense (ASD) a récemment concentré ses efforts sur l’externalisation des frontières de l’UE. De grands groupes d’armement tels qu’Airbus et Thales lorgnent également sur les marchés africains et du Moyen-Orient, en croissance.

    Les décisions et la mise en œuvre de l’externalisation des frontières au niveau de l’Union européenne ont été caractérisées par une rapidité d’exécution inhabituelle, hors du contrôle démocratique exercé par le Parlement européen. De nombreux accords importants avec des pays tiers, parmi lesquels les pactes « Migration Compact » signés dans le Cadre pour les partenariats et l’Accord UE- Turquie, ont été conclus sans ou à l’écart de tout contrôle parlementaire.

    Le renforcement et la militarisation de la sécurité des frontières ont conduit à une augmentation du nombre de morts parmi les personnes déplacées. En général, les mesures visant à bloquer une route particulière de migration poussent les personnes vers des routes plus dangereuses. En 2017, on a dénombré 1 mort pour 57 migrants traversant la Méditerranée ; en 2015, ce chiffre était de 1 pour 267. Cette statistique reflète le fait qu’en 2017, les personnes déplacées (pourtant moins nombreuses qu’en 2015), principalement originaires d’Afrique de l’Ouest et de pays subsahariens, ont préféré la route plus longue et plus dangereuse de la Méditerranée Centrale plutôt que la route entre la Turquie et la Grèce empruntée en 2015 par des migrants (principalement Syriens). On estime que le nombre de migrants morts dans le désert est au moins le double de ceux qui ont péri en Méditerranée, bien qu’aucun chiffre officiel ne soit conservé ou disponible.

    On assiste à une augmentation des forces militaires et de sécurité européennes dans les pays tiers pour la sécurité aux frontières. L’arrêt des flux migratoires est devenu une priorité des missions de Politique de sécurité et de défense commune (PSDC) au Mali et au Niger, tandis que des États membres tels que la France ou l’Italie ont également décidé de déployer des troupes au Niger ou en Libye.

    Frontex, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et garde-côtes, collabore de plus en plus avec les pays tiers. Elle a entamé des négociations avec des pays voisins de l’UE pour mener des opérations conjointes sur leurs territoires. La coopération en matière de déportation est déjà largement implantée. De 2010 à 2016, Frontex a coordonné 400 vols de retours conjoints avec des pays tiers, dont 153 en 2016. Depuis 2014, certains de ces vols ont été appelés « opérations de retour conjoint », l’avion et les escortes navigantes provenant des pays de destination. Les États membres invitent de plus en plus fréquemment des délégations de pays tiers à identifier les personnes « déportables » sur la base de l’évaluation de nationalité. Dans plusieurs cas, ces identifications ont conduit à l’arrestation et à la torture des personnes déportées.

    Ce rapport examine ces impacts en cherchant à établir comment ces politiques ont été mises en œuvre en Turquie, en Libye, en Égypte, au Soudan, au Niger, en Mauritanie et au Mali. Dans tous ces pays, pour parvenir à la conclusion de ces accords, l’UE a dû fermer les yeux ou limiter ses critiques sur les violations des droits humains.

    En Turquie, l’UE a adopté un modèle proche de celui de l’Australie, externalisant l’ensemble du traitement des personnes déplacées en dehors de ses frontières, et manquant ainsi à des obligations fondamentales établies par le droit international, telles que le principe de non-refoulement, le principe de non-discrimination (l’accord concerne exclusivement les populations syriennes) et le principe d’accès à l’asile.

    En Libye, la guerre civile et l’instabilité du pays n’ont pas empêché l’UE ni certains de ses États membres, comme l’Italie, de verser des fonds destinés aux équipements et aux systèmes de gestion des frontières, à la formation des garde-côtes et au financement des centres de détention – et ce bien qu’il ait été rapporté que des garde-côtes avaient ouvert le feu sur des bateaux de migrants ou que des centres de détentions étaient gérés par des milices comme des camps de prisonniers.

    En Égypte, la coopération frontalière avec le gouvernement allemand s’est intensifiée malgré la croissante consolidation du pouvoir militaire dans le pays. L’Allemagne finance les équipements et la formation régulière de la police aux frontières égyptienne. Les personnes déplacées se trouvent régulièrement piégées dans le pays, dans l’impossibilité de se rendre en Libye du fait de l’insécurité qui y règne, et subissent les tirs des gardes-côtes égyptiens s’ils décident de prendre la route maritime.

    Au Soudan, le soutien à la gestion des frontières fourni par l’UE n’a pas seulement conduit à suppress sortir un régime dictatorial de son isolement sur la scène internationale, mais a également renforcé les Forces de soutien rapide, constituées de combattants de la milice Janjawid, considérée comme responsables de violations de droits humains au Darfour.

    La situation au Niger, un des pays les plus pauvres au monde, montre bien le coût de la politique de contrôle des migrations subi par les économies locales. La répression en cours à Agadez a considérablement affaibli l’économie locale et poussé la migration dans la clandestinité, rendant la route plus dangereuse pour les migrants et renforçant le pouvoir des gangs de passeurs armés. De même au Mali, l’imposition des mesures d’externalisation des frontières par l’UE dans un pays tout juste sorti d’une guerre civile menace de raviver les tensions et de réveiller le conflit.

    L’ensemble des cas étudiés met en lumière une politique de l’UE via-à-vis de ses voisins obsessionnellement focalisée sur les contrôles migratoires, quel que soit le coût pour les pays concernés ou les populations déplacées. C’est une vision étroite et finalement vouée à l’échec de la sécurité, car elle ne s’attaque pas aux causes profondes qui poussent les gens à migrer : les conflits, la violence, le sous-développement économique et l’incapacité des États à gérer correctement ces situations. Au lieu de cela, en renforçant les forces militaires et de sécurité dans la région, ces politiques prennent le risque d’exacerber la répression, de limiter la responsabilité démocratique et d’attiser des conflits qui pousseront plus de personnes à quitter leurs pays. Il est temps de changer de cap. Plutôt que d’externaliser les frontières et les murs, nous devrions externaliser la vraie solidarité et le respect des droits de l’homme.


    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #UE #EU #Europe #rapport #infographie #visualisation #invisibilité #politiques_migratoires #surveillance #traque #renvois #expulsions #déportations #Sénégal #Azerbaïdjan #accords_de_réadmission #privatisation #multinationales #sécurisation_des_frontières #business #La_Vallette #Fonds_fiduciaire_d’urgence_pour_l’Afrique #fonds_fiduciaire #Turquie #partenariats #Tchad #Niger #Biélorussie #Libye #Soudan #violence #répression #mourir_aux_frontières #morts #décès #Maghreb #Sahel #Corne_de_l'Afrique #industrie_militaro-sécuritaire #armes #commerce_d'armes #Fonds_européen_de_développement #développement #coopération_au_développement #aide_au_développement #aide_humanitaire #Thales #Véridos #biométrie #OT_Morpho #Gemalto #Hensoldt #Airbus #Rheinmetall #Leonardo #Intermarine #Égypte #Tunisie #Aselsan #Otokar #Civipol #OIM #IOM #Centre_international_pour_le_développement_des_politiques_migratoires #ICMPD #Airbus #Safran #Association_européenne_des_industries_aérospatiales_et_défense #ASD #Migration_Compact #accord_UE-Turquie #Politique_de_sécurité_et_de_défense_commune #PSDC #Mali #Frontex #Mauritanie #militarisation_des_frontières

    pour télécharger le #rapport :
    https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf

    cc @reka @albertocampiphoto @daphne @marty

    • Esternalizzare le frontiere europee significa militarizzare

      Come dimostra il recente rapporto del Transnational Institut, «Espandendo la Fortezza», la crescita della spesa per il controllo delle frontiere esterne avvantaggia produttori di armi e società di sicurezza biometrica. Molte delle loro proposte sono poi apparse nell’Agenda europea sotto forma di decisioni politiche. Sara Prestianni analizza le conseguenze militari dell’esternalizzazione delle frontiere europee.

      http://openmigration.org/analisi/esternalizzare-le-frontiere-europee-significa-militarizzare

    • 3 liens vers des articles/reportages de #Gabriele_Del_Grande, un des premiers journalistes à avoir visité les centres en Libye.

      C’était 2008-2009
      Libia: siamo entrati a #Misratah. Ecco la verità sui 600 detenuti eritrei

      Di notte, quando cessano il vociare dei prigionieri e gli strilli della polizia, dal cortile del carcere si sente il rumore del mare. Sono le onde del Mediterraneo, che schiumano sulla spiaggia, a un centinaio di metri dal muro di cinta del campo di detenzione. Siamo a Misratah, 210 km a est di Tripoli, in Libia. E i detenuti sono tutti richiedenti asilo politico eritrei, arrestati al largo di Lampedusa o nei quartieri degli immigrati a Tripoli. Vittime collaterali della cooperazione italo libica contro l’immigrazione. Sono più di 600 persone, tra cui 58 donne e diversi bambini e neonati. Sono in carcere da più di due anni, ma nessuno di loro è stato processato. Dormono in camere senza finestre di 4 metri per 5, fino a 20 persone, buttati per terra su stuoini e materassini di gommapiuma. Di giorno si riuniscono nel cortile di 20 metri per 20 su cui si affacciano le camere, sotto lo sguardo vigile della polizia. Sono ragazzi tra i 20 e i 30 anni. La loro colpa? Aver tentato di raggiungere l’Europa per chiedere asilo.

