/news

A mettre en lien avec:
WELCOME TO PRISON : We are treated like animals in the zoo !!!
►https://seenthis.net/messages/838069

La Grèce débute les « retours volontaires » de « migrants économiques »

Un premier vol transportant des « migrants économiques » retournant « volontairement » dans leur pays d’origine, est parti d’Athènes jeudi, dans le cadre d’un programme de l’Union européenne. Au total, 5 000 personnes se verront proposer des incitations au départ de 2 000 euros.

Quelque 134 migrants irakiens ont « volontairement » quitté Athènes jeudi 6 août pour rejoindre leur pays d’origine. Des photos de leur embarquement dans l’avion montrent des hommes aux visages masqués. Certains brandissent fièrement leur passeport et agitent les bras en guise d’adieu.

Il s’agit du « plus important retour sur une base volontaire de migrants économiques jamais mis en oeuvre dans notre pays, et le plus important en Europe cette année », a déclaré à la presse le porte-parole du gouvernement Stelios Petsas. Ces retours ont lieu dans le cadre d’un programme mis en place en mars par l’Union européenne dans le but de soulager la Grèce qui abrite 120 000 migrants et réfugiés. Ce programme était jusque-là resté en suspens à cause de la pandémie de coronavirus.

https://i.imgur.com/siSc1lT.png

▻https://twitter.com/YannisKolesidis/status/1291379911970693121

Au total, 5 000 migrants, originaires de différents pays, se verront proposer des incitations au départ volontaire de 2 000 euros (2 400 dollars) par personne pour retourner dans leur pays d’origine. Une aide censée leur permettre un nouveau départ, avait expliqué en mars la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures Ylva Johansson.

Pour faire partie de ce programme, les candidats doivent être entrés en Grèce avant le 1er janvier 2020, et être toujours présents sur les îles de Leros, Samos, Lesbos, Kos et Chios en mer Egée. Ils disposent d’un mois pour faire leur demande. Ce délai peut être prolongé d’un mois supplémentaire pour atteindre le nombre requis de candidatures si celles-ci sont peu nombreuses, a expliqué le ministère des Migrations.

« Le gouvernement grec leur mène la vie dure »

À l’image de ces 134 Irakiens, les migrants des camps grecs sont de plus en plus nombreux à envisager, résignés, un retour au pays, observe Yonous Muhammadi, le directeur de l’association Greek forum of refugees qui oeuvre aux côtés de migrants. "Jeudi, je me suis rendu au camp de Ritsona [à une heure au nord d’Athènes, NDLR] et j’ai dû répondre à beaucoup de questions de la part des migrants qui voulaient savoir comment faire pour rentrer chez eux’’, raconte-t-il, évoquant des personnes venues d’Afghanistan, du Pakistan et de pays africains.

« Il est pourtant clair que la situation dans leurs pays d’origine ne sera certainement pas meilleure qu’ici et, même, pour certains, qu’ils y seront en danger, mais ces personnes sont en souffrance. Elles envisagent le départ car le gouvernement grec leur mène la vie dure », poursuit-il affirmant que l’immense majorité des migrants continuent à vouloir rester en Europe.

Outre les conditions de vie effroyables dans les camps des cinq îles de la mer Égée, où s’entassent plus de 25 000 demandeurs d’asile pour 6 000 places et où le confinement ne cesse d’être prolongé, Athènes a récemment annoncé l’expulsion de 11 000 réfugiés de leur logement. Résultat : des migrants n’ont d’autres choix que de dormir dans les parcs du centre-ville ou entassés dans des appartements.

’’Parfois, on trouve 30 ou 40 personnes dans un seul appartement. Les propriétaires peuvent leur prendre 10 euros par personnes et par jour. Et la police, que nous avons prévenue, s’en moque’’, dénonce Yonous Muhammadi qui pointe le cynisme de l’État. ’’Les autorités n’expulsent pas les migrants du pays mais elles rendent leur quotidien impossible. C’est une stratégie pour dissuader ceux qui prévoient de venir, même s’ils envisagent de toute façon cette option en dernier recours."
« Je connais beaucoup d’Irakiens sur les îles et aucun ne veut retourner en Irak »

Malgré les difficultés du quotidien, un retour au pays semble pour certains être une décision inimaginable. Ce programme européen laisse ainsi Karim, un père de famille irakien demandeur d’asile depuis deux ans, très dubitatif. « Si des personnes veulent rentrer dans leur pays, c’est uniquement parce que c’est très compliqué de vivre de manière digne quand on est demandeur d’asile en Grèce », confie-t-il à InfoMigrants.

De son côté, le choix est fait. « Rentrer, ça voudrait dire mourir », explique Karim, qui a été menacé dans son pays par des milices après avoir vendu de l’alcool dans son magasin de la ville de Bassora. « Je connais beaucoup d’Irakiens sur les îles grecques et aucun d’entre eux ne veut retourner en Irak. »

En parallèle du programme de l’Union européenne, des « retours volontaires » sont également mis en place sous l’égide de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations en coordination avec les autorités locales. En juillet, un groupe de Pakistanais avait déjà quitté Athènes par avion. Sur place, le décollage avait été suivi d’un regard attentif par le ministre grec des Migrations.

►https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/26504/la-grece-debute-les-retours-volontaires-de-migrants-economiques

IOM, Government of Greece Assist 134 Iraqi Migrants with Voluntary Return

https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/press_release/media/img_9955.jpg?itok=aBs3fiom#.jpg

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Greece and the Hellenic authorities, in coordination with IOM Iraq and the diplomatic corps, organized the voluntary return of 134 Iraqi nationals who wished to return home. They left Athens Thursday (6/8) on a flight to Baghdad International Airport, where the first group of passengers disembarked. The flight then continued to Erbil International Airport.

This is the first large group of migrants to voluntarily return from Greece since the COVID-19 movement restrictions were imposed. Among them were 80 men, 16 women and 38 children.

“This initiative is an important step towards resuming operations amid COVID-19 and providing migrants with an option to return in safety and dignity,” said Gianluca Rocco, Chief of Mission for IOM Greece.

“COVID-19 has imposed restrictions on all of us but for certain categories of migrants it also has delayed their possibility to return home. This movement was a cooperation between the Iraqi authorities, the European Commission and the Greek Government to alleviate that situation.”

“Amid the lockdown, migrants staying in Greece continued to register for return assistance and take advantage of the special programme initiated by the Hellenic Authorities to assist with voluntary returns from the Greek islands,” he added.

The Iraqi nationals had been residing on the islands of Lesvos, Samos, Kos, Chios and Leros, as well as mainland Greece, for several months.

Prior to their departure, and in coordination with the Hellenic authorities, the migrants were accommodated in an IOM temporary facility in Attika and the Open Centre for migrants (OCAVRR) in Athens. Individual counselling sessions were conducted in their native languages to confirm their wishes to voluntary return. Following the protocols set by the Ministry of Health, all migrants also underwent health assessments and medical examinations, including COVID-19 tests, to confirm their fitness for travel.

“I am glad I am returning to my home country because I missed my wife and mother,” said Salih Ahmed from Baghdad.

On the day of departure, IOM Greece assisted the returnees with all airport procedures and one-time cash assistance was given to each of them as a contribution to their initial expenses upon arrival.

During the flight, all passengers were required to wear masks and gloves, and disinfectant gel was provided for use on surfaces and to keep hands clean. Upon arrival in both Baghdad and Erbil, temperature checks were conducted, while new sets of masks and gloves were provided.

Since the outbreak of the pandemic, 432 migrants have voluntarily returned to 20 countries of origin via commercial flights, with IOM’s assistance. All necessary travel documents have been provided in collaboration with the relevant consular authorities.

Working in close cooperation with the Hellenic authorities, ΙΟΜ Greece has been implementing AVRR projects since 2010, assisting more than 50,000 migrants to voluntarily return to their countries of origin. The project “The implementation of assisted voluntary returns including reintegration measures and operation of Open Center in the Prefecture of Attica for applicants of voluntary return (AVRR/OCAVRR)” is co-funded 75% by European Funds (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) and 25% by Greek National Funds.

►https://www.iom.int/news/iom-government-greece-assist-134-iraqi-migrants-voluntary-return

#Rapport : Migration and Remittances

This Migration and Development Brief reports global trends in migration and remittance flows. It highlights developments connected to migration-related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators for which the World Bank is a custodian: increasing the volume of remittances as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (SDG indicator 17.3.2), reducing remittance costs (SDG indicator 10.c.1), and reducing recruitment costs for migrant workers (SDG indicator 10.7.1). This Brief also presents recent developments on the Global Compact on Migration (GCM) and proposes an implementation and review mechanism.

https://i.imgur.com/eYyt81L.png https://i.imgur.com/8TmjzYw.png https://i.imgur.com/Fk0qkEd.png

Pour télécharger le rapport :
▻https://www.knomad.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/Migration%20and%20Development%20Brief%2030%20advance%20copy.pdf

International Remittances Headline ACP-EU-IOM Discussions in #Ghana

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the flow of remittances is on the rise, but the cost to transfer these funds is far higher than the global average, making the region the most expensive place in the world to send money.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and partners focused on improving the use of migrant remittances, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa at a three-day regional thematic meeting starting today (19/02) in Accra, Ghana.

International remittances have been taking on increasing weight in the global policy agenda in recent years according to Jeffrey Labovitz, IOM Regional Director for East and Horn of Africa, who is speaking at the event.

“This in part reflects the growing understanding that improving and harnessing the flow of remittances can have a substantial impact on development,” he said.

Remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa grew from USD 34 billion in 2016 to USD 38 billion in 2017, an increase of over 11 per cent. Despite this increase – a trend which is expected to continue through 2019 – Sub-Saharan Africa remains the most expensive place in the world to send money with an average cost of 9.4 per cent of the transfer amount, a figure that was 29 per cent above the world average in 2017. This is far short of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) target 10.C.3 to reduce the transaction costs of migrant remittances to less than 3 per cent by 2030.

“Almost 75 per cent of remittances are spent on consumption which greatly benefit the receiving households and communities,” said Claudia Natali, Regional Specialist on Labour Mobility and Development at the IOM Regional Office for West and Central Africa.

“But more could be done to maximize the remaining 25 per cent. Fostering financial inclusion and promoting initiatives that help people manage the funds can go a long way to harness development impacts of remittances,” she added.

The meeting, which runs through Thursday (21/02), is providing a platform for communication, exchange and learning for 80 participants involved in IOM’s “ACP-EU Migration Action", including migration experts and representatives from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) governments, regional organizations, the European Union (EU), UN agencies and NGOs working in remittances and diaspora mobilization.

Given that remittances are at the heart of the joint ACP Group of States and European Union Dialogue’s recommendations on migration, discussions also aim to generate thematic recommendations for the Sub-Saharan region and establish links between the outcomes of the ACP-EU Migration Action programme, and processes relevant to the ACP-EU Dialogue on Migration and Development at the regional and global levels.

The meeting is organized by IOM’s country office for Ghana and the IOM Regional Office in Brussels in partnership with the African Institute for Remittances (AIR) and Making Finance Work for Africa Partnership (MFW4A).

IOM’s ACP-EU Migration Action, launched in June 2014, provides tailored technical support on migration to ACP countries and regional organizations. To date it has received 74 technical assistance requests from 67 ACP governments and 7 regional organizations, a third of which directly concern remittances.

The programme is financed by the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) and supported by the ACP Secretariat and the EU. For more information on the ACP-EU Migration Action, go to: www.acpeumigrationaction.iom.int.

▻https://www.iom.int/news/international-remittances-headline-acp-eu-iom-discussions-ghana

The cost of cross-border payments needs to drop

FOR MOST of human history, sending money across borders has cost the earth. Thankfully for globetrotters and e-shoppers in the rich world, that has changed in the past decade. A shift from cash and travellers’ cheques towards digital payments has cut the cost of moving funds around. And a new generation of fintech firms has broken the stranglehold that big banks used to have on money transfers (see article). As a result, fees have fallen. The cost of a transfer between consumers or small firms who are both in G7 countries can now cost 2% or less. This year some $10trn will pass across borders. As prices fall further, the sums will grow.

https://i.imgur.com/mXevk8S.png

Central America Encourages Migrants to Leave—And Then Rakes in U.S. Dollars

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iDbVMLttgPWQ/v1/800x-1.png

#Polly_Pallister-Wilkins sur la marche de migrants qui a lieu en Amérique centrale...

Dear media reporting on the Central American migrant caravan, can you please be attentive to how you talk about it? 1/n
People are walking, walking not pouring, flowing, or streaming. Walking. They are walking along roads, they will be tired, hungry, their feet will hurt, they will have blisters and sore joints. They are not a natural liquid phenomenon governed by the force of gravity. 2/n
Their walking is conditioned by the infrastructures they move along like roads, the physical geographies they traverse like hills and rivers and the human controls they encounter like border controls and police checkpoints. 3/n
All of these things are risky, they make the walk, the journey more difficult and dangerous, esepcially the police checkpoints and the border controls. These risks are the reason they are travelling as a caravan, as a large group attempting to minimise the risks of controls 4/n
And the risks from gangs and criminals that migrants on their journeys routinely face. Their journey is a deeply embodied one, and one that is deeply conditioned both by the violence they are leaving and the violence of the journey itself. 5/n
So media please try and reflect this in your storytelling. These people are not a river obeying gravity. They have made an active yet conditioned choice to move. When they encounter a block in their path this can be deadly. It can detain, deport, injure, rape, or kill. 6/n
And these blockages are not boulders in a riverbed around which the river flows. These blockages, these #checkpoints, border controls or police patrols are human blockages, they are not natural. So please try and reflect the political structures of this journey. Please. End/
Addendum: there is a long history of caravans as a form political resistance in Central America.

▻https://twitter.com/PollyWilkins/status/1054267257944227840
#marche #migrations #Honduras #Amérique_centrale #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie #média #journalisme #presse #caravane #métaphores_liquides #risque #gravité #mouvement #contrôles_frontaliers #blocages #barrières #résistance #Mexique

Migrants travel in groups for a simple reason: safety

A caravan of Central American migrants traveling to through Mexico to the United States to seek asylum is about halfway through its journey.

The caravan began on Oct. 13 in Honduras with 200 people. As it has moved through Honduras, Guatemala and now Mexico, its ranks have grown to over 7,000, according to an estimate by the International Organization of Migration.

The migrants have been joined by representatives from humanitarian organizations like the Mexican Red Cross providing medical assistance and human rights groups that monitor the situation.

Journalists are there, too, and their reporting has caught the attention of President Donald Trump.

He has claimed that the caravan’s ranks probably hide Middle Eastern terrorists. Trump later acknowledged there is no evidence of this, but conservative media outlets have nevertheless spread the message.

It is reasonable for Americans to have security concerns about immigration. But as a scholar of forced migration, I believe it’s also important to consider why migrants travel in groups: their own safety.
Safety in numbers

The Central Americans in the caravan, like hundreds of thousands of people who flee the region each year, are escaping extreme violence, lack of economic opportunity and growing environmental problems, including drought and floods, back home.

Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico have some of the world’s highest murder rates. According to Doctors Without Borders, which provides medical care in crisis zones, 68 percent of the migrants and refugees it surveyed in Mexico had experienced violence. Nearly one-third of women were sexually abused.

Whether crossing Central America, the Sahara desert or the mountains of Afghanistan, migrants are regularly extorted by criminals, militias and corrupt immigration officials who know migrants make easy targets: They carry cash but not weapons.

Large groups increase migrants’ chance of safe passage, and they provide some sense of community and solidarity on the journey, as migrants themselves report.
Publicizing the dangers they flee

Large groups of migrants also attract media coverage. As journalists write about why people are on the move, they shed light on Central America’s many troubles.

Yet headlines about huge migrant caravans may misrepresent trends at the U.S.-Mexico border, where migration is actually decreasing.

While the number of Central American families and children seeking asylum in the U.S. has increased in the past two years, Mexican economic migrants are crossing the border at historically low levels.

And while most migrant caravan members hope to seek asylum in the U.S., recent history shows many will stay in Mexico.

In response to Trump’s immigration crackdown, Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador has promised to welcome Central American refugees — and try to keep them safe.

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1055459911620939776/ljMtLuOh?format=jpg&name=600x314#.jpg

#sécurité

Trump’s Caravan Hysteria Led to This

The president and his supporters insisted that several thousand Honduran migrants were a looming menace—and the Pittsburgh gunman took that seriously.

On Tuesday, October 16, President Donald Trump started tweeting.

“The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!”

“We have today informed the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that if they allow their citizens, or others, to journey through their borders and up to the United States, with the intention of entering our country illegally, all payments made to them will STOP (END)!”

Vice President Mike Pence also tweeted:

“Spoke to President Hernandez of Honduras about the migrant caravan heading to the U.S. Delivered strong message from @POTUS: no more aid if caravan is not stopped. Told him U.S. will not tolerate this blatant disregard for our border & sovereignty.”

The apparent impetus for this outrage was a segment on Fox News that morning that detailed a migrant caravan thousands of miles away in Honduras. The caravan, which began sometime in mid-October, is made up of refugees fleeing violence in their home country. Over the next few weeks, Trump did his best to turn the caravan into a national emergency. Trump falsely told his supporters that there were “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners” in the caravan, a claim that had no basis in fact and that was meant to imply that terrorists were hiding in the caravan—one falsehood placed on another. Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered more troops to the border. A Fox News host took it upon herself to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen whether there was “any scenario under which if people force their way across the border they could be shot at,” to which Nielsen responded, “We do not have any intention right now to shoot at people.”

Pence told Fox News on Friday, “What the president of Honduras told me is that the caravan was organized by leftist organizations, political activists within Honduras, and he said it was being funded by outside groups, and even from Venezuela … So the American people, I think, see through this—they understand this is not a spontaneous caravan of vulnerable people.”

The Department of Homeland Security’s Twitter account “confirmed” that within the caravan are people who are “gang members or have significant criminal histories,” without offering evidence of any such ties. Trump sought to blame the opposition party for the caravan’s existence. “Every time you see a Caravan, or people illegally coming, or attempting to come, into our Country illegally, think of and blame the Democrats for not giving us the votes to change our pathetic Immigration Laws!” Trump tweeted on October 22. “Remember the Midterms! So unfair to those who come in legally.”

In the right-wing fever swamps, where the president’s every word is worshipped, commenters began amplifying Trump’s exhortations with new details. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida wondered whether George Soros—the wealthy Jewish philanthropist whom Trump and several members of the U.S. Senate blamed for the protests against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and who was recently targeted with a bomb—was behind the migrant caravan. NRATV, the propaganda organ of the National Rifle Association, linked two Republican obsessions, voter fraud and immigration. Chuck Holton told NRATV’s viewers that Soros was sending the caravan to the United States so the migrants could vote: “It’s telling that a bevy of left-wing groups are partnering with a Hungarian-born billionaire and the Venezuelan government to try to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north in the thousands.” On CNN, the conservative commentator Matt Schlapp pointedly asked the anchor Alisyn Camerota, “Who’s paying for the caravan? Alisyn, who’s paying for the caravan?,” before later answering his own question: “Because of the liberal judges and other people that intercede, including George Soros, we have too much chaos at our southern border.” On Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, one guest said, “These individuals are not immigrants—these are people that are invading our country,” as another guest asserted they were seeking “the destruction of American society and culture.”

Peter Beinart: Trump shut programs to counter violent extremists

In the meantime, much of the mainstream press abetted Trump’s effort to make the midterm election a referendum on the caravan. Popular news podcasts devoted entire episodes to the caravan. It remained on the front pages of major media websites. It was an overwhelming topic of conversation on cable news, where Trumpists freely spread disinformation about the threat the migrants posed, while news anchors displayed exasperation over their false claims, only to invite them back on the next day’s newscast to do it all over again.

In reality, the caravan was thousands of miles and weeks away from the U.S. border, shrinking in size, and unlikely to reach the U.S. before the election. If the migrants reach the U.S., they have the right under U.S. law to apply for asylum at a port of entry. If their claims are not accepted, they will be turned away. There is no national emergency; there is no ominous threat. There is only a group of desperate people looking for a better life, who have a right to request asylum in the United States and have no right to stay if their claims are rejected. Trump is reportedly aware that his claims about the caravan are false. An administration official told the Daily Beast simply, “It doesn’t matter if it’s 100 percent accurate … this is the play.” The “play” was to demonize vulnerable people with falsehoods in order to frighten Trump’s base to the polls.

Nevertheless, some took the claims of the president and his allies seriously. On Saturday morning, Shabbat morning, a gunman walked into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed 11 people. The massacre capped off a week of terrorism, in which one man mailed bombs to nearly a dozen Trump critics and another killed two black people in a grocery store after failing to force his way into a black church.