      Da anni la diaspora eritrea passa da Lampedusa. Dall’aprile del 2005 almeno 6.000 profughi della ex colonia italiana sono approdati sulle coste siciliane, in fuga dalla dittatura di Isaias Afewerki. La situazione a Asmara continua a essere critica. Amnesty International denuncia continui arresti e vessazioni di oppositori e giornalisti. E la tensione con l’Etiopia resta alta, cosicché almeno 320.000 ragazzi e ragazze sono costretti al servizio militare, a tempo indeterminato, in un paese che conta solo 4,7 milioni di abitanti. Molti disertano e scappano per rifarsi una vita. La maggior parte dei profughi si ferma in Sudan: oltre 130.000 persone. Tuttavia ogni anno migliaia di uomini e donne attraversano il deserto del Sahara per raggiungere la Libia e da lì imbarcarsi clandestinamente per l’Italia.

      La prima volta che sentii parlare di Misratah fu nella primavera del 2007, durante un incontro a Roma con il direttore dell’Alto commissariato dei rifugiati a Tripoli, Mohamed al Wash. Pochi mesi dopo, nel luglio del 2007, insieme alla associazione eritrea Agenzia Habeshia, riuscimmo a stabilire un contatto telefonico con un gruppo di prigionieri eritrei che erano riusciti a introdurre un telefono cellulare nel campo. Si lamentavano delle condizioni di sovraffollamento, della scarsa igiene dei bagni, e delle precarie condizioni di salute, specie di donne incinte e neonati. E accusavano gli agenti di polizia di avere molestato sessualmente alcune donne durante le prime settimane di detenzione. Amnesty International si espresse più volte per bloccare il loro rimpatrio. E il 18 settembre 2007 la diaspora eritrea organizzò manifestazioni nelle principali capitali europee.

      Il direttore del centro, colonnello ‘Ali Abu ‘Ud, conosce i report internazionali su Misratah, ma respinge le accuse al mittente: “Tutto quello che dicono è falso” dice sicuro di sé seduto alla scrivania, in giacca e cravatta, dietro un mazzo di fiori finti, nel suo ufficio al primo piano. Dalla finestra si vede il cortile dove sono radunati oltre 200 detenuti. Abu ‘Ud ha visitato nel luglio 2008 alcuni centri di prima accoglienza italiani, insieme a una delegazione libica. Parla di Misratah come di un albergo a cinque stelle comparato agli altri centri libici. E probabilmente ha ragione. Il che è tutto un dire. Dopo una lunga insistenza, insieme a un collega della radio tedesca, Roman Herzog, siamo autorizzati a parlare con i rifugiati eritrei. Scendiamo nel cortile. Ci dividiamo. Intervisto F., 28 anni, da 24 mesi chiuso qua dentro. Mentre lui parla mi accorgo che non lo sto ascoltando, in verità provo a mettermi nei suoi panni. Abbiamo grossomodo la stessa età, ma lui i migliori anni della vita li sta buttando via in un carcere, senza un motivo apparente.

      Dall’altro lato del cortile, Roman è riuscito a parlare per qualche minuto con un rifugiato sottraendosi al controllo degli agenti della sicurezza che vigilano sul nostro lavoro e riprendono con una telecamera le nostre attività. Si chiama S.. Parla liberamente: “Fratello, siamo in una pessima situazione, siamo torturati, mentalmente e fisicamente. Siamo qui da due anni e non conosciamo quale sarà il nostro futuro. Puoi vederlo da solo, guarda!” Intanto l’interprete li ha raggiunti e traduce tutto al direttore del campo, che interrompe l’intervista e chiede a S. se per caso non vuole ritornare in Eritrea. Lui risponde di no, intanto Roman lo invita ad allontanarsi a passo svelto e a dire tutto quello che può prima che il direttore li interrompa di nuovo. “Siamo qui da più di due anni, senza nessuna speranza. Siamo tutti eritrei. Io sono venuto in Libia nel 2005. Cerchiamo asilo politico, a causa della situazione nel nostro paese. Ma il mondo non si interessa a noi. Non è facile stare due anni in prigione, senza nessuna comodità. Siamo in prigione, non vediamo mai l’esterno. Tutti noi abbiamo bisogno della libertà, ecco di cosa abbiamo bisogno”.

      La polizia si avvicina nuovamente, Roman chiede a S. di mostrargli la sua stanza. Zigzagando tra la folla nel cortile entrano nel corridoio su cui danno la vista quattro stanze. All’interno, 18 ragazzi siedono su coperte e materassini di gommapiuma stesi sul pavimento. La stanza misura quattro metri per cinque. Al centro, una pentola gorgoglia sopra un fornellino da campeggio. Non ci sono finestre. “Siamo in troppi qui, è sovraffollato – dice S. – non vediamo la luce del sole e non c’è ricambio d’aria. Con il caldo d’estate la gente si ammala. E anche di inverno, fa molto freddo di notte, la gente si ammala”. Siamo a fine novembre, e i ragazzi indossano ciabatte da mare e leggeri pullover. La stanza accanto è più grande, ci sono solo donne e bambini, ma sono almeno il doppio.

      A quel punto gli uomini della sicurezza interrompono l’intervista e portano Roman fuori dal cortile, dove gli presentano un rifugiato scelto dal direttore... “Sono anche io un prigioniero” gli dice. Ma lui preferisce parlare con J.. Ha 34 anni e dice di essere stato in 13 prigioni diverse in Libia: “Alcuni di noi sono qui da quattro anni. Personalmente sono a Misratah da tre anni. Siamo nella peggiore delle situazioni. Non abbiamo commesso reati, stiamo solo chiedendo asilo politico. E non ci viene concesso. Diteci almeno perchè? Visto che nessuno ci informa. Che cosa sta succedendo là fuori? Diteci che cosa sarà di noi! Nemmeno l’Acnur. Non ci dicono mai niente. Non ho più speranza, quando ci vado a parlare nemmeno mi ascoltano. Pesavo 60 kg quando sono entrato, adesso ne peso 48, immagina perchè..”

      Il colonnello Abu ‘Ud segue la conversazione grazie alla traduzione in arabo dell’interprete, finché non riesce più a trattenersi. “Vuoi ritornare in Eritrea?” chiede a J. interrompendo bruscamente l’intervista. “Preferisco morire – gli risponde – tutti preferirebbero morire. “Se vuoi andare in Eritrea ti rimpatriamo in un solo giorno” minaccia il direttore. “Ci vietano di parlare con te” dice J. a Roman. Il direttore diventa furioso. Gli grida in faccia “Dite loro che li rimpatrieremo tutti!”. Poi si avvicina a Roman e con un urlo secco ordina: “Finito!”. Roman cerca di protestare, “abbiamo finito” gli ripette Abu ‘Ud mentre gli agenti lo tirano per le braccia verso l’uscita. Intanto il colonnello sale sui gradini e si rivolge a gran voce a tutti i rifugiati che nel frattempo si sono avvicinati per vedere cosa stia accadendo. “Se vi sentite maltrattati qui, organizzeremo il vostro rimpatrio immediatamente. Avete già rifiutato di ritornare nel vostro paese, ecco perchè siete in questo posto. Ma ognuno di voi è libero di ritornare in Eritrea! Chi vuole andare in Eritrea?” chiede alla folla. “Nessuno!” gli fanno eco i presenti. Scende e grida al mio collega “Hai visto! Adesso abbiamo veramente finito”.

      Saliamo di nuovo nell’ufficio del colonnello, che con toni molto nervosi cerca di convincerci del suo impegno. Per ben due volte l’ambasciata eritrea ha inviato dei funzionari per identificare i prigionieri. Ma i rifugiati hanno sempre rifiutato di incontrarli. Hanno addirittura organizzato uno sciopero della fame. Comprensibile, visto che rischiano di essere perseguitati in patria. La Libia dovrebbe averlo capito da un pezzo, visto che il 27 agosto 2004 uno dei voli di rimpatrio per l’Eritrea partiti da Tripoli venne addirittura dirottato in Sudan dagli stessi passeggeri. Ma il concetto di asilo politico sfugge alle autorità libiche. Eritrei o nigeriani, vogliono tutti andare in Europa. E visto che l’Europa chiede di controllare la frontiera, l’unica soluzione sono le deportazioni. E per chi non collabora con le ambasciate – come i rifugiati eritrei - la detenzione diventa a tempo indeterminato. Così per tornare in libertà non rimangono che due possibilità. Avere la fortuna di rientrare nei programmi di reinsediamento all’estero dell’Alto commissariato dei rifugiati (Acnur), oppure provare a scappare.

      Haron ha 36 anni. A casa ha lasciato una moglie e due bambini. Dall’Eritrea è scappato dopo 12 anni di servizio militare non retribuito. Dopo due anni di detenzione a Misratah, la Svezia ha accettato la sua richiesta di reinsediamento. E’ partito tre giorni dopo la nostra visita, il 27 novembre 2008, con un gruppo di altri 26 rifugiati eritrei del campo di Misratah, tra cui molte donne. I posti lasciati vuoti saranno presto riempiti con i nuovi arrestati. Già la settimana scorsa sono arrivate otto donne. I reinsediamenti sono le uniche carte che l’Acnur riesce a giocare, da un anno a questa parte, in Libia. Le prime 34 donne eritree lasciarono il campo di Misratah nel novembre del 2007 e furono accolte dall’Italia, a Cantalice, un piccolo comune nella campagna di Rieti. Per l’Italia fu il primo reinsediamento ufficiale di rifugiati dai tempi della crisi cilena del 1973. Ma l’operazione venne censurata dagli uffici stampa del Ministero dell’Interno, per non sollevare polemiche tra i leghisti. Insieme alle donne arrivarono 5 uomini e una bambina nata pochi giorni prima.