Before committing the Tree of Life massacre, the shooter, who blamed Jews for the caravan of “invaders” and who raged about it on social media, made it clear that he was furious at HIAS, founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that helps resettle refugees in the United States. He shared posts on Gab, a social-media site popular with the alt-right, expressing alarm at the sight of “massive human caravans of young men from Honduras and El Salvador invading America thru our unsecured southern border.” And then he wrote, “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

The people killed on Saturday were killed for trying to make the world a better place, as their faith exhorts them to do. The history of the Jewish people is one of displacement, statelessness, and persecution. What groups like HIAS do in helping refugees, they do with the knowledge that comes from a history of being the targets of demagogues who persecute minorities in pursuit of power.

Ordinarily, a politician cannot be held responsible for the actions of a deranged follower. But ordinarily, politicians don’t praise supporters who have mercilessly beaten a Latino man as “very passionate.” Ordinarily, they don’t offer to pay supporters’ legal bills if they assault protesters on the other side. They don’t praise acts of violence against the media. They don’t defend neo-Nazi rioters as “fine people.” They don’t justify sending bombs to their critics by blaming the media for airing criticism. Ordinarily, there is no historic surge in anti-Semitism, much of it targeted at Jewish critics, coinciding with a politician’s rise. And ordinarily, presidents do not blatantly exploit their authority in an effort to terrify white Americans into voting for their party. For the past few decades, most American politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, have been careful not to urge their supporters to take matters into their own hands. Trump did everything he could to fan the flames, and nothing to restrain those who might take him at his word.

Many of Trump’s defenders argue that his rhetoric is mere shtick—that his attacks, however cruel, aren’t taken 100 percent seriously by his supporters. But to make this argument is to concede that following Trump’s statements to their logical conclusion could lead to violence against his targets, and it is only because most do not take it that way that the political violence committed on Trump’s behalf is as limited as it currently is.

The Tree of Life shooter criticized Trump for not being racist or anti-Semitic enough. But with respect to the caravan, the shooter merely followed the logic of the president and his allies: He was willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent an “invasion” of Latinos planned by perfidious Jews, a treasonous attempt to seek “the destruction of American society and culture.”

The apparent spark for the worst anti-Semitic massacre in American history was a racist hoax inflamed by a U.S. president seeking to help his party win a midterm election. There is no political gesture, no public statement, and no alteration in rhetoric or behavior that will change this fact. The shooter might have found a different reason to act on a different day. But he chose to act on Saturday, and he apparently chose to act in response to a political fiction that the president himself chose to spread and that his followers chose to amplify.

As for those who aided the president in his propaganda campaign, who enabled him to prey on racist fears to fabricate a national emergency, who said to themselves, “This is the play”? Every single one of them bears some responsibility for what followed. Their condemnations of anti-Semitism are meaningless. Their thoughts and prayers are worthless. Their condolences are irrelevant. They can never undo what they have done, and what they have done will never be forgotten.

▻https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/caravan-lie-sparked-massacre-american-jews/574213

Latin American asylum seekers hit US policy “wall”

Trump’s new restrictions mean long waits simply to register claims.

The movement of thousands of Central American asylum seekers and migrants north from Honduras towards the southern border of the United States has precipitated threats from US President Donald Trump – ahead of next week’s midterm elections – to block the group’s entry by deploying troops to the US-Mexican border.

Under international law the United States is obligated to allow asylum seekers to enter and file claims. However, immigration officials at the country’s southern border have for months been shifting toward legally dubious practices that restrict people’s ability to file asylum claims.

“Make no mistake, the administration is building a wall – one made of restrictionist policy rather than brick and mortar,” said Jason Boyd, policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

As a result, hundreds, possibly thousands, of asylum seekers have been left waiting for extended periods of time on the Mexican side of the border in need of shelter and basic services. Firm numbers for those affected are difficult to come by because no one is counting.

Some of those turned away explore potentially dangerous alternatives. Aid and advocacy groups as well as the Department of Homeland Security say the wait has likely pushed some to attempt to enter the United States illegally, either with smugglers or on their own via perilous desert routes.

While some of those in the so-called “migrant caravan” are searching for economic opportunity, others are fleeing gang violence, gender-based violence, political repression or unrest – all increasingly common factors in Central America and Mexico that push people to leave their homes.
Menacing phone calls

When people from the migrant caravan reach the southern border of the United States, they may find themselves in a similar position to Dolores Alzuri, 47, from Michoacan, a state in central Mexico.

In late September, she was camped out with her husband, daughter, granddaughter, and aunt on the Mexican side of the DeConcini port of entry separating the twin cities of Nogales – one in the Mexican state of Sonora, the other in the US state of Arizona.

Alzuri and her family were waiting for their turn to claim asylum in the United States, with only a police report in hand as proof of the threats they faced back home. Camping beside them on the pedestrian walkway just outside the grated metal door leading to the United States, nine other families waited to do the same.

Over the preceding month Alzuri had received several menacing phone calls from strangers demanding money. In Michoacan, and many other parts of Mexico where criminal gangs have a strong presence, almost anybody can receive calls like these. You don’t know who’s on the other end of the line, Alzuri explained, but you do know the consequences of not following their orders.

“If you do not give [money] to them, they kidnap you or they kidnap your family,” Alzuri said. “They destroy you. They kill you. That is why it is so scary to be in this country.”

Other people she knew had received similar calls. She also knew that those who didn’t pay ended up dead – pictures of their bodies posted on Facebook as a macabre warning of what happens to those who resist.

Fearing a similar fate, Alzuri packed her bags and her family and travelled north to ask for asylum in the United States. A friend had been granted asylum about nine months ago, and she had seen on television that other people were going, too. It seemed like the only way out.

“I had a problem,” she said, referring to the phone calls. “They asked us for money, and since we did not give them money, they threatened us.”

Before leaving her home, Alzuri said she filed a police report. But the authorities didn’t care enough to act on it, she said. “They are not going to risk their life for mine.”
No way out

Despite the danger at home, Alzuri and others in similar situations face an increasingly difficult time applying for asylum in the United States. At the Nogales crossing, asylum seekers must now wait up to a month simply to be allowed to set foot inside a border office where they can register their claims, aid workers there say.

Those waiting are stuck in territory on the Mexican side that is controlled by gangs similar to the ones many are fleeing, though local aid groups have scrambled to find space in shelters, especially for women and children, so people will be safer while they wait.

The situation hasn’t always been like this.

In the past, asylum seekers were almost always admitted to register their claims the same day they arrived at the border. Since May, however, there has been a marked slowdown in registration.

US Custom and Border Protection (CBP), the federal law enforcement agency responsible for screening people as they enter the country, says delays are due to a lack of capacity and space. But asylum advocates say similar numbers have arrived in previous years without causing a delay and the real reason for the slowdown is that CBP has shifted resources away from processing asylum seekers – not just in Nogales but across the southern US border – resulting in people being forced to wait for long periods or turned away altogether.

This is happening despite the insistence of high-ranking Trump administration officials that asylum seekers present themselves at ports of entry or face criminal prosecution for crossing the border irregularly. Such contradictory policies, asylum advocates argue, are part of a broad-based effort by the Trump administration to dramatically reduce the number of people able to seek protection in the United States.

“Our legal understanding is that they have the legal obligation to process asylum seekers as they arrive,” said Joanna Williams, director of education and advocacy at the Kino Border Initiative (KBI), a Nogales-based NGO. “There’s no room in the law for what they are doing right now.”
A system in crisis

In the past decade, migration across the southern border of the United States has undergone a dramatic change. Every year since the late 1970s US Border Patrol agents apprehended close to a million or more undocumented migrants entering the country. In 2007, that number began to fall, and last year there were just over 310,000 apprehensions – the lowest number since 1971.

At the same time, the proportion of people entering the United States from the southern border to claim asylum has increased. Ten years ago, one out of every 100 people crossing the border was seeking humanitarian protection, according to a recent report published by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a non-partisan think tank in Washington DC. Today that number is about one in three.

According to Boyd of AILA, the increase is being driven by ongoing humanitarian emergencies in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, an area of Central America known as the Northern Triangle. These countries have some of the highest homicide rates in the world and are wracked by gang violence, gender-based violence, extortion, and extra-judicial killings. “Many of the individuals and families arriving at the US southern border are literally fleeing for their lives,” said Boyd.

But the system that is supposed to provide them protection is in crisis. Beginning in 2010 the number of asylum requests lodged in the United States started to balloon, mirroring an upward trend in global displacement. Last year, 79,000 people approached the US border saying they had a credible fear of returning to their home country, compared to 9,000 at the beginning of the decade.

The increase in credible-fear claims, as well as asylum requests made by people already in the United States, has strained the system to a “crisis point”, according to the MPI report. This has led to a backlog of around 320,000 cases in US immigration courts and people having to wait many months, if not years, to receive a hearing and a decision.
Crackdown

Senior officials in the Trump administration, including the president, have consistently lumped asylum seekers and economic migrants together, positing that the United States is being “invaded” by a “massive influx of illegal aliens” across the southern border, and that the asylum system is subject to “systematic abuse” by people looking to gain easy entry to the country.

People working on the ground with asylum seekers refute this. Eduardo Garcia is a communication coordinator at SOA Watch, an organisation that monitors the humanitarian impact of US policy in Latin America. He has spent time in Nogales speaking with people waiting to claim asylum.

“The stories of many of the people we have talked to… are stories of people fleeing gang violence, are stories of people fleeing because one of their sons was killed, because one of their sons was threatened, because one of their family members [was] raped,” he said. “They have said they cannot go back to their countries. If they are sent back they are going to be killed.”

Still, the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy on immigration – responsible for the recent child-separation crisis – has also included measures that have restricted access to asylum in the United States.

In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department would begin criminally prosecuting everyone who irregularly crossed the US southern border, including asylum seekers. In June, that policy was followed by a decision that the United States would no longer consider gang and sexual violence – precisely the reasons so many people flee the Northern Triangle – as legitimate grounds for asylum. Around the same time, CBP appears to have deprioritised the processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry in favour of other responsibilities, leading to the long waits and people being turned away, according to humanitarian workers and a recent report by the DHS’s Office of Inspector General.

And even as these restrictive policies were being put in place, Trump administration officials have been encouraging asylum seekers to try. “If you’re seeking asylum, go to a port of entry,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in an 18 June press conference. “You do not need to break the law of the United States to seek asylum.”

Nogales, Mexico

“I came here with the hope that if I asked for asylum I could be in the United States,” said Modesto, a 54-year-old from Chimaltenango, Guatemala. In mid-September he was sitting in a mess hall run a couple hundred meters from the US border run by KBI, which provides humanitarian assistance to migrants and asylum seekers.

Modesto had already been in Nogales, Sonora for several months. Like Dolores Alzuri, he fled his home because criminal gangs had tried to extort money from him. “I worked a lot and was making a living in my country,” Modesto explained. “The problem in particular with the gangs is that they don’t let you work… If you have money they extort you. If you don’t have money they want to recruit you.” And people who don’t cooperate: “They’re dead,” he added.

The situation Modesto found when he arrived in Nogales, Sonora was far from what he expected. For starters, there was the long wait at the border. But he also discovered that – as an adult travelling with his 18-year-old son – even once he entered the United States he would likely end up in a detention centre while his case slowly made its way through the overburdened immigration courts – a practice that has also increased under the Trump administration. “I don’t want to cross… and spend a year in prison when my family needs my help,” he said.

Modesto is in some ways an exception, according to Williams of KBI. Many of the people arriving in Nogales, Sonora are families with children. Once in the United States they will likely be released from immigration detention with ankle monitoring bracelets to track their movements. These people often choose to wait and to claim asylum at the port of entry when there is space.

After more than 100 people piled up to wait at the border in May, local humanitarian groups set up a system to organise and keep track of whose turn it was to submit an asylum claim to US immigration officials. They also scrambled to find spaces in shelters so people were not sleeping on the walkway over the weeks they needed to wait.

Now, only people who are likely to enter soon are camped on the walkway. When IRIN visited, about 40 asylum seekers – mostly women and children – sat on one side of the walkway as a steady stream of people heading to the United States filtered by on the other. Some of the asylum seekers were new arrivals waiting to be taken to a shelter, while others had been sleeping there for days on thin mats waiting for their turn. Volunteers handed out clean clothing and served pasta, as a CBP agent opened and closed the metal gate leading to the United States, just a few tantalisingly short feet away.

The slowdown of processing “leaves people stranded – in really dangerous situations sometimes – on the other side of the border, and completely violates our obligations under both domestic and international law,” said Katharina Obser, a senior policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission, an NGO that advocates for women, children, and youth displaced by conflict and crisis.

As a result, some people arrive, find out about the wait, and leave. “We’re fairly certain that those are individuals who then end up crossing the border through other means,” Williams said.

The DHS Office of the Inspector General came to a similar conclusion, finding that the contradiction between Trump administration rhetoric and policy “may have led asylum seekers at ports of entry to attempt illegal border crossings.”
Border-wide

The situation in Nogales, Sonora is far from isolated, according to Boyd of the AILA. “Recent turnbacks of vulnerable asylum seekers have been documented throughout the US southern border,” he said, including at many ports of entry in Texas and California. In those states, asylum seekers have reported being stopped as they approach the border and told they cannot enter because immigration officials don’t have the capacity to process their claims.

“Turnbacks form part of a comprehensive set of practices and policies advanced under this administration that appears aimed at shutting out asylum seekers from the United States,” Boyd continued.

Meanwhile, people like Dolores Alzuri – and most likely some of the thousands of Central Americans who are travelling north from Honduras in the hope of claiming asylum – are left with little choice but to wait. Moving somewhere else in Mexico or returning home is not an option, said Alzuri. “The violence is the same in every state,” she said. And crossing the desert, “that’s a big danger.”

She and her family don’t have a back-up plan. “Let’s hope that I do get [asylum], because I really do need it,” she said. “You don’t live comfortably in your own country anymore. You live in fear that something will happen to you. You can’t walk around on the streets because you feel that you’re being followed.”

▻https://www.irinnews.org/news-feature/2018/10/29/latin-american-asylum-seekers-hit-us-policy-wall
#USA #Etats-Unis #fermeture_des_frontières #Mexique

Commentaire Emmanuel Blanchar via la mailing-list Migreurop:

Un article intéressant car il rappelle opportunément que la « caravane des migrants » en route vers les Etats-Unis est également composée de nombreuses personnes qui souhaiteraient pouvoir déposer des demandes d’asile. Or, si la frontières Mexique-USA est loin d’être encore mûrées, un mur administratif empêche déjà que les demandes d’asile puisse être déposées et traitées dans le respect des droits des requérant.e.s.

#mur_administratif #asile

No es una caravana, es un dolor que camina

La caravana de migrantes es sólo la primera manifestación pública y masiva de la crisis humanitaria en la que vive la mayoría de la población; negada por el gobierno, por la oligarquía, embajadas, organizaciones de la sociedad civil y por algunas agencias de cooperación que le hacen comparsa a la dictadura.

Esta crisis humanitaria es provocada por el modelo económico neoliberal impuesto a sangre y fuego, que sólo pobreza y violencia ha llevado a las comunidades, que ante la ausencia de oportunidades y ante el acoso de los grupos criminales no tienen otra alternativa que la peligrosa e incierta ruta migratoria; prefieren morir en el camino que en sus barrios y colonias.

El infierno en que se ha convertido Honduras tiene varios responsables. En primer el lugar el imperialismo, que a través de su embajada promueve la inestabilidad política en el país con el apoyo directo al dictador, que para granjearse ese apoyo les ha entregado el país, hasta el grado del despojo y de la ignominia, como puede observarse en los foros internacionales.

Otro responsable es el dictador, que además de la incertidumbre que genera en lo económico, en lo político y en lo social, ha profundizado y llevado al extremo las políticas neoliberales, despojando de sus recursos a comunidades enteras, para dárselas a las transnacionales, principalmente norteamericanas y canadienses.

La oligarquía corrupta, mediocre, salvaje, inepta y rapaz también es responsable de esta crisis humanitaria, quien se ha acostumbrado a vivir del presupuesto nacional a tal grado de convertir al Estado en su patrimonio, por medio de un ejército de ocupación, de diputados y presidentes serviles y títeres, que toman las decisiones no para el pueblo, sino que para sus insaciables intereses.

Hay otro actor importante en esta crisis y es el Ejército Nacional, fiel sirviente de los intereses imperiales y de la oligarquía, que sólo sirve para consumir una gran tajada del presupuesto nacional y más que un ejército defensor y garante de la soberanía nacional es una fuerza de ocupación; listo para asesinar, torturar y matar aquellos que se oponen al dictador, al imperio y la oligarquía.

Desgraciadamente esta caravana la conforman los miserables, los desheredados de la tierra, los parias: “los que crían querubes para el presidio y serafines para el burdel” como dijo en su poema, Los Parias, el poeta mexicano Salvador Díaz Mirón.

Estos miserables y desheredados no huyen de la patria, la aman, la adoran y la llevan convertida en un dolor sobre sus hombros, huyen de los verdugos y carniceros que nos gobiernan y de los otros responsables de esta crisis humanitaria. Los que huyen aman a esta tierra más que los que nos quedamos.

▻https://criterio.hn/2018/10/29/no-es-una-caravana-es-un-dolor-que-camina
#douleur

WALKING, NOT FLOWING : THE MIGRANT CARAVAN AND THE GEOINFRASTRUCTURING OF UNEQUAL MOBILITY

In 2015 our TV screens, newspapers and social media were full of stories about ‘flows’ of migrants ‘pouring’ into Europe, set alongside photos and videos of people packed into boats at sea or meandering in long lines across fields. This vocabulary, and the images that accompanied it, suggested that migration was a natural force: like a flow of water that cannot be stopped, governed only by the forces of gravity. Now, this same language is being used to describe the ‘migrant caravan’ of the thousands of Hondurans leaving the violence of their home country and attempting to journey to the US.

This essay began life as an angry Twitter thread, hastily tapped out with my morning coffee. I argued that people were not flowing, but rather walking. In this Twitter thread, I tried to forge a connection between the how of the journey—noting both the material and geographical aspects impacting and structuring how people move—and the physical impacts of that journey on the bodies of those on the move. I called attention to the travelers’ tired, blistered feet in an attempt to weave a thread between the material (and political) geographies of the journey and the embodied experiences of those making it. The Twitter thread drew some attention and solicited an invitation to write a short intervention for the small Dutch critical-journalism platform De Nieuwe Reporterwhere it appeared in Dutch with the title: “Dit is waarom media niet moeten schrijven over ‘migrantenstromen’” (“This is why the media should not write about ‘migrant flows’”).

Time has passed since I wrote the intervention. Since then, the caravan has journeyed to the US-Mexico border. US and Mexican authorities have responded with tear gas and closures, highlighting in clear terms the violence of the border and corresponding mobility governance. This violence is too often obscured by talk of flows: in the intervention, I worked hard to make visible what watery metaphors of ‘flow’ do to shape how we think about migrant mobilities and what is lost in their usage. I attempted to highlight the uneven politics of mobility that is shaped by and made visible through a consideration of what I want to call geoinfrastructuring, alongside the embodied effects of this uneven mobility. Here, in contrast to modernity’s quest for faster, more convenient, more efficient modes of travel to overcome the limits of the body as it encounters and moves through space, the migrant caravan’s mode(s) of travel—walking, stopping, starting, bus hopping, sitting, waiting, sleeping—bring into sharp relief the ways that for those excluded from privileged mobility regimes, the body is in intimate concert with the material world it encounters.

The remainder of this essay will first reproduce the short intervention I wrote for De Nieuwe Reporter before thinking through more conceptually how this opinion piece relates to scholarly work on mobility and infrastructures.

http://societyandspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pallister_wilkins2.jpg

What we call things matters (while often invisibilizing how they matter). A Reuters report on the status of the migrant caravan in English from October 21st had the headline “Thousands in U.S.-bound migrant caravan pour into Mexican city”, while two days earlier a report by Reuters had talked about a “bedraggled” migrant “surge” attempting to “breach” the Mexican border. Meanwhile in other news outlets, the watery theme continued with a migrant “storm” in the UK’s Daily Mail, and a “wave” in USA Today. And lest we think this was a something restricted to reporting in the Global North, the Latin American press has not been immune, with Venezuela’s Telesur talking of a “second wave of migration.” Meanwhile in the Dutch language media, De Telegraafwrote of “Grote migrantenstromen trekken naar VS”, the headline handily highlighted in red in case the emergency nature of these “migrantenstromen” was not clear.