      Da allora, circa 200 rifugiati sono stati trasferiti da Misratah in vari paesi. Oltre all’Italia (70), anche in Romania (39), Svezia (27), Canada (17), Norvegia (9) e Svizzera (5). A snocciolarmi i dati è Osama Sadiq. E’ il coordinatore dei progetti della International organisation for peace care and relief (Iopcr). Una importante ong libica, che si dichiara non governativa, ma che tanto indipendente non deve essere, visto che ha al suo interno ex funzionari del ministero dell’interno e della sicurezza. E che è talmente influente, che l’Acnur riesce a entrare a Misratah soltanto sotto la sua copertura. Proprio così. In un paese dove transitano ogni anno migliaia di rifugiati eritrei, ma anche sudanesi, somali ed etiopi, l’Acnur conta meno di una ong. Non ha nemmeno un accordo di sede. E non riesce a spendere una parola a livello internazionale per la liberazione dei 600 prigionieri di Misratah. Probabilmente a dettare la linea politica dell’Acnur in Libia sono fragili equilibri diplomatici da non rompere per non rischiare di farsi cacciare da un Paese che non ha nemmeno mai firmato la Convenzione di Ginevra. Eppure la Libia sta conoscendo una importante fase di apertura. E il governo lavora a una nuova legge sull’immigrazione che però – secondo chi ha letto la bozza - non contiene nessun riferimento alla protezione dei rifugiati.

      Per quelli che non rientrano nei progetti di reinsediamento dell’Acnur, non rimane che l’ennesima fuga. Koubros è uno di loro. Lo incontriamo sulle scale della chiesa di San Francesco, nel quartiere Dhahra di Tripoli, dopo la messa del venerdì mattina. Un gruppo di eritrei è in fila per lo sportello sociale della Caritas, dove lavora l’infaticabile suor Sherly. A Misratah ha passato un anno. Era stato arrestato a Tripoli durante una retata nel quartiere di Abu Selim. E’ scappato durante un ricovero in ospedale. Poi però è stato di nuovo arrestato e portato al carcere di Tuaisha, vicino all’aeroporto di Tripoli. Dove è riuscito a corrompere un poliziotto facendosi inviare 300 dollari dagli amici eritrei in città. Siede vicino a Tadrous. Anche lui eritreo, anche lui disertore in fuga dal suo paese. E’ uscito due settimane fa dal carcere di Surman. Era stato condannato a cinque mesi di galera dopo essere stato trovato in mare con altri 90 passeggeri, a Zuwarah. In carcere si è preso la scabbia. Gli chiediamo di accompagnarci nel quartiere di Gurgi, dove vivono gli eritrei pronti a partire per l’Italia. Dice che è pericoloso. Gli eritrei vivono nascosti. La nostra presenza potrebbe allertare la polizia e provocare una retata. Y. però la pensa diversamente, vive in una zona diversa. Lo seguiamo.

      Scendiamo in una traversa sterrata di Shar‘a Ahad ‘Ashara, l’undicesima strada, a Gurgi. Qui vivono molti immigrati africani. L’appartamento è di proprietà di una famiglia chadiana, che ha affittato a sette eritrei le due piccole stanze sul terrazzo. Ci togliamo le scarpe per entrare. I pavimenti sono coperti di tappeti e coperte. Ci dormono in cinque ragazzi. La televisione, collegata alla grande parabola montata sul terrazzo, manda in onda videoclip in tigrigno di cantanti eritrei. E’ un posto sicuro, dicono, perchè l’ingresso della casa passa dall’appartamento della famiglia chadiana, che è a posto coi documenti. Si sono trasferiti qui da poco, dopo le ultime retate a Shar‘a ‘Ashara. Adesso quando sentono la sirena della polizia non ci fanno più caso. Prima si correvano a nascondere. Ci offrono cioccolata, una salsa di patate e pomodoro con del pane, 7-Up e succo di pera.

      Continuiamo a parlare delle loro esperienze nelle carceri libiche. Ognuno di loro è stato arrestato almeno una volta. E tutti sono usciti grazie alla corruzione. Basta pagare la polizia, da 200 a 500 dollari, per scappare o per non essere arrestati. I soldi arrivano con Western Union, grazie a una rete di solidarietà tra gli eritrei della diaspora, in Europa e in America.

      Anche Robel è stato a Misratah. C’ha passato un anno. Ci mostra il certificato di richiedente asilo rilasciato dall’Acnur. Scade l’11 maggio 2009. Ma con quello non si sente al sicuro. “Un mio amico è stato arrestato lo stesso, glielo hanno strappato sotto gli occhi”. Durante la detenzione, ha scritto un appello alla comunità internazionale, con un gruppo di sei studenti eritrei.

      Sul muro, accanto al poster di Gesù, c’è una foto in bianco e nero di una bambina di pochi anni, con su scritto il suo nome, Delina, con il pennarello. L’ho riconosciuta. E’ la stessa bambina che giocava sulle scale della chiesa con Tadrous. Anche lei dovrà rischiare la vita in mare. “L’importante è arrivare nelle acque internazionali”, dice Y.. Gli intermediari eritrei (dallala) che organizzano i viaggi, hanno diverse reputazioni. Ci sono intermediari spregiudicati e altri di cui ci si può fidare. Ma il rischio rimane. Non posso non pensarci, mentre sull’aereo di ritorno per Malta, comodamente seduto e un po’ annoiato, sfoglio la mia agenda con i numeri di telefono e le email dei ragazzi eritrei conosciuti a Tripoli. Prima della mia partenza per la Libia, un amico etiope mi aveva dato il numero di telefono di un suo compagno di viaggio, ancora a Tripoli, un certo Gibril. Ho provato a chiamarlo per tutto il tempo, ma il numero era spento. Nell’orecchio mi risuona ancora l’incomprensibile messaggio vocale in arabo. Speriamo che sia arrivato in Italia, o piuttosto a Misratah. E non in fondo al mare.


      https://fortresseurope.blogspot.com/2006/01/libia-siamo-entrati-misratah-ecco-la.html

      –---------------------------------

      Frontiera Sahara. I campi di detenzione nel deserto libico
      SEBHA - “Con noi c’era un bambino di quattro anni con la madre, durante tutto il viaggio mi sono domandato: come si può mandare una madre con un bambino di quattro anni insieme ad altre cento persone stipate come animali in un camion come quelli per la frutta, dove non c’è aria e dove stavamo stretti stretti, senza spazio per muoversi, per 21 ore di viaggio, dove le persone urinavano e defecavano davanti a tutti perché non c’era altra possibilità? Abbiamo viaggiato dalle 16:00 alle 13:00 del giorno dopo. Durante il giorno ogni volta che l’autista faceva una sosta per mangiare noi rimanevamo chiusi dentro il rimorchio sotto il sole. Mancava l’aria e tutti si alzavano in preda al panico perché non si respirava e volevamo scendere. Guardare il bambino ci faceva coraggio. Quando il camion si fermava lo prendevamo e lo mettevamo vicino al finestrino. Si chiamava Adam. Il camion si è fermato almeno tre volte nel deserto per far mangiare gli autisti e per la preghiera... Verso l’una siamo arrivati a Kufrah… Quando sono sceso ho rubato il burro con il pane che tenevano appeso fuori dal container. Non avevamo mangiato per tutto il viaggio, eravamo 110 persone, compreso Adam di quattro anni e sua madre”. [1]

      Menghistu non è l’unico a essere stato chiuso dentro un container e deportato. In Libia è la prassi. I container servono a smistare nei vari campi di detenzione i migranti arrestati sulle rotte per Lampedusa. Ne esistono di tre tipi. Il più piccolo è un pick-up furgonato. Quello medio è l’equivalente di un camioncino. E quello più grande è un vero e proprio container, blu, con tre feritoie per lato, trainato da un auto rimorchio. Quando un rifugiato eritreo, nella primavera del 2006, me ne parlò per la prima volta, stentai a crederlo. L’immagine di centinaia di uomini, donne e bambini rinchiusi dentro una scatola di ferro per essere concentrati in dei campi di detenzione e da lì deportati, mi rievocava i fantasmi della seconda guerra mondiale. Mi sembrava troppo. Ma la figura del container ritornava, come un marchio di autenticità, in tutte le storie di rifugiati transitati dalla Libia che avevo intervistato dopo di lui. Finché quei camion ho avuto modo di vederli con i miei occhi.

      A Sebha ce n’è uno per ogni tipo. Siamo alle porte del grande deserto libico, nella capitale della storica regione del Fezzan. Da qui, fino al secolo scorso passavano le carovane che attraversavano il Sahara. Oggi alle carovane si sono sostituiti gli immigrati. Il colonnello Zarruq è il direttore del nuovo centro di detenzione della città. È stato inaugurato lo scorso 20 agosto. I tre capannoni si intravedono oltre il muro di cinta. Ognuno ha quattro camerate, in tutto il centro possono essere detenute fino a 1.000 persone. Nel parcheggio sterrato, è parcheggiato un camion con uno dei container utilizzati per lo smistamento degli immigrati detenuti. Con una pacca sulle spalle, il direttore mi invita a salire sulla motrice. Un Iveco Trakker 420, a sei ruote. Mi indica il tachimetro: 41.377 km. Nuovo di pacca. È rientrato ieri sera da Qatrun, a quattro ore di deserto da qui. A bordo c’erano 100 prigionieri, arrestati alla frontiera con il Niger. Entriamo nel container, dalle scale posteriori. L’ambiente è claustrofobico anche senza nessuno. Difficile immaginarsi cosa possa diventare con 100 o 200 persone ammassate una sull’altra in questa scatola di ferro. I raggi del sole filtrati dalla polvere illuminano le taniche di plastica vuote, a terra, sotto le panche di ferro. Su una c’è scritto Gambia.

      L’acqua è il bagaglio essenziale per i migranti che attraversano il deserto. Ognuno prima di partire si porta dietro una o due taniche. Le riveste di juta per proteggerle dal sole e ci scrive su il proprio nome per riconoscerle una volta appese ai lati dei camion. Nelle traversate del Sahara la vita è appesa a un filo. Se il motore va in panne, se il camion si insabbia, o l’autista decide di abbandonare i passeggeri, è finita. Nel raggio di centinaia di chilometri non c’è altro che sabbia. Muoiono a decine ogni mese, ma le notizie filtrano difficilmente. Sulla stampa internazionale abbiamo censito almeno 1.621 vittime in tutto il Sahara. Ma stando alle testimonianze dei sopravvissuti, ogni viaggio conta i suoi morti. E ogni viaggio conta i suoi attacchi da parte di bande armate in Niger e Algeria.