A counterpoint was offered by oneworld.nl, who talked of the dehumanizing effects of such language use. Indeed, what we call things matters, because politicians also echo the language of the media creating a self-re-enforcing migration language. Unsurprisingly Trump has talked of flows in his condemnation of the Honduran migrant caravan, while Mark Rutte earlier this year talked about Europe not being ready for a new “migrantenstroom” (“migrant flow”). However, what we call things also matters as much for what it reveals as what it conceals. The widespread use of watery and other natural metaphors when talking about migration journeys hides both the realities of and the reasons for the people’s journeys. To talk of rivers, streams, floods, and flows masks the experiences of the thousands of people who are walking thousands of kilometers. They are walking along roads, up hills and across borders; they are tired and hungry, and their feet hurt. Many are travelling with children as people are leaving lives of poverty and deadly gang violence and looking for a safe future in the United States. Just as the British-Somali refugee poet Warshan Shire urges us to consider that “No one would put their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”, in the case of the Honduran migrant caravan it’s very unlikely that anyone would walk thousands of kilometers unless the road was safer than their homes.

One of those travelling is Orellana, an unemployed domestic worker travelling with her two five-year-old grandsons. She declared she had no choice after the boys’ father was murdered and she “[Could not] feed them anymore”, and she is too old to get a job herself. Orellana has decided to try and get to Texas where her daughter, who migrated three years before, now lives.

What the watery metaphors also hide is the agency of Hondurans like Orellana in attempting the journey and what the decision to travel in such a large group tells us about the realities of the journey itself. While the migrant caravan is walking to ostensible safety, the northbound journeys of Central American migrants through Mexico to the US are not safe. Many thousands attempt this journey every year, encountering detention and extortion by the police and drug cartels, physical violence, rape, and death. The policing of Mexico’s southern border, undertaken with the support of the US, does not only capture migrants in its net. Mexicans of indigenous appearance, suspected of being from Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador because of crude processes of racial profiling, are routinely caught up in and detained in police patrols and at police checkpoints. In all this, women and teenagers are at particular risk. The risks of the journey are the reasons underpinning the choice of the Hondurans to travel in a caravan—the idea being that the greater the number of people, the lower the risk of capture and deportation, of physical harm from police, cartels and criminals along the route, and of being stopped by border controls. Moving in a caravan also removes the need to employ the services of smugglers who are often linked to cartels and are a source of the violence migrants face. In other words, people are reclaiming the right to move without paying large sums of money.

Talk of “flows” also hides the way the journeys of migrants are shaped by the infrastructures of their travel. Roads direct migrants in particular directions and border controls interrupt their movement and divert them into using different paths. Unlike a river, they are not a force of nature that can make their way to their metaphorical sea by the quickest and most efficient route possible. The obstacles migrants encounter on their journey are not only natural obstacles like rivers, deserts, or mountains, but also human-made obstacles like police roadblocks, border control points and migrant prisons.

And yet in the face of all this, they still walk. Faced with the difficulties of the journey and the promise of repatriation, some have already returned to Honduras. But many in the caravan have now crossed two national borders, with Guatemala and Mexico. Their numbers are growing as many people see the strength in numbers and the difficulty, both practically and politically, of preventing passage. Many others still are left sleeping on bridges, hungry and thirsty with little access to sanitation or shelter as they wait to enter Mexico. And yet they walk, they wait, and more join because “It’s even worse in Honduras.”

http://societyandspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pallister_wilkins1.jpg

In my work on humanitarian borderwork I have begun to argue for a deeper focus on the ways infrastructures and geographies intimately shape not only the risks faced by those excluded from safe and legal travel but also how the excluded move (Pallister-Wilkins, 2018, 2019). This builds on William Walter’s earlier demand that studies of migration take the journey seriously:

The vehicle, its road, its route—these particular materialities are not entirely missing from scholarship on migration politics. But… they rarely feature as a central focus in theorisation and investigation of migration worlds. This is surely a paradox. All migrations involve journeys and those journeys are more often than not mediated by complex transport infrastructures, authorities and norms of transportation. Granted, in many instances those journeys may be rather uneventful and not in the least bit life-changing or politically salient… Nevertheless, in many other instances, the journey is politically salient, perhaps even a life-or-death experience. (2015: 270)

Alongside taking the journey seriously, Mimi Sheller’s important work has shone a light on systems of ‘motility’, differential mobility capability, and mobility justice (2018) and Vicki Squire has drawn our attention to the biophysical role of deserts and seas in governing mobility (2016). Therefore, a focus on the journey and differential mobility capabilities challenges the watery metaphor of ‘flow,’ compelling us instead to understand how infrastructures and geographies—roads, bridges, deserts, mountains, border controls, police patrols, walls and fences, time and speed — make possible and condition particular types of mobility with embodied effects.

Infrastructures here, following Lauren Berlant (2016), are defined by use (and movement) coming to pattern social life. They are what organizes life. As such they are agents in the (re)production of social inequalities (Donovan, 2015) and uneven geographies (Chua et. al, 2018). Alongside the way infrastructures pattern social life, consideration of infrastructuring offers a dynamic way of understanding the how of unequal mobility beyond the crafting of policy, enabling a greater consideration of infrastructure as something dynamic and mutable in the context of use. Infrastructures are not all encountered or utilized equally. A road driven is not the same as a road walked. Moreover, in thinking about context and use, Deborah Cowen (2014) has drawn our attention to the ways infrastructure, such as complex systems of just-in-time logistics, not only works to overcome the limits of space and time, but also offers opportunities for disruption and resistance. The essays in the “Investigating Infrastructures” Forum on this site show the role of infrastructures in crafting and reinforcing uneven geographies.

With this in mind, I also want to consider the role of physical geography as an active agent working along with border, policing, and transport infrastructures in conditioning the how of unequal mobility as well as the embodied risks migrants face. The exclusive and privileged nature of various (safer) transport infrastructures and the growth of differential mobility regimes results in physical geographies and their attendant risks coming to matter to what Karen Barad would call matter (2003), in this instance to human life and well-being. In these instances, physical geographies have been politically made to matter through various policies underpinning mobility access and they come to matter at the level of the individual migrant bodies that encounter them.

Infrastructural projects—roads, railways, and shipping routes—are all attempts to overcome the limits of physical geography. Planes and their attendant infrastructures of airports, airlines, runways and air traffic control make the traversal of great distance and the geographies of seas, mountains, and deserts possible and less risky. By making air travel exclusive, not through cost alone but through border regimes that deny access to those without the correct documentation, physical geography comes to matter more. Those seeking life through movement are increasingly prevented from accessing such transport. Thus, at the level of individual bodies and the journeys they make, the physical geography of the route comes to play a greater constitutive role. As Mimi Sheller makes clear, “There is a relation between personal bodily vulnerabilities, the struggle for shelter, the splintering of infrastructural systems, and the management of citizenship regimes and borders” (2018: xiv).

Infrastructural projects such as roads, railways, and runways suggest attempts to overcome the limits of physical geography and yet are also intimately shaped by them. Mountain roads, for example, contain hairpin bends necessitated by the gradient of the slopes they cross. Bridges span rivers where such engineering can practically and safely take place. Meanwhile, a lack of roads or bridges impedes mobility, encouraging migrants to use boats, to swim, or like the Rohingya’s journeys from Rakhine into Bangladesh, to use the small narrow dykes that have shaped the environment of the wetlands of the Naf River delta.

As John Law noted in his study of the possibilities that the Portuguese ship created for long distance control and an apparent human-technological triumph over space, the physical geographies of the ocean—“the winds and currents”—are an ever-present actor working in concert with infrastructure networks (1986). According to Law, it is not possible to think about these infrastructural networks and the social, political, and economic forces they represent and bring into being without a consideration of what he calls the natural, or what I am calling physical geography. The nature of concern to Law is very different from the natural world evoked by discussion of migrant flows and the wide variety of attendant watery metaphors. In these discussions, flow is a description. For Law, flow would have and perform a relational role. This relational ontology becomes even more politically pressing when the natural has embodied effects on the lives of migrants bound up in such a relational system. Put simply, the physical geography alongside infrastructures affects how people move and the risks they encounter on their journeys.

Therefore, geoinfrastructuring, I argue, is important in considering how people exercise mobility. Geoinfrastructuring both conditions the journey of the migrant caravan and creates particular embodied effects, such as sore feet, blisters, joint pain, sprained muscles, and dehydration. Moments of enforced waiting on the journey, such as at border crossing points, generate their own embodied risks due to poor sanitation, lack of access to clean drinking water, and exposure to extreme weather, which in turn creates the need for as well as the time and space for limited humanitarian relief (see Pallister-Wilkins, 2018). However, as the migrant caravan attests, geoinfrastructure also creates the possibility for a (conditioned) resistance to exclusionary political-material mobility regimes. Infrastructural spaces and systems—roads, transit areas, buses and pick-up trucks—are being claimed and used by Honduran migrants in their journeys to the United States. In Europe and in the context of my own research, one of the key architects of Médecins Sans Frontiéres’ Search and Rescue operations has impressed upon me the important interrelation of the sea, infrastructures of surveillance and visibility, and the boat in making possible humanitarian efforts not only at saving lives but in addition the “activist” element of such search and rescue. Here, the dynamics of the sea, in concert with European border surveillance systems such as EUROSUR and the boat, make possible certain political interventions and disruptions that, it is argued, are not possible in other environments such as the Sahara and speak to Law’s idea of a relational ontology.[1]

Away from the migrant caravan and my own research on search and rescue in the Mediterranean, I have become interested in exploring the relationship between physical, infrastructural and border geographies in how migrants choose to cross the Alps from Italy into France. These crossings occur at only a few points along the border, at crossing points that are manageable to migrants with differential mobility capabilities. Importantly, they are less risky than other crossing points due to lower altitude, better transport connections and a reduced police presence, such as at the Col de l’Échelle between the Italian town of Bardonecchia and the French city of Briançon. People do not cross through these places for lack of other routes. The town of Bardonecchia, for example, is located at the Italian entrance of both the Fréjus tunnel linking France and Italy, carrying motor vehicles under the Alps, and the older Mont Cenis tunnel linking France and Italy by rail. The entry point to the Fréjus and the trains using the Mont Cenis are heavily policed. The policing of the Fréjus tunnel is further made easier by traffic having to stop and pass through toll booths. And yet, the presence of the railway and its attendant station in Bardonecchia means that it is relatively accessible for migrants travelling from the rest of Italy. Its proximity to the French border, only 7km and a relatively gentle walk away, means that this particular border region has become a particularly popular passage point for migrants wanting to leave Italy for France.

I have come to know this region well through its additional and complimentary infrastructures of tourism. The cross-border region is a popular holiday destination for people like me who are drawn there by the geoinfrastructure that makes for excellent cycling terrain. This tourism infrastructure for both summer and winter Alpine sports and outdoor activities means that the area is comparatively heavily populated for the Hautes-Alpes. This has resulted in services capable and willing to assist migrants with their journeys, from dedicated and well-equipped teams of mountain rescuers, to a large hospital specializing in mountain injuries, and solidarity activists offering food and shelter. In this region of the Hautes-Alpes, geoinfrastructuring, like with the migrant caravan, shapes not only how and why migrants make their journeys in particular ways: it also facilitates the exercising of political resistance to exclusionary border regimes by both migrants themselves and those who stand in solidarity with them.

With this short essay I have attempted to challenge the language of flows and in so doing drawn attention to the constitutive role of infrastructures and their embodied effects in how migrants, excluded from safe and legal forms of transportation, exercise mobility. I have argued that as political geographers we should also consider the role of physical geography in making a difference in these journeys that occur in concert with roads, rivers, mountains, deserts, tunnels, bridges and vehicles. These physical geographies, as Vicki Squire argues, have biophysical effects. This is not to normalize the very real bodily dangers faced by migrants in their journeys by seeking to lay blame at the foot of the mountain, so to speak. Instead, it is to suggest that these physical geographies come to matter and have very real effects because of the political role ascribed to them by human decision-making concerned with (re)producing unequal mobility. It is to make the case for what I have termed here geoinfrastructuring—the assemblage of physical, material and political geographies—that shape how migrants move and the risks they face.

▻http://societyandspace.org/2019/02/21/walking-not-flowing-the-migrant-caravan-and-the-geoinfrastructuring

Quand les caravanes passent…

Depuis l’intégration du Mexique à l’Espace de libre-échange nord- américain, la question migratoire est devenue centrale dans ses relations avec les États-Unis, dans une perspective de plus en plus sécuritaire. Sa frontière méridionale constitue le point de convergence des migrations des pays du sud vers les pays nord-américains. Les caravanes de migrants, qui traversent son territoire depuis la fin 2018, traduisent une façon de rompre avec la clandestinité autant qu’une protection contre les périls de la traversée ; elles sont aussi l’expression d’une geste politique.

Le Mexique occupe dans la stratégie de sécurisation des frontières américaines un rôle pivot, à la fois un État tampon et un relais du processus d’externalisation du contrôle des frontières dans l’espace méso-américain. Si l’attention médiatique tend à se focaliser sur les 3 000 kilomètres de frontières qu’il partage avec son voisin du nord, sa frontière sud catalyse les enjeux géopolitiques du contrôle des flux dans la région.

Depuis son intégration à l’espace de libre-échange nord-américain au cours des années 1990, le Mexique a vu s’imposer la question migratoire dans ses relations diplomatiques avec les États-Unis. L’objectif d’une régulation du passage des frontières par le blocage des flux illicites, de biens ou de personnes, est devenu un élément central de la coopération bilatérale, a fortiori après le 11 septembre 2001. La frontière sud, longue de près de 1 000 kilomètres, circonscrit l’espace de libre circulation formé en 2006 par le Nicaragua, le Honduras, le Salvador et le Guatemala. Elle constitue le point de convergence des migrations en direction des pays nord-américains.
Faire frontière

Dans les années 2000, les autorités mexicaines ont donc élaboré une stratégie de surveillance fondée sur la mise en place de cordons sécuritaires [1], depuis l’isthme de Tehuantepec jusqu’à la frontière sud, bordée par une zone forestière difficilement contrôlable. Responsable de l’examen du droit au séjour, l’Institut national de migration (INM) est devenu en 2005 une « agence de sécurité nationale » : la question migratoire est depuis lors envisagée dans cette optique sécuritaire. Des « centres de gestion globale du transit frontalier » [centro de atención integral al tránsito fronterizo] ont été construits à une cinquantaine de kilomètres de la frontière sud. Chargées de filtrer les marchandises comme les individus, ces mégastructures regroupent des agents de l’armée, de la marine, de la police fédérale, de la migration et du bureau fédéral du Procureur général. En 2014, la surveillance des déplacements a été confortée par l’adoption du « Programme Frontière sud », à l’issue d’une rencontre entre le président Peña Nieto et son homologue américain, mécontent de l’inaction du Mexique face à l’afflux de mineurs à leur frontière commune. Derrière le vernis humanitaire de la protection des personnes, la détention et l’expulsion sont érigées en objectifs politiques. Fin 2016, les placements en rétention avaient augmenté de 85 %, les expulsions doublé. Proche de la frontière guatémaltèque, le centre de rétention de Tapachula, décrit comme le plus moderne et le plus grand d’Amérique centrale [2], concentre près de la moitié des expulsions organisées par le Mexique. Avec ceux des États de Tabasco et de Veracruz, ce sont plus de 70 % des renvois qui sont mis en œuvre depuis cette région. De multiples rapports associatifs font état de l’augmentation des drames humains liés à ces dispositifs qui aboutissent, de fait, à une clandestinisation de la migration et rendent les routes migratoires plus dangereuses.

La migration a également été incorporée aux multiples programmes américains de coopération visant à lutter contre les trafics illicites, la criminalité transfrontalière et le terrorisme. Ces programmes n’ont eu d’autre effet que de faire des personnes en route vers le nord une nouvelle manne financière pour les organisations criminelles qui contrôlent ces espaces de circulation transnationale. La traversée de la frontière américaine guidée par un passeur coûterait 3 500 dollars, les prix variant en fonction de la « méthode ». Le passage par la « grande porte », à l’un des points officiels d’entrée sur le territoire américain, s’achèterait 18 000 dollars. Mais les cartels recrutent aussi des migrant·es pour convoyer plusieurs dizaines de kilos de drogue sur le territoire américain, des « mules » payées 2 000 dollars si elles y parviennent. L’extorsion, la prise d’otages et le travail forcé des migrant·es en transit vers les États-Unis figurent parmi les pratiques des cartels, avec parfois la complicité des agents de l’État. En 2011, des personnes en instance d’expulsion ont ainsi été vendues par des fonctionnaires de l’INM au cartel des Zetas contre 400 dollars par personne.

Se donnant entre autres objectifs de « construire la frontière du xxiesiècle », l’Initiative Mérida a investi plus de 2,8 milliards de dollars depuis 2007 dans le renforcement d’infrastructures, la technologie du contrôle – dont l’échange avec la partie nord-américaine des données biométriques des personnes placées en rétention – et l’organisation d’opérations policières à la frontière avec le Guatemala. Ce programme finance aussi l’expulsion de ressortissants centraméricains ou extracontinentaux par le Mexique (20 millions de dollars en 2018).

Dans une certaine mesure, ces dispositifs font système, au point que certains chercheurs [3] parlent du corridor migratoire mexicain comme d’une « frontière verticale ».
Des caravanes pas comme les autres

Du premier groupe constitué d’une centaine de personnes parties du Honduras en octobre 2018 aux divers collectifs formés en cours de route vers la frontière nord-américaine par des milliers d’individus venant d’Amérique centrale, de la Caraïbe et, dans une moindre mesure, des continents africain et asiatique, ce qu’il est désormais convenu d’appeler des « caravanes de migrants » constitue un phénomène inédit.

Dans l’histoire centraméricaine, la notion renvoie à une pluralité de mobilisations, telle celle des mères de migrant·es disparu·es au cours de la traversée du Mexique, qui chaque année parcourent cette route à la recherche de leurs fils ou filles. Le Viacrucis migrante, « chemin de croix du migrant », réunit annuellement des sans-papiers centraméricain·es et des organisations de droits de l’Homme afin de réclamer la poursuite des auteur·es de violations des droits des migrant·es en transit au Mexique, séquestrations, racket, assassinats, viols, féminicides, exploitation ou tous autres abus.

La première caravane de migrants du Honduras et celles qui lui ont succédé s’inscrivent dans une autre démarche. Elles traduisent une façon de rompre avec la clandestinité imposée par les politiques autant qu’une forme de protection contre les périls de la traversée. Le nombre des marcheurs a créé un nouveau rapport de force dans la remise en cause des frontières. Entre octobre 2018 et février 2019, plus de 30 000 personnes réunies en caravanes ont été enregistrées à la frontière sud du Mexique mais, chaque jour, elles sont des milliers à entrer clandestinement. Entre janvier et mars 2019, les États-Unis ont recensé plus de 234 000 entrées sur leur territoire, le plus souvent hors des points d’entrée officiels.

Ces caravanes ont aussi révélé un phénomène jusqu’alors peu visible : l’exode centraméricain. Depuis les années 2000, près de 400 000 personnes par an, originaires du Honduras, du Salvador, du Guatemala, migrent aux États- Unis. Fuyant des États corrompus et autoritaires, une violence endé- mique et multiforme, dont celle des maras (gangs) et des cartels, ainsi que les effets délétères du modèle extractiviste néolibéral, elles quittent des pays qui, selon elles, n’ont rien à leur offrir.

Ces migrations ne doivent pas être appréhendées de façon monolithique : les caravanes constituent une juxtaposition de situations diverses ; les groupes se font et se transforment au cours de la route, au gré des attentes de chacun. Certains ont préféré régulariser leur situation dès l’entrée sur le territoire mexicain quand d’autres ont choisi de pousser jusqu’à la frontière nord, d’où ils ont engagé des démarches auprès des autorités mexicaines et américaines.
Du Nord au Sud, la fabrique d’une « crise migratoire »

En réaction à ces différentes mobilités, le Mexique et les États-Unis ont déployé leurs armées, le premier oscillant entre un accueil humanitaire ad hoc, des pratiques de contention et l’expulsion, ou la facilitation des traversées en direction des États-Unis. Les mesures adoptées tant par les États-Unis que par le Mexique ont participé à l’engorgement des frontières, du sud au nord, créant ainsi la situation de « crise migratoire » qu’ils prétendaient prévenir.