      Tra i cento migranti arrivati a Sebha nel container di ieri c’è anche una famiglia di Sikasso, in Mali. Padre, madre e bambino. Arrestati tre giorni prima, a Ghat, alla frontiera con l’Algeria. Li incontriamo nell’ufficio del direttore. Il piccolino ha otto anni, faceva la terza elementare. Il padre lo stringe affettuosamente tra le forti braccia, mentre racconta in arabo, al nostro interprete, che lui in Europa non ci voleva andare. Che era venuto a Sebha perché aveva già lavorato qui nel 2002, con una compagnia tedesca. Hanno con sé i passaporti, ma senza il visto libico. Nel campo sono chiusi in celle separate. Il bimbo sta con la madre. I loro nomi compaiono sulle liste dei prossimi aerei pronti a partire. Nei primi undici mesi dell’anno, soltanto da Sebha, hanno deportato più di 9.000 persone, soprattutto nigeriani, maliani, nigerini, ghanesi, senegalesi e burkinabé. Solo a novembre i rimpatri sono stati 1.120. Zarruq mi mostra l’elenco dei voli: 467 nigeriani deportati il 2 settembre, 420 maliani a metà novembre. Le ambasciate mandano qui i loro funzionari per identificare i propri cittadini, e poi si provvede al rimpatrio. Kabbiun e Ajouas hanno già incontrato l’ambasciata nigeriana. I piedi di Kabbiun sono scalzi. Lo hanno arrestato a Ghat, le scarpe le ha lasciate in mezzo al deserto. Ajouas invece viveva a Tripoli da sei anni. Nessuno di loro ha visto un giudice o un avvocato. Avviene tutto senza convalida e senza nessuna possibilità di presentare ricorso e tantomeno di chiedere asilo politico.

      È il caso di Patrick. Viene dalla Repubblica democratica del Congo, recentemente tornata alle cronache per la crisi nella regione del Kivu. È stato arrestato un mese fa a Tripoli, mentre cercava lavoro alla giornata sotto i cavalcavia di Suq Thalatha. Possiamo parlare liberamente in francese, perché l’interprete non lo conosce. Mi porge un foglio spiegazzato dalla tasca. È il suo certificato di richiedente asilo politico. Rilasciato dall’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i Rifugiati (Acnur) a Tripoli, il nove ottobre 2007. Qua dentro è carta straccia. Come gli altri detenuti, Patrick non ha diritto di telefonare a nessuno, nemmeno all’Acnur. Se non trova prima i soldi per corrompere qualche poliziotto, anche lui, prima o poi, sarà deportato. E come lui i suoi compagni di cella. Sono camerate di otto metri per otto. I detenuti sono buttati per terra su stuoini e cartoni. La luce entra dalle vetrate in cima alle alte pareti. Ogni camerata è riempita con 60-70 persone. Stanno chiusi tutto il giorno, escono solo per i pasti, in un locale adibito a mensa, accanto a un piccolo chiosco dove i detenuti possono comprare bibite, dolci o medicine, sempre all’interno del muro di cinta.

      Le compagnie aeree che si occupano delle deportazioni sono libiche: Ifriqiya e Buraq Air. I soldi pure, garantisce il direttore. Ma è difficile credergli. Dopotutto il rapporto della Commissione europea del dicembre 2004 parlava già allora di 47 voli di rimpatrio finanziati dall’Italia. Zarruq scuote il capo. Dice che da Roma hanno avuto soltanto due fuoristrada per il pattugliamento, con il progetto Across Sahara. E il nuovo centro di detenzione? Ha finanziato tutto la Libia, insiste. Ammette però che l’Italia si era impegnata a costruire un nuovo centro, e che la a sha‘abiyah, la municipalità, aveva anche predisposto un terreno. Ma poi non se ne è fatto niente. Intanto però il vecchio campo è stato restaurato e ampliato, grazie anche ai lavori forzati degli immigrati detenuti. Questo Zarruq non me lo può dire, ma sono voci che corrono tra i rimpatriati, dall’altro lato della frontiera, a Agadez, in Niger. Ad ogni modo, insiste, oggi tutti i rimpatri avvengono in aereo, anche quelli verso il Niger: Sono passati i tempi dei cosiddetti “rimpatri volontari”, quando, nel 2004, oltre 18.000 nigerini e non solo vennero caricati sui camion e abbandonati alla frontiera in pieno deserto, con le decine di vittime che ne seguirono a causa degli incidenti.

      Ma Zarruq non ha intenzione di parlare di questo. E nemmeno il luogo tenente Ghrera. È lui il responsabile delle pattuglie nel Sahara. L’Italia e l’Europa si sono impegnate a finanziare alla Libia un sistema di controllo elettronico delle frontiere terrestri, firmato FinMeccanica. Lui alla sola idea sorride. Lavora nel deserto da 35 anni. Conosce bene il terreno. Per darci un’idea ci accompagna a Zellaf, 20 km a sud di Sebha. Ancora non siamo nel grande Sahara. Eppure davanti a noi non si vede che sabbia. I due fuoristrada, dopo una corsa a cento km all’ora sulle dune, fermano i motori. Ghrera e l’altro autista, ‘Ali, si lavano le mani nella sabbia. E si inginocchiano verso est. Dopo la preghiera, si riavvicinano. Controllare le rotte nel Sahara è impossibile, dice. Sono 5.000 km di deserto. Un’area troppo vasta e un terreno troppo accidentato Gli 89 autisti – quasi tutti libici – arrestati nei primi undici mesi del 2008 sono un’inezia rispetto alle migliaia di persone che attraversano il Sahara ogni anno. Alle missioni di pattugliamento partecipano gruppi di 10 fuoristrada. Stanno fuori per cinque giorni, ci spiega. Poi sorride. Ha trovato una bottiglia vuota di Gin, per terra. L’alcol in Libia è illegale. E infatti sulla bottiglia c’è scritto fabriqué au Niger, prodotto in Niger. Ghrera lancia la bottiglia nella sabbia, poco lontano. Non dice niente. I traffici non riguardano solo gli immigrati. Ci sono l’alcol, le sigarette, la droga, le armi. Prima di riaccendere il motore ribadisce il concetto: anche con il doppio delle pattuglie, il deserto rimane una porta aperta.

      Il centro di detenzione di Sebha non è l’unico campo di detenzione al sud. Ce ne sono almeno altri cinque. Quelli di Shati, Qatrun, Ghat e Brak, nel sud ovest del paese, fanno capo a Sebha, nel senso che gli immigrati arrestati in queste località vengono poi smistati a Sebha dentro i container. L’altro campo si trova 800 km a sud est, a Kufrah, e lì vengono detenuti i rifugiati eritrei e etiopi in arrivo dal Sudan. È il carcere che gode della peggiore fama, tra gli stessi libici.

      Mohamed Tarnish è il presidente dell’Organizzazione per i diritti umani, una ong libica finanziata dalla Fondazione di Saif al Islam Gheddafi, il primogenito del colonnello. Ci incontriamo al Caffè Sarayah, a due passi dalla Piazza Verde, a Tripoli. La sua organizzazione, sotto la guida del suo predecessore, Jum‘a Atigha, ha ottenuto il rilascio di circa 1.000 prigionieri politici e si è battuta per il miglioramento delle condizioni delle carceri libiche. Da un paio d’anni hanno accesso anche ai centri di detenzione degli immigrati. Ne hanno visitati sette. Ha la bocca cucita, davanti a noi c’è un funzionario dell’agenzia per la stampa estera del governo libico. Ma riesce comunque a farci capire che il centro di Kufrah è il peggiore. Le condizioni del vecchio fabbricato, il sovraffollamento, la scadenza del cibo e l’assenza di assistenza sanitaria.

      Per capire il significato delle allusioni di Tarnish, rileggo le interviste fatte ai rifugiati eritrei ed etiopi nel 2007.“Dormivamo in 78 in una cella di sei metri per otto” - “Dormivamo per terra, la testa accanto ai piedi dei vicini” - “Ci tenevano alla fame. Un piatto di riso lo potevamo dividere anche in otto persone” - “Di notte mi portavano in cortile. Mi chiedevano di fare le flessioni. Quando non ce la facevo più mi riempivano di calci e maledivano me e la mia religione cristiana” – “Usavamo un solo bagno in 60, nella cella c’era un odore perenne di scarico. Era impossibile lavarsi” - “C’erano pidocchi e pulci dappertutto, nel materasso, nei vestiti, nei capelli” - “I poliziotti entravano nella stanza, prendevano una donna e la violentavano in gruppo davanti a tutti”. È il ritratto di un girone infernale. Ma anche di un luogo di affari. Sì perché da un paio d’anni la polizia è solita vendere i detenuti agli stessi intermediari che poi li porteranno sul Mediterraneo. Il prezzo di un uomo si aggira sui 30 dinari, circa 18 euro.

      Non sono stato autorizzato a visitare il centro di Kufrah e non ho potuto verificare di persona. Tuttavia il fatto che le versioni dei tanti rifugiati con cui ho parlato coincidano nel disegnare un luogo di abusi, violenze e torture, mi fa pensare che sia tutto vero. Nel 2004 la Commissione europea riferiva che l’Italia stava finanziando il centro di detenzione di Kufrah. Nel 2007 il governo Prodi smentiva la notizia, dicendo che si trattava di un centro di assistenza sanitaria. Poco importa. Dal 2003, Italia e Unione Europea finanziano operazioni di contrasto dell’immigrazione in Libia. La domanda è la seguente: perché fingono tutti di non sapere?