Sollicité par le gouvernement mexicain avant même l’arrivée de la première caravane sur le territoire des États-Unis, le Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR) a obtenu des fonds de ces derniers pour faciliter l’accès à la procédure d’asile mexicaine. Les États-Unis ont également mobilisé l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) pour qu’elle mette en place des campagnes de sensibilisation sur les risques de la traversée, et d’encouragement au retour. Écartant d’emblée la revendication des marcheurs de pouvoir solliciter collectivement l’asile à la frontière américaine, les agents du HCR ont insisté sur la complexité des procédures et la faible probabilité d’obtenir l’asile aux États-Unis, confortant le discours porté par l’OIM. Les organisations mexi- caines de défense des droits des étrangers ne se sont pas saisies du droit comme d’une arme politique de soutien à l’appel des marcheurs à une libre circulation au Mexique et au refuge pour tous aux États-Unis. L’ensemble des discours en direction des caravanes ont convergé en faveur de la promotion de l’installation au Mexique. « À chaque fois, on nous parle de la détention, de l’expulsion… Mais nous, on est là et on va continuer d’avancer ! » a observé l’un des marcheurs.

Depuis plusieurs années, les obstacles à la traversée clandestine du Mexique ont contribué à l’accroissement des demandes d’asile qui sont, avec la carte de visiteur pour raison humanitaire délivrée par l’INM, l’unique option de régularisation. Entre 2013 et 2018, le nombre de requêtes a augmenté de 2 332 %, passant de 1 269 à 29 600. Cette tendance se poursuit. Au premier semestre 2019, la Commission mexicaine d’aide aux réfugiés (Comar) – équivalent de l’Ofpra français – enregistrait une hausse de 182 % par rapport à la même période en 2018, sans que n’augmentent ses moyens. Elle ne disposait en 2017 que de 28 officiers de protection chargés d’instruire les dossiers. L’année suivante, le HCR a soutenu le recrutement de 29 autres officiers tandis que le gouvernement votait une diminution du budget alloué à la Comar. En février 2018, la Commission nationale des droits de l’Homme révélait que des demandes d’asile déposées en 2016 n’avaient toujours pas été examinées, de même que près de 60 % des requêtes formées en 2017. Aux 33 650 dossiers en attente de traitement, se sont ajoutées plus de 12 700 demandes depuis le début 2019.

Pour éviter d’être expulsées, les personnes n’ont d’autre choix que de « faire avec » ce système en pleine déliquescence. En décembre 2018, il fallait compter jusqu’à six semaines avant de pouvoir déposer une requête à la Comar de Tapachula, et six mois à l’issue de l’audition pour obtenir une réponse. En attendant, les postulant·es doivent, chaque semaine, attester du maintien de leur demande et, pour survivre, s’en remettre à l’assistance humanitaire offerte dans les lieux d’hébergement tenus par des ecclésiastiques. Conséquence de cette précarisation croissante, le taux d’abandon des demandes d’asile déposées à la Comar dans l’État du Chiapas atteignait 43% en 2017. Nombreux sont ceux et celles qui sollicitent l’asile et le visa humanitaire dans le même temps et, une fois le second obtenu, partent chercher un travail au nord du pays. Afin de réduire l’abandon des demandes d’asile, le HCR verse un pécule durant quatre mois aux personnes jugées « vulnérables », une appréciation subordonnée à son budget. En plus des pointages hebdomadaires auprès des administrations, les bénéficiaires doivent chaque mois attester de leur présence au bureau du HCR pour recevoir ce pécule. Dans cette configuration, la distinction entre les logiques sécuritaire et humanitaire se brouille. Parmi les personnes rencontrées à Tapachula, nombreuses sont celles qui ont souligné l’artifice d’une politique d’assistance qui n’en porte que le nom, à l’exemple de Guillermo, originaire du Salvador : « Pour demander des papiers aujourd’hui, il faut passer d’abord par la mafia des organisations. Tout le monde te parle, chacun te propose son petit discours. Cela me fait penser aux prestidigitateurs au cirque, c’est une illusion.[...] Le HCR dit que la procédure d’asile est longue et qu’on peut en profiter pour faire des formations pour apprendre un nouveau métier [...]. Mais déjà, la plupart ici n’a pas l’argent pour ça et se bat pour vivre et trouver un logement ! Ensuite moi, je dois aller signer chaque mardi à la Comar et chaque vendredi à l’INM, le HCR me propose deux jours de cours de langue par semaine pour apprendre l’anglais, mais ça veut dire quoi ? Cela veut dire qu’on peut juste aller travailler un jour par semaine ?! [...] Ils te font miroiter des choses, ils t’illusionnent ! [...] Le HCR te dit : "Tu ne peux pas sortir du Chiapas." La Comar te dit : "Tu ne peux pas sortir de Tapachula." L’INM te dit : "Si on te chope, on t’expulse." »

La formation d’un espace de contention au bord de l’implosion au sud du Mexique fait écho à la situation de blocage à la frontière nord du pays, renforcée en novembre 2018 par le plan « Reste au Mexique », mal renommé depuis « Protocole de protection de la migration ». Les États-Unis, qui obligeaient déjà les demandeurs d’asile à s’enregistrer et attendre à la frontière, ont unilatéralement décidé de contraindre les non-Mexicains à retourner au Mexique durant le traitement de leur demande d’asile, à moins qu’ils ne démontrent les risques qu’ils y encourraient.
Frontières et corruption : une rébellion globale

Ces derniers mois, les entraves et dénis des droits ont engendré de nouvelles formes de mobilisation des migrant·es originaires de la Caraïbe, d’Afrique et d’Asie, jusqu’alors peu visibles. Les personnes en quête de régularisation se heurtent à la corruption qui gangrène les arcanes de l’État : toute démarche, du franchissement de la frontière en passant par la possibilité d’entrer dans les locaux de l’INM jusqu’à l’obtention d’un formulaire, est sujette à extorsion. La délivrance de l’oficio de salida, permettant à certain·es [4] de traverser le pays en direction des États-Unis, est devenue l’objet d’un racket en 2018. Les agents de l’INM disposent d’intermédiaires chargés de récolter l’argent auprès des migrant·es pour la délivrance de ce sauf-conduit, qui donne une vingtaine de jours pour parvenir à la frontière nord. Les montants varient en fonction des nationalités : un Cubain devra payer 400 dollars, un Pakistanais 200 quand un jeune Congolais parviendra à négocier 70 dollars, 100 étant demandés aux autres Africains. Pour tenter de contourner ce système, des personnes sont restées des journées entières devant l’entrée du centre de rétention, dans l’espoir d’y accéder : le plus souvent, seules les familles finissaient par entrer. En mars 2019, des Cubains, exaspérés d’attendre depuis plusieurs mois, ont tenté d’entrer en force à la délégation de l’INM. Rejoints par des personnes originaires de Haïti, d’Amérique centrale, d’Afrique et d’Asie, ils ont été plus de 2 000 à faire le siège des locaux de l’INM, avant de décider, après plusieurs semaines d’attente vaine, de former la caravane centraméricaine et de la Caraïbe vers la frontière nord.

Aujourd’hui, l’élan de solidarité qui avait accueilli la première caravane de Honduriens est retombé. Celles et ceux qui continuent leur route en direction du Mexique et des États-Unis ne bénéficient ni de la même couverture médiatique ni du même traitement politique. Les promesses gouvernementales d’accueil sont restées lettre morte. En janvier 2019, l’INM annonçait avoir délivré 11 823 cartes de visiteurs pour raisons humanitaires au cours du mois. En mars, on n’en comptait plus que 1 024. Outre une recrudescence des expulsions, un nouveau « plan de contention » prévoit le renforcement de la présence policière dans l’isthme de Tehuantepec. Cette stratégie se déploie aussi par-delà le territoire puisque les demandes de visa humanitaire devraient désormais se faire depuis le Honduras, le Salvador et le Guatemala.

Si certains voient dans les caravanes un nouveau paradigme migratoire, une chose est sûre : la contestation des frontières et la défiance envers les États portées par ces mouvements sont l’expression d’une geste politique longtemps déniée à une migration jusqu’alors confinée au silence.

▻https://www.gisti.org/spip.php?article6226

Primer vuelo “exprés” con 129 hondureños retornados de México

https://d1mrtjpezxphht.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/vuelo-espress-4.jpg

Tras meses de espera en la frontera norte de México, los hondureños solicitantes de asilo en Estados Unidos comienzan a desesperarse y están pidiendo retornar de forma voluntaria al país, tal y como lo hicieron 129 compatriotas que llegaron hoy por vía aérea a #San_Pedro_Sula.

El vuelo, organizado por la embajada de Honduras en México y financiado por la Organización Internacional para las Migraciones (#OIM), salió de la ciudad de #Matamoros (Tamaulipas), donde los hondureños llevaban varios meses de espera.

El embajador de Honduras en México, Alden Rivera Montes, informó que los retornados venían en 55 grupos familiares, constituidos por 32 hombres, 30 mujeres y 65 menores acompañados de sus padres; además, retornaron dos adultos solos.

Rivera Montes detalló que el nuevo Consulado Móvil de Honduras en Matamoros expidió los salvoconductos para que los compatriotas pudieran salir de México mediante la modalidad de Retorno Voluntario Asistido (AVR) a través de la OIM.

Aseguró que debido a los altos índices de violencia de esa ciudad mexicana se están haciendo las gestiones para que los hondureños que son devueltos por las autoridades estadounidenses a México, sean trasladados a puntos fronterizos menos vulnerables.

De la misma manera las autoridades de la embajada de Honduras en México anunciaron que los procesos de atención a los migrantes en situación de espera que deseen regresar voluntariamente a Honduras seguirán abiertos durante los próximos meses y que pronto se habilitará esta misma opción de retorno voluntario desde Nuevo Laredo, Ciudad Juárez y Tijuana.

https://d1mrtjpezxphht.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/vuelo-espress-7.jpg

ATENCIÓN DIGNA

El vuelo llegó al aeropuerto sampedrano a las 3:00 de la tarde y posteriormente los compatriotas fueron trasladados Centro de Atención para la Niñez y Familias Migrantes Belén, ubicado en San Pedro Sula.

En Belén los compatriotas fueron recibidos con un plato de sopa caliente; posteriormente hicieron el Control Biométrico con personal del Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM) y llenaron una ficha socioeconómica para optar a los diferentes programas de reinserción social y de oportunidades que ofrece el gobierno.

Los menores retornados también reciben atención médica y psicológica; posteriormente, si son menores no acompañados, un grupo de especialistas de la Dirección de Niñez, Adolescencia y Familia (Dinaf) les brinda seguimiento para garantizar que se cumplan sus derechos.