      Nel 2005, il prefetto Mario Mori, ex direttore del Sisde, informava il Copaco: “I clandestini [in Libia, ndr.] vengono accalappiati come cani... e liberati in centri... dove i sorveglianti per entrare devono mettere i fazzoletti intorno alla bocca per gli odori nauseabondi”. Ma i funzionari della polizia italiana sapevano già tutto. Già perché dal 2004 alcuni agenti fanno attività di formazione in Libia. E alcuni funzionari del ministero dell’Interno, hanno visitato in più occasioni i centri di detenzione libici, Kufrah compreso, limitandosi a non rilasciare dichiarazioni. E l’ipocrita Unione Europea? Il rapporto della Commissione europea del 2004, definisce le condizioni dei campi di detenzione libici “difficili” ma in fin dei conti “accettabili alla luce del contesto generale”. Tre anni dopo, nel maggio 2007, una delegazione di Frontex visitò il sud della Libia, compreso il carcere di Kufrah, per gettare le basi di una futura cooperazione. Indovinate cosa scrisse? “Abbiamo apprezzato tanto la diversità quanto la vastità del deserto”. Sulle condizioni del centro di detenzione però preferì sorvolare. Una dimenticanza?

      [1] Testimonianza raccolta dalla scuola di italiano Asinitas, Roma, 2007


      https://fortresseurope.blogspot.com/2006/01/frontiera-sahara-i-campi-di-detenzione.html

      –---------------------------------

      Guantanamo Libia. Il nuovo gendarme delle frontiere italiane

      La porta di ferro è chiusa a doppia mandata. Dalla piccola feritoia si affacciano i volti di due ragazzi africani e un di egiziano. L’odore acre che esce dalla cella mi brucia le narici. Chiedo ai tre di spostarsi. La vista si apre su due stanze di tre metri per quattro. Incrocio gli sguardi di una trentina di persone. Ammassati uno sull’altro. A terra vedo degli stuoini e qualche lercio materassino in gommapiuma. Sui muri qualcuno ha scritto Guantanamo. Ma non siamo nella base americana. Siamo a Zlitan, in Libia. E i detenuti non sono presunti terroristi, ma immigrati arrestati a sud di Lampedusa e lasciati marcire in carceri fatiscenti finanziate in parte dall’Italia e dall’Unione europea.

      I prigionieri si accalcano contro la porta della cella. Non ricevono visite da mesi. Alcuni alzano la voce: “Aiutateci!”. Un ragazzo allunga la mano oltre quelli della prima fila e mi porge un pezzettino di cartone. C’è scritto sopra un numero di telefono, a penna. Il prefisso è quello del Gambia. Lo metto in tasca prima che la polizia se ne accorga. Il ragazzo si chiama Outhman. Mi chiede di dire a sua madre che è ancora vivo. È in carcere da cinque mesi. Fabrice invece non esce da questa cella da nove mesi. Entrambi sono stati arrestati durante le retate nei quartieri degli immigrati a Tripoli. Da anni la polizia libica è impegnata in simili operazioni. Da quando nel 2003 l’Italia siglò con Gheddafi un accordo di collaborazione per il contrasto dell’immigrazione, e spedì oltremare motovedette, fuoristrada e sacchi da morto, insieme ai soldi necessari a pagare voli di rimpatrio e tre campi di detenzione. Da allora decine di migliaia di immigrati e rifugiati ogni anno sono arrestati dalla polizia libica e detenuti nei circa 20 centri fatiscenti sparsi per il paese, in attesa del rimpatrio. Insieme a un collega tedesco, siamo i primi giornalisti autorizzati a visitare questi centri.

      “La gente soffre! Il cibo è pessimo, l’acqua è sporca. Ci sono donne malate e altre incinte”. Gift ha 29 anni. Viene dalla Nigeria. Indossa ancora il vestito che aveva quando l’arrestarono tre mesi fa, ormai ridotto a uno straccio sporco e consumato. Stava passeggiando con il marito. Non avevano documenti e furono arrestati. Non lo vede da allora, lui nel frattempo è stato rimpatriato. Dice di avere lasciato i due figli a Tripoli. Di loro non ha più notizie. Viveva in Libia da tre anni. Lavorava come parrucchiera e non aveva nessuna intenzione di attraversare il Canale di Sicilia. Come molti degli immigrati detenuti dai nuovi gendarmi della frontiera italiana.

      All’Europa invece aveva pensato Y.. C’aveva pensato e come. Disertore dell’esercito eritreo, per chiedere asilo politico, si era imbarcato due mesi fa per Lampedusa. Ma è stato fermato in mare. Dai libici. Da quel giorno è rinchiuso a Zlitan. Anche lui senza nessuna convalida dello stato d’arresto. Prima di farlo entrare nello studio del direttore, un poliziotto gli sussurra qualcosa all’orecchio. Lui fa cenno di sì col capo. Quando gli chiediamo delle condizioni del centro, risponde “Everything is good”. Va tutto bene. È spaventato a morte. Sa che ogni risposta sbagliata gli può costare un pestaggio. Il direttore del campo, Ahmed Salim, sorride compiaciuto delle risposte e ci assicura che non sarà deportato. Nel giro di qualche settimana sarà trasferito al centro di detenzione di Misratah, 210 km a est di Tripoli, dove sono concentrati i prigionieri di nazionalità eritrea.

      Nella provincia esistono altri tre centri di detenzione per stranieri, a Khums, Garabulli e Bin Ulid. Ma sono strutture più piccole e i detenuti vengono poi tradotti nel campo di Zlitan, che può rinchiudere fino a 325 persone, in attesa del loro rimpatrio. Ma quanti sono i centri di detenzione in tutta la Libia? Sulla base delle testimonianze raccolte in questi anni, ne abbiamo contati 28, perlopiù concentrati sulla costa. Ne esistono di tre tipi. Ci sono dei veri e propri centri di raccolta, come quelli di Sebha, Zlitan, Zawiyah, Kufrah e Misratah, dove vengono concentrati i migranti e i rifugiati arrestati durante le retate o alla frontiera. Poi ci sono strutture più piccole, come quelle di Qatrun, Brak, Shati, Ghat, Khums… dove gli stranieri sono detenuti per un breve periodo prima di essere inviati nei centri di raccolta. E poi ci sono le prigioni: Jadida, Fellah, Twaisha, Ain Zarah… Prigioni comuni, nelle quali intere sezioni sono dedicate alla detenzione degli stranieri senza documenti. Anche nelle prigioni, le condizioni di detenzione sono pessime. Scabbia, parassiti e infezioni sono il minimo che ci si possa prendere. Molte donne sono colpite da infezioni vaginali. E non mancano i decessi, dovuti perlopiù all’assenza di assistenza sanitaria o a ricoveri ospedalieri troppo tardivi. Il nome più ricorrente nei racconti dei migranti è quello del carcere di Fellah, a Tripoli, che però è stato recentemente demolito per far spazio a un grande cantiere edilizio, in linea con il restyling di tutta la città. La sua funzione è stata sostituita dal Twaisha, un’altra prigione vicino all’aeroporto.

      Koubros è riuscito a scappare da Twaisha poche settimane fa. È un rifugiato eritreo di 27 anni. Viveva in Sudan, ma dopo che un amico eritreo è stato rimpatriato da Khartoum, non si è più sentito al sicuro e ha pensato all’Europa. Da Twaisha è uscito sulle stampelle. Non poteva pagare la cifra che gli aveva chiesto un poliziotto ubriaco. Allora l’hanno portato fuori dalla cella e preso a manganellate. È uscito grazie a una colletta tra i prigionieri eritrei. Per corrompere una delle guardie carcerarie sono bastati 300 dollari. Lo incontro davanti alla chiesa di San Francesco, a Tripoli. Come ogni venerdì, una cinquantina di migranti africani aspetta l’apertura dello sportello sociale della Caritas. Tadrous è uno di loro. È stato rilasciato lo scorso sei ottobre dal carcere di Surman. È uno dei pochi ad essere stato giudicato da una corte. La sua storia mi interessa. Era il giugno del 2008. Si erano imbarcati da Zuwarah, in 90. Ma dopo poche ore decisero di invertire la rotta, perché il mare era in tempesta. E tornarono indietro. Appena toccata terra furono arrestati e portati nella prigione di Surman. Il giudice li condannò a 5 mesi di carcere per emigrazione illegale. Finiti i quali è stato rilasciato. Gli chiedo se gli fu dato un avvocato d’ufficio. Sorride scuotendo la testa. La risposta è negativa.

      Niente di strano, sostiene l’avvocato Abdussalam Edgaimish. La legge libica non prevede il gratuito patrocinio per reati passibili di pene inferiori a tre anni. Edgaimish è il direttore dell’ordine degli avvocati di Tripoli. Ci riceve nel suo studio in via primo settembre. Ci spiega che tutte le pratiche di arresto e detenzione sono svolte come procedure amministrative, senza nessuna convalida del giudice. Senza nessuna base legale dunque, ma solo sull’onda dell’emergenza. Anche in Libia una persona non potrebbe essere privata della libertà senza un mandato d’arresto. Ma questa è la teoria. La pratica invece è quella delle retate casa per casa nei sobborghi di Tripoli.

      “I migranti sono vittime di una cospirazione tra le due rive del Mediterraneo. L’Europa vede soltanto un problema di sicurezza, nessuno vuole parlare dei loro diritti”. Anche Jumaa Atigha è un avvocato di Tripoli. Nella parete del suo ufficio è appesa una Laurea in Diritto penale dell’Università La Sapienza, di Roma, conferita nel 1983. Dal 1999 ha presieduto l’Organizzazione per i diritti umani della Fondazione guidata dal primogenito di Gheddafi, Saif al Islam. Lo scorso anno si è dimesso. Dal 2003 ha condotto una campagna che ha portato alla liberazione di 1.000 prigionieri politici. Ci descrive un paese in rapido cambiamento, ma ancora lontano da una situazione ideale sul fronte delle libertà individuali e politiche. In Libia non c’è nessuna legge sull’asilo, ci conferma, ma in compenso una commissione si sta occupando di scrivere un nuova legge sull’immigrazione.

      Atigha conosce personalmente le condizioni di detenzione in Libia. Dal 1991 al 1998 è stato incarcerato, senza processo, come prigioniero politico. Ci dice che la tortura è comunemente praticata dalla polizia libica. “Dal 2003 abbiamo fatto una campagna contro la tortura nelle carceri. Abbiamo organizzato conferenze, visitato le prigioni, fatto dei corsi agli ufficiali di polizia. La mancanza di consapevolezza fa sì che la polizia pratichi la tortura pensando così di servire la giustizia”.

      Mustafa O. Attir la pensa allo stesso modo. Insegna sociologia all’Università El Fatah di Tripoli. “Non è un problema di razzismo. I libici sono gentili con gli stranieri. È un problema di polizia”. Attir sa quello che dice. È entrato nelle carceri libiche come ricercatore nel 1972, nel 1984 e nel 1986. Gli agenti di polizia non hanno istruzione - sostiene -, e sono educati al concetto di punizione.

      Le sue parole mi fanno ripensare ai parrucchieri ghanesi nella medina, ai sarti chadiani, ai negozianti sudanesi, ai camerieri egiziani, alle donne delle pulizie marocchine e agli spazzini africani che armati di scope di bambù ogni notte ripuliscono le vie dei mercati della capitale. Mentre gli eritrei si nascondono nei sobborghi di Gurji e Krimia, migliaia di immigrati africani vivono e lavorano, in condizioni di sfruttamento, ma con relativa tranquillità. Sicuramente per sudanesi e chadiani è tutto più facile. Parlano arabo e sono musulmani. La loro presenza in Libia è decennale e quindi tollerata. Lo stesso per egiziani e marocchini. Al contrario eritrei ed etiopi sono qui esclusivamente per il passaggio in Europa. Spesso non parlano arabo. Spesso sono cristiani. E i loro nonni combattevano contro i libici a fianco delle truppe coloniali italiane. E poi si sa che hanno spesso in tasca i soldi per la traversata. Per cui diventano facile mira di piccoli delinquenti e poliziotti corrotti. Per i nigeriani, e più in generale i sub-sahariani anglofoni, è ancora diverso. Che siano diretti in Europa oppure no, il loro destino in Libia si scontra sistematicamente contro il pregiudizio che si è venuto a creare contro i nigeriani, sulla scia di qualche fatto di cronaca nera. Sono accusati di portare droga, alcol e prostituzione, di essere autori di rapine e omicidi, e di diffondere il virus dell’Hiv.

      Il professor Attir, nel 2007, ha organizzato tre seminari sul tema dell’immigrazione nei paesi arabi. In Libia è uno dei massimi esperti. Ed è pronto a smentire la cifre che circolano in Europa. “Due milioni di immigrati in Libia pronti a partire per l’Italia? Non è vero”. In realtà non esistono statistiche di nessun tipo. Ma solo stime. Che però – secondo Attir – non sono attendibili. Basta dare un occhio in giro. La popolazione libica è di cinque milioni e mezzo di persone. Gli stranieri non possono ragionevolmente essere più di un milione, compresi gli immigrati arabi egiziani, tunisini, algerini e marocchini. La maggior parte di loro non ha mai pensato all’Europa. E la Libia ha bisogno di loro, perché è un paese sottopopolato e perché i libici non vogliono più fare lavori pesanti e mal retribuiti. Attir è consapevole delle pressioni che l’Europa sta facendo sulla Libia perché sigilli le sue frontiere. Ma sa che “non c’è modo per farlo”.

      La Libia ha circa 1.800 km di costa, in buona parte disabitati. Il colonnello Khaled Musa, capo delle pattuglie anti immigrazione a Zuwarah, non sa che farsene delle sei motovedette promesse dall’Italia. Potrebbero servire a pattugliare meglio il tratto di mare tra la frontiera tunisina, Ras Jdayr, e Sabratah, ammette. Ma sono solo 100 km. Il 6% della costa libica. E le partenze si sono già spostate sul litorale a est di Tripoli, tra Khums e Zlitan, a più di 200 km da Zuwarah. Il dipartimento anti immigrazione di Zuwarah è nato nel 2005. Il numero di migranti arrestati è sceso da 5.963 nel 2005 a soli 1.132 nel 2007. Per il capo del dipartimento investigazioni, Sala el Ahrali, i dati indicano il successo delle misure repressive. Molti degli organizzatori dei viaggi sono stati arrestati, questo sarebbe il motivo per cui le partenze si sono ridotte. E la costa è più controllata. Ogni dieci chilometri è installata una tenda, in mezzo alla spiaggia. Serve da appoggio ai fuoristrada della polizia, che da due anni pattugliano la litoranea, appoggiati da quattro motovedette della marina. Il tratto di costa attualmente pattugliato è di una cinquantina di chilometri. Parte da Farwah, a una decina di chilometri dalla frontiera tunisina, e finisce 15 km a est di Zuwarah, a Mellitah, nei pressi dell’imponente impianto di trattamento del gas di proprietà dell’Eni e della libica National Oil Company.

      E proprio da Mellitah parte il #Greenstream, il gasdotto sottomarino più lungo del Mediterraneo. Collega la Libia a Gela, in Sicilia. Ironia della sorte, corre lungo la stessa rotta che porta i migranti a Lampedusa. Come dire che mentre sulla superficie del mare l’Europa dispiega le sue forze militari per bloccare il transito degli esseri umani, otto miliardi di metri cubi di gas ogni anno scorrono silenziosi nei 520 km di condotta posata sui fondali di quello stesso mare, in mezzo alle ossa delle migliaia di uomini e donne morti nella traversata del Canale di Sicilia. Un’immagine che sintetizza perfettamente le relazioni degli ultimi cinque anni tra Roma e Tripoli, condotte all’insegna dello slogan “più petrolio e meno immigrati”.

      https://fortresseurope.blogspot.com/2006/01/guantanamo-libia-il-nuovo-gendarme.html
      #gazoduc

      –---------------------------------

      Liens qu’il a mis aujourd’hui sur FB pour accompagner ce message:

      Non conosco nessuno dell’equipaggio di #Lifeline, la nave della ONG accusata dal ministro Salvini di aver agito fuorilegge soccorrendo 239 passeggeri in difficoltà in acque libiche. Purtroppo però conosco bene le carceri libiche. Fui il primo giornalista italiano a visitarle nel 2008 insieme al collega e amico Roman Herzog. Abusi, pestaggi, violenze sulle donne erano la norma già allora. Gli unici che si salvavano erano quelli che riuscivano a farsi mandare abbastanza soldi dai familiari in Europa con cui corrompevano facilmente le guardie colluse con le mafie del contrabbando per farsi rilasciare e tentare di nuovo la traversata. Gli altri, dopo mesi di prigione in condizioni inumane venivano rimpatriati sui voli dell’OIM oppure, molto più spesso, stipati come vuoti a rendere dentro i container dei camion che prendevano la via del deserto, per decine di ore, mentre sotto il sole le lamiere di ferro diventavano un forno, per essere infine abbandonati alla frontiera sud con il Niger e il Sudan, in una terra di nessuno. E quanti ne sono morti anche lì, in mezzo al Sahara. Con molti giornalisti e documentaristi abbiamo denunciato questa situazione fin dal 2007. Da quando Prodi e Amato negoziarono gli accordi di respingimento con Gheddafi a quando Berlusconi e Maroni li misero in pratica nel 2009. Da allora sembra non essere cambiato molto. E allora, pur non conoscendoli, mi azzardo a pensare che l’equipaggio della #Lifeline abbia disobbedito all’ordine di consegnare i passeggeri alla guardia costiera libica temendo per il destino di quegli uomini, di quelle donne e di quei bambini, immaginando il triste destino che li attendeva nelle prigioni oltremare.

      Dopodiché se il comportamento della #Lifeline costituisca un reato lo deciderà un giudice anche alla luce di queste considerazioni. Perché quello che il ministro Salvini si dimentica di ricordare è che la Libia non è Malta, non è la Spagna, non è la Francia. La Libia di oggi non è un paese sicuro.

      Ciononostante, attenzione, gli sbarchi devono cessare. Ma come si fa?

      Si aprono vie legali. Perché, ministro, da contribuenti italiani non vogliamo finanziare altre prigioni in Libia. Vogliamo finanziare asili nido, scuole, parchi, ospedali. Non vogliamo continuare a finanziare le milizie colluse con le stesse mafie del contrabbando che dite di voler combattere.

      Per sconfiggere quelle mafie, azzerare gli sbarchi e porre fine alle tragedie delle traversate c’è un unico modo: legalizzare l’emigrazione Africa-Europa. Perché fin quando quell’emigrazione sarà illegale, ci sarà qualche mafia pronta a lucrarci. Oggi i libici, domani gli egiziani o i tunisini. Il mare è grande e incontrollabile.

      La soluzione sarebbe così semplice che è incredibile credere che i vostri consiglieri non ve l’abbiano prospettata. Andate in Europa e chiedete a gran voce che le ambasciate UE in Africa riaprano i canali legali dei visti che hanno progressivamente chiuso in questi ultimi vent’anni, spingendo centinaia di migliaia di giovani nelle mani del contrabbando libico a cui abbiamo concesso il monopolio della mobilità sud-nord in questo mare.

      Calcolate quante persone ogni anno attraversano il mare per rimanere bloccati in Italia, senza documenti e senza lavoro. Calcolate quanti sono e rilasciate lo stesso numero di visti per ricerca di lavoro. Affinché quelle stesse persone possano comodamente imbarcarsi in aereo, con in tasca un passaporto e un visto europeo liberi di circolare in tutta Europa, ricongiungersi con i propri familiari e cercare lavoro là dove il lavoro c’è, in quel centro e nord Europa che in questi anni ha importato milioni di lavoratori dall’est mentre noi a sud predicavamo il blocco navale e continuavamo a contare i morti.

      In caso contrario, signor ministro, siate più chiari. Dite semplicemente che di negri in Europa non volete vederne. Né per le vie legali né per quelle illegali.

      https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2121309374549318&id=100000108285082

    • La zona SAR libica non esiste. Il grande inganno nel rimbalzo dei soccorsi

      "Una zona SAR libica ad oggi non esiste”, spiega Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, avvocato, esperto di immigrazione, membro del direttivo di Osservatorio Solidarietà. “E non esiste in quanto il governo di Tripoli non ha soddisfatto i requisiti imposti dall’IMO (Organizzazione marittima internazionale) per il riconoscimento delle zone SAR”, aggiunge l’avvocato.

      I requisiti consistono nell’accordo tra lo Stato che si pone come responsabile delle operazioni di salvataggio in una propria area di mare l’Organizzazione marittima internazionale (IMO). A quel punto i dati della zona SAR devono essere inseriti in un database ufficiale e pubblico, il GISIS. A marzo, in seguito al caso Open Arms, Famiglia Cristiana aveva fatto una verifica con l’IMO e la risposta ricevuta era stata: “La Libia non ha inviato le sue informazioni”.

      “Quasi tutte le operazioni di soccorso in acque internazionali nelle ultime settimane sono state coordinate dal Comando della Guardia costiera italiana proprio perché la Libia non esiste come paese unitario e non ha un Comando centrale unificato”, aggiunge Vassallo Paleologo.

      “Ma tutto è cambiato dal caso Aquarius”. Infatti da alcuni giorni anche sul sito dell’IMO compare il riferimento alla zona SAR libica “ma continua a non esistere uno stato unitario e anche le guardie costiere delle diverse città rispondono a milizie diverse“, avverte l’avvocato. “Alla fine il risultato è che il trasferimento di competenze ai libici e l’allontanamento delle Ong produce un ritardo nei soccorsi, un amento delle vittime e delle persone riportate nei centri di detenzione in Libia dove continuano gli abusi”.

      Esiste invece una zona SAR maltese. Ma Malta ha dichiarato unilateralmente la sua zona di ricerca e soccorso, un’area molto ampia che però non è riconosciuta dalle autorità marittime internazionali poiché il Governo de la Valletta non ha mai sottoscritto alcune modifiche della convenzione di Amburgo del 1979 e della convenzione #Solas introdotte nel 2004. Queste norme prevedono che lo sbarco avvenga nel paese che ha coordinato i soccorsi, e da sempre in quel tratto di mare i soccorsi sono stati coordinati dall’Italia. Quindi, in base al diritto internazionale e alla prassi i soccorsi coordinati dall’Italia hanno sempre indicato un porto di sbarco italiano.

      http://osservatoriosolidarieta.org/la-zona-sar-libica-non-esiste-il-grande-inganno-nel-rimbalz
      #Malte #SAR

    • Conséquences pour les droits de l’homme de la « dimension extérieure » de la politique d’asile et de migration de l’Union européenne : loin des yeux, loin des droits ?

      Les objectifs de la délégation des procédures de migration aux pays en dehors des frontières de l’Union européenne sont, entre autres, d’alléger la pression migratoire des États membres aux frontières de l’UE et de réduire le besoin des migrants d’entreprendre des voyages terrestres et maritimes potentiellement mortels. La réinstallation dans toute l’Europe devrait ensuite faciliter un afflux plus régulier sur le continent. Cependant, le transfert des responsabilités et l’engagement de pays tiers dans le renforcement de contrôles aux frontières de l’UE comportent de sérieux risques pour les droits de l’homme. Il augmente le risque que les migrants soient « bloqués » dans les pays de transit par la réadmission et le recours accru à des mesures punitives et restrictives telles que le refoulement, la rétention arbitraire et les mauvais traitements. C’est également un moyen pour de nombreux États membres de l’Union européenne de prendre leurs distances par rapport à la question de l’assistance et de l’intégration des réfugiés, qui est source de divisions politiques.

      Ce #rapport exhorte les États membres à œuvrer ensemble pour que le recours accru à des politiques de dissuasion ne porte pas atteinte au devoir des États européens de respecter et de défendre les droits de l’homme à l’échelle mondiale et à s’abstenir d’externaliser le contrôle des migrations vers les pays où la législation, les politiques et les pratiques ne respectent pas les normes de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et de la Convention des Nations Unies relative au statut des réfugiés.

      http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-fr.asp?fileid=24808&lang=fr

    • Sahel, la France en guerre ?

      Au Mali, alors que la campagne pour les élections présidentielles du 29 juillet bat son plein, l’insécurité liée au terrorisme grandit. La France a-t-elle encore un rôle a jouer ? Elle a depuis 2013 une forte présence militaire entre le Sahel et le Sahara, mais quelle place tient-elle dans la guerre contre le terrorisme ?

      Sahel, la France en guerre ? Par David Dominé-Cohn ntoine de Saint-Exupéry dans Terre des hommes (1939) dresse le portrait des officiers français des compagnies méharistes au Sahara. Développées à partir de 1897 par le commandant Laperrine, ces unités d’infanterie, relevant pour partie de la Légion étrangère, apparentées aussi aux spahis, ont effectué un travail de police et de contrôle des populations des oasis. Chez l’écrivain, le capitaine Bonnafous exerce son autorité, fascinante pour l’observateur occidental, dans un mélange d’héroïsme, d’humanité et d’extrême violence : « À cause de Bonnafous chaque pas vers le sud devient un pas riche de gloire »… et d’insurrections des populations locales.

      Les grandes formes historiques semblent se reproduire dans le désert. Depuis 2013, la France entretient une présence militaire entre le Sahel et le Sahara : 4500 hommes au printemps 2018. Avec 500 opérations en trois ans et demi, l’objectif affiché est d’abord de maintenir la pression sur les groupes terroristes et d’apporter un soutien à la population locale. Les attaques terroristes sur place sont l’occasion de s’interroger sur l’espace du Sahara et du Sahel comme étant redevenu un espace majeur d’action militaire de la France. Témoignant dans le livre de David Revault d’Allones, Les guerres du président (2015), Sacha Mandel, plume de Jean-Yves Le Drian, revendique le terme de guerre pour ce qui a causé, pour la France 22 morts et des dizaines de blessés et des centaines morts et de blessés pour les adversaires. Or peut-on faire la guerre au terrorisme ?

      Faire la « guerre au #Mali » puis faire la guerre au #terrorisme

      L’intervention française au Mali avec l’opération Serval commence le 11 janvier 2013 pour soutenir l’État malien dans la reprise des villes du pays contrôlées par une alliance entre le MNLA (Mouvement national de libération de l’Azawad) touareg, qui réclame le développement et l’indépendance du Nord du pays, l’Azawad, et des mouvements islamistes comme Ansar Dine et le MUJAO (Mouvement pour l’unicité et le jihad en Afrique de l’Ouest) et d’autres issus de la guerre civile algérienne des années 1990 comme AQMI. Les opérations militaires françaises, appuyées par les forces des États voisins, visent d’abord à sécuriser Bamako, comme l’affirme le président Hollande le 15 janvier aux Émirats Arabes Unis. La boucle du fleuve Niger est reprise entre le 22 et le 28 janvier, la ville de Gao le 25. Le 27 janvier par une opération aéroportée de la Légion, Tombouctou est contrôlée, puis Kidal le 30. En février et mars les forces avancent vers le nord, vers Tesslit et Tigharghâr, pendant que Gao connaît un regain de violence et d’actes terroristes kamikazes comme dans la nuit du 9 au 10 février. Un effort important est fait pour séparer les mouvements de l’Azawad des islamistes. Ainsi, le général tchadien Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno déclare le 11 janvier à RFI que ses troupes, qui occupent la ville, entretiennent de bonnes relations avec le MNLA. Le 2 février, dans un discours à Bamako, François Hollande considère l’action française comme inachevée et se donne comme objectif l’éradication du terrorisme. Les opérations antiterroristes scandent toute la seconde moitié de l’année 2013 et le début de 2014. Le 1er août 2014, l’opération Serval et l’opération Épervier au Tchad sont regroupées dans l’opération Barkhane qui porte sur l’ensemble de la bande sahélo-saharienne. Michel Galy (La guerre au Mali. Comprendre la crise au Sahel et au Sahara. Enjeux et zones d’ombre, 2013) rappelle que l’intervention française s’inscrit à la fois dans une forme de tradition française et dans un contexte général de transformation de la région. Au-delà de la remise en cause du mode de gouvernement du président Amadou Toumani Touré, les différents mouvements indépendantistes ou djihadistes s’inscrivent dans des enjeux régionaux où pèsent certains voisins du Maghreb, les puissances d’Afrique de l’Ouest et de toutes les grandes puissances mondiales occidentales ou orientales. Elles sont attentives au développement des mouvements terroristes se revendiquant de l’islam mais aussi à une région de plus en plus stratégique, jeune, au sous-sol très riche et qui sera un foyer de peuplement du XXI siècle.

      De la ligne de front à une ligne de postes

      Barkhane est devenue une opération de surveillance anti-terroriste d’un territoire immense à partir de postes avancés en liaison avec les forces locales. Le 18 avril 2018, Michel Cambon, président de la commission sénatoriale des affaires étrangères, de la défense et des forces armées souligne que dans ce cadre, la stratégie française est celle de « coups de poing » menées par des forces spéciales basées à Ouagadougou grâce au dispositif Sabre. Celui-ci est ancien, plus ancien que Barkhane et Serval. Dans le livre blanc de défense et de sécurité nationale en 2008, la désignation de l’arc de crises, allant de l’Océan atlantique à l’Océan indien entraîne la mise en place d’un plan Sahel qui comporte un large volet anti-terroriste. Comme le souligne Jean- Christophe Notin (La guerre de la France au Mali, 2014), la composante essentielle de ce volet est le prépositionnement d’unités dites Sabre de forces spéciales. Elles ont joué un rôle au début de Serval dans la protection des sites nucléaires du Niger et ont participé aux opérations Serval et Barkhane. Le soutien à la lutte anti-terroriste est un moyen majeur d’influence des grandes puissances en Afrique. Les États-Unis sont ainsi très présents depuis 2007 via leur commandement pour l’Afrique (Africom) ; la qualification de terroriste permet à chacun de se trouver un ennemi commun. Le passage d’une logique d’action militaire de reprise d’un territoire à une action de surveillance, de police et de contre-terrorisme se traduit par de nouveaux besoins en matériel, comme le souligne le sénateur Cambon : « les hélicoptères lourds, les véhicules de type quad/pickup pour la mobilité, les ISMI catcher pour l’écoute des GSM, la biométrie, la capacité « drones » ». Il conclue son rapport par « un message assez clair et assez pessimiste » : une opération militaire ne réglera pas un problème politique.

      Le terrorisme persiste largement dans la région. Le Groupement de Soutien à l’Islam et aux Musulmans, qui fédère plusieurs groupes djihadistes, dont Ansar Dine, des katibats d’al-Qaïda au Maghreb islamique et d’al-Mourabitoune, lance régulièrement des attaques contre les forces dans la région. Le 2 mars 2018, deux attaques à Ouagadougou au Burkina Faso ont fait 8 morts et une soixantaine de blessés. Le 14 avril, le GSIM a lancé une attaque « complexe » avec une quinzaine d’attaquants à Tombouctou contre la force Barkhane et la Mission des Nations unies au Mali. Le groupe a revendiqué son action comme une réponse à des raids aériens. Le 5 juillet, Emmanuel Macron évoque un redéploiement du dispositif français. Le bureau pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest et le Sahel de l’ONU soulignait dans un rapport du 29 juin la montée en capacité des mouvements terroristes autant que le possible resserrement des liens entre les différents mouvements djihadistes violents avec une extension de leurs zones d’activité. La réduction des adversaires à des mouvements avant tout terroristes mais mobiles et circulant dans un large territoire a conduit à un renouvellement des logiques d’action : le droit de poursuite au-delà de la frontière est nécessaire. Créé en février 2014, le G5 regroupe le Mali, le Niger, le Burkina Faso et le Tchad. Il vise le développement régional et la lutte contre le terrorisme. Cependant l’objectif d’une force commune actée en novembre 2015 peine à se réaliser et il a fallu attendre juin 2017 pour que l’ONU salue sa mise en place. Les financements sont aujourd’hui très insuffisants par rapport aux immenses besoins nés des contraintes du territoire. La France occupe donc de fait un rôle central dans la réalisation d’opérations de contreterrorisme par sa capacité très supérieure dans les domaines du renseignement, de la mobilité et de la frappe. Dans un milieu désertique, un espace que l’on traverse, l’action militaire est une action de contrôle de flux qui entraîne soit l’enlisement, soit des reconfigurations politiques, militaires et institutionnelles profondes. La criminalisation des personnes circulant dans de tels espaces est une stratégie classique de contrôle. Pour Hélène Claudot-Hawad (Galy, La guerre au Mali, 2013), la question Touareg a été construite tout au long de la colonisation : à partir des années 1910, l’administration française déploie un projet de tribalisation dans le but de contrôler des groupes et des circulations dans la bande sahélo-saharienne. La question des Touaregs est restée problématique pour les pouvoirs issus de la décolonisation. A l’aube de la décennie 2000 les tensions sont fortes d’autant plus que les organisations régionales de contrebande rejoignent une partie des mouvements islamistes.

      L’envers de la lutte contre les pirates du désert

      Le G5 Sahel se veut l’instrument d’une action régionale centrée sur la lutte anti-terroriste. Le terroriste y est celui qui circule impunément et qui devient ce que Daniel Heller-Roazen a vu dans la figure ancienne du pirate : l’ennemi de tous (L’ennemi de tous. Le pirate contre les nations, 2010, édition originale anglaise 2009). Le pirate brouille la limite entre criminalité et politique : « la piraterie entraine une transformation du concept de guerre. » C’est dans cette perspective qu’on peut lire le rapport du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l’Homme qui dénombre au Mali 1200 violations entre janvier 2016 et juin 2017 faisant 2700 victimes dont 441 morts. Si plus de 70% des violations sont le fait d’acteurs non étatiques on peut, par exemple, s’interroger sur le statut des 150 arrestations administratives faites par les forces de Barkhane. Les « neutralisations » des terroristes, leur mort pendant des combats ou suite à des frappes aériennes, posent également question. Le respect des Droits de l’Homme est en jeu, mais aussi le cadre juridique dans lequel interviennent les troupes françaises. En arrière plan, le rapport de l’ONU pointe que 20% des violations sont le fait des forces de sécurité maliennes. A l’horizon de ce rapport qui suit plusieurs autres avant lui, par exemple celui en mai 2017 de la FIDH « Mali : Terrorisme et impunité font chanceler un accord de paix fragile » souligne les impasses d’une approche centrée sur l’anti-terrorisme et qui ne vise pas un processus politique global dans la région. De ce fait, interroger l’action française au Sahel c’est aussi nous interroger sur le rapport au territoire des autres, particulièrement des pays en développement, le rapport aux flux dans un contexte d’urgence migratoire. Cela questionne les actions militaires futures. Ces engagements sont usants pour les hommes et les matériels et constituent un poids considérable sur notre appareil militaire. Les opérations de lutte contre le terrorisme sont légitimes dans la mesure où la terreur et les actes criminels ne sauraient être tolérés. Il faut mesurer le dilemme moral qui pèse sur tout gouvernant à la tête d’une puissance militaire capable d’une opération pour faire cesser ce qui constitue à un moment donné un scandale moral. Mais il faut admettre que ce qui constitue un scandale moral aujourd’hui s’inscrit dans des problématiques plus vastes et plus anciennes. Oublier que le terrorisme et les terroristes sont les manifestations de problèmes plus larges qu’eux-mêmes, c’est accepter de croire qu’il est possible aujourd’hui, en démocratie de faire la guerre à un mode d’action et à des idées et de gagner. L’aveuglement de certaines grandes puissances face à ces enjeux tient souvent du refoulement de problèmes qui leurs sont propres. Dans un coin du parc Montsouris à Paris, un obélisque commémore le colonel Flatters et ses compagnons tués par des Touaregs en 1881 à Bir el-Garama en tentant de rejoindre le Soudan français par le Sahara. Son expédition était l’aboutissement d’un projet porté depuis 1879 par la commission supérieure du Transsaharien visant à la création d’un chemin de fer allant de l’Algérie à Dakar via le Mali dans une double perspective de contrôle des circulations sahélo-sahariennes et donc des populations y vivant mais aussi des ressources présentes dans la région et pouvant présenter un intérêt colonial. L’échec de la mission Flatters n’a pas limité ces entreprises puisque le contrôle de ces espaces de désert a été un axe politique majeur des autorités coloniales de l’Algérie comme de l’Afrique occidentale française.

      https://aoc.media/analyse/2018/07/11/sahel-france-guerre

      signalé par @isskein via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • États africains, portiers de l’Europe

      À coups de milliards versés par l’Union européenne, les États africains deviennent les nouveaux gardes-frontières du Vieux Continent. Cette vaste enquête menée dans douze pays explore les rouages et les conséquences humaines de cette politique européenne controversée, dont les exilés paient le prix fort.

      L’Espagne a été la première à franchir le pas : face à l’afflux de migrants sur les côtes des #Canaries, le pays a décidé de subventionner plusieurs pays d’#Afrique_de_l’Ouest afin qu’ils se chargent d’arrêter à leurs frontières les candidats à l’exil. L’#Union_européenne a emboîté le pas à l’Espagne, en conditionnant l’#aide_au_développement à destination d’une vingtaine de pays africains à un renforcement de ces contrôles. Policiers et militaires européens sont parallèlement envoyés sur place pour aider à briser les routes migratoires. L’UE n’hésite d’ailleurs pas à faire de dictatures comme l’#Érythrée et le #Soudan ses « partenaires » dans la chasse aux migrants. Les véritables gagnants de ces interventions à grande échelle sont les entreprises d’armement et de sécurité européennes, dans lesquelles sont réinvesties les subventions versées. Au fil d’une vaste enquête dans douze pays, Jan M. Schäfer explore les rouages et les conséquences humaines de cette politique européenne controversée, dont les exilés paient le prix fort.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/078195-000-A/etats-africains-portiers-de-l-europe
      #film #documentaire
      #business #armes #armement

      Le documentaire n’est plus disponible sur arte, mais peut être visionné sur Youtube, voici quelques liens actuellement valides :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUSIi-qP2pY


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0nf5c4FOPo

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu7VvY5fs7Y

    • La relation dangereuse entre migration, développement et #sécurité pour externaliser les frontières en Afrique

      L’ARCI, dans le cadre du projet de monitorat de l’externalisation des politiques européennes et italiennes sur les migrations – parallèlement à son travail de communication constant sur l’évolution des accords multilatéraux et bilatéraux avec les pays d’origine et de transit, a produit ce document d’analyse pour alerter la société civile et les gouvernements sur les dérives possibles de ces stratégies qui conduisent à des violations systématiques des droits fondamentaux et des Conventions internationales