Asimismo, con el apoyo de la Cruz Roja Hondureña se les brinda una llamada para que puedan comunicarse con sus familiares acá en Honduras, se les proporciona un ticket para que puedan trasladarse a sus lugares de origen y si lo requieren se les brinda un albergue temporal.

▻https://www.latribuna.hn/2019/10/09/primer-vuelo-expres-con-129-hondurenos-retornados-de-mexico
#renvois #expulsions #réfugiés_honduriens #IOM #retour_volontaire

Honduran Migrants Return from Mexico with IOM support

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) organized a charter flight for 126 migrants who expressed their decision to return voluntarily to their country of origin. Fifty-three family groups comprising 33 men, 29 women and 64 children flew on Wednesday (09/10) from the city of Matamoros (Tamaulipas, Mexico) to San Pedro Sula (Honduras).

IOM deployed all efforts and collaborated closely with the Honduran Embassy in Mexico and with the National Migration Institute of Mexico to arrange for this first charter flight in its Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programme.

In the days preceding departure, with the support of its Shelter Support programme and local partners, IOM provided migrants with accommodation and food. According to its internal protocols, IOM ensured that all migrants were made aware of all processes so that all decisions could be taken based on complete information. Further, IOM verifies that persons who express a desire to return do not face any immediate risks upon arrival.

“I made the decision to return to my country because of the situation I faced with my son; because promises made to us by the ‘coyotes’ are not fulfilled, and we risk our lives along the way,” said a young mother on board the flight. “When we finally crossed the border into the USA, they took us back to Matamoros in Mexico, where I spent eight days in a shelter. There, we saw IOM and we learned about different options. But I want to see my other daughter now, so I decided to return home.”

“Something I want to say is that if I ever migrate again, I will look for information before leaving, because many people simply give money which we do not really have to ‘coyotes’ or guides, who takes advantage of us,” said another Honduran migrant who decided to return due to the difficult conditions in the Mexican border city. “After considering our options, we found the shelter supported by IOM who helped us out by giving us food and a place to stay, and the possibility of return.”

“IOM has been providing support to shelters to increase their capacity along with the option of assisted voluntary returns by bus and commercial flights over the last months,” explained Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “This is the first return by charter flight, which offers a better service to migrants who want to return home. We hope to provide many more charter flights in the weeks to come.”

The IOM Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programme offers an alternative for an orderly, safe and dignified voluntary return for migrants. IOM offers humanitarian assistance to those who cannot or do not wish to remain in Mexico. Voluntariness is a key principle of IOM #AVR programmes worldwide.

https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/press_release/media/mexico1.jpg?itok=ihpNgxaI#.jpg

Depuis 2014, 832 naufrages, 16’320 morts et disparus, dont 1063 en #2018

https://i.imgur.com/aJJWnPa.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La rotta più pericolosa del mondo

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

https://i.imgur.com/spYaKIP.png

Les tweet de Matteo Villa sur les morts en 2018 :

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

https://i.imgur.com/rD1Fndr.png

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

https://i.imgur.com/ZrF7a4s.png

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

https://i.imgur.com/Xy0yEN5.png

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

https://i.imgur.com/kTWUghC.png

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

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

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

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

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

Open Arms: «La chiusura dei porti è costata 360 morti»

Il fondatore di Open Arms Oscar Camps ha denunciato oggi che il viaggio di rientro a Barcellona della nave ammiraglia della ong catalana dopo la chiusura dei porti di Malta e Italia «è costato 4 giorni e 360 morti».

▻https://www.huffingtonpost.it/2018/07/04/open-arms-la-chiusura-dei-porti-e-costata-360-morti_a_23474709

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

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

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/3mWbMcN.png

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/mdBqj3M.png

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

#rapport #Amnesty_international

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

Bonjour,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oltre 1500 persone hanno perso la vita nel #Mediterraneo tra gennaio e luglio 2018. Lungo la rotta del Mediterraneo centrale il tasso di mortalità è triplicato: muore 1 persona ogni 17 rispetto a 1 su 43 nello stesso periodo del 2017

▻https://twitter.com/UNHCRItalia/status/1031858450798665728?s=19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faits marquants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/OcUYg5M.png

Desperate journeys - January-August 2018

Les #arrivées :

https://i.imgur.com/UCDdZ0Q.png https://i.imgur.com/wlrQt0B.png https://i.imgur.com/7cwBrVy.png

Les interception des #gardes-côtes_libyens :

https://i.imgur.com/NXaPxuj.png

Et les #morts (on voit apparaître la #frontière_sud-alpine) :

https://i.imgur.com/DsijoiO.png

▻https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/65373#_ga=2.35779680.1599262530.1536038430-796425160.1519149184
#rapport du HCR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/styles/report-large/public/report-images/pbn_6.jpg?itok=D4RrXySD#.jpg

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

ping @isskein @reka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sur le site de l’HCR (04.01.2019) :

https://i.imgur.com/RfLoZDu.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pour #2016 #2017 et #2018, chiffres de Matteo Villa :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/768142
database : ►https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ncHxOHIx4ptt4YFXgGi9TIbwd53HaR3oFbrfBm67ak4/edit#gid=0
#base_de_données #database

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

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

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

Une idée qui vient de la Hongrie...

From protest to proposal : Eastern Europe tries new migration tactic

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

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

A mettre en lien avec, notamment... mais j’oublie certainement des choses :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/665069
►https://seenthis.net/messages/703288
►https://seenthis.net/messages/701836
►https://seenthis.net/messages/471340
►https://seenthis.net/messages/471637

Et lien aussi avec cette déclaration :
Migranti, #Toninelli : « Non è detto che il posto in cui debbano sbarcare sia un porto. Può essere una nave »
►https://video.repubblica.it/dossier/immigrati-2015/migranti-toninelli-non-e-detto-che-il-posto-in-cui-debbano-sbarcare-sia-un-porto-puo-essere-una-nave/307625/308254
cc @isskein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#camps #cpa_camps

Le projet anglais : les « #zones_de_protection »

Le 25 janvier 2003, #Tony_Blair évoque, dans l’émission « BBC1’s breakfast with Frost », une possible révision de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

▻http://www.migreurop.org/article43.html
#Blair #cpa_camps

signalé par @isskein

A partir de la minute 1’30 de cette vidéo...
L’édito d’Yves Pascouau · L’aquarius et après
►https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSM_pqNi5Qk&feature=youtu.be

Europe Pushes to Outsource Asylum, Again

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

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

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

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

Key Design Questions

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

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

Where Would People Be Stopped and Processed?

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

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

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

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

Who Would Do the Processing?

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

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

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

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

What Happens Next?

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

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

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/a5gYGpG.png

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

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

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

à l’Algérie ?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/704649

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

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

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

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

EU admits no African country has agreed to host migration centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Centres de débarquement » : le Maghreb dit « non » à l’Europe

#Algérie, #Maroc et #Tunisie ont fait savoir qu’ils refusaient d’accueillir les « plateformes régionales de débarquement » préconisées par les pays membres de l’Union européenne.

▻http://www.jeuneafrique.com/586246/societe/centres-de-debarquement-le-maghreb-dit-non-a-leurope

#cpa_camps

Au lieu des plateformes de « désembarquement », probablement ce sont des #centres_contrôlés qui seront mis sur pied :
▻http://seen.li/f3gv
#cpa_camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY OF DISEMBARKATION OPTIONS

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

https://i.imgur.com/2fJLMDC.png https://i.imgur.com/QocDXDI.png https://i.imgur.com/3bv9OI7.png

Des « #centres_contrôlés » pour migrants pour ne pas dire #hotspots

L’idée de centres contrôlés pour migrants proposée dans les conclusions du Conseil européen rappelle singulièrement les hotspots de 2015.

▻https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/des-centres-controles-pour-migrants-pour-ne-pas-dire-hotspots
#cpa_camps

#Palerme :
❝La Commission régionale de l’Urbanisme a rejeté le projet de pré-faisabilité du « #hotspot » à Palerme, confirmant l’avis du Conseil municipal de Palerme. L’avis de la Commission régionale reste technique. Le maire de Palerme a rappelé que "la ville de Palerme et toute sa communauté sont opposés à la création de centres dans lesquels la dignité des personnes est violée (...). Palerme reste une ville qui croit dans les valeurs de l’accueil, de la solidarité et des rencontres entre les peuples et les cultures, les mettant en pratique au quotidien. En cela, notre « non » à l’hotspot n’est pas et ne sera pas seulement un choix technique, mais plutôt un choix relatif à des principes et des valeurs".
> Pour en savoir plus (IT) : ►http://www.palermotoday.it/politica/hotspot-zen-progetto-bocciato-regione.html

–-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

Ne dites pas que ce sont des #camps !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#shopping_de_l'asile #normalisation
#cpa_camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this relate to broader EU policies on migration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/PtWMa3G.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Austrian Presidency paper proposes:

"2.1. By 2020

By 2020 the following goals could be defined:

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

2.2. By 2025

By 2025 the following goals could be realised:

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

And includes the following statements, amongst others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libya rejects EU plan for refugee and migrant centres

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite terrorism, a ’safe country’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Les plateformes de débarquement pour migrants enterrées ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accords en négociations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redéfinitions à venir

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

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

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

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

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

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

EP lawyers back EU plans for migrant centres in Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the EU says it is pressing ahead anyway.

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

▻https://euobserver.com/migration/143513

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/2n7hNAB.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#états-unis

Border Patrol failed to count hundreds of migrant deaths on US soil

For 20 years, as part of its mission, the Border Patrol has been tasked with tracking and trying to prevent border-crossing deaths. But an investigation by CNN has found that the agency has been, at best, haphazard about tracking and recording deaths. Despite telling Congress and the General Accounting Office it would provide comprehensive accounting of migrant deaths, it has failed to do so. It has excluded fatalities reported by other law-enforcement agencies, while claiming to include them, and neglected even to count some deaths directly witnessed by Border Patrol agents.
Over the 16 fiscal years ended last September, CNN has identified at least 564 deaths of people crossing illegally in the border region, above and beyond the Border Patrol’s tally of 5,984.
Those uncounted deaths were identified through a review of federal, state and local records and databases, and interviews with medical examiners, pathologists, sheriffs and justices of the peace along the border. It is by no means a complete count, and there are strong indications that the actual toll could be thousands higher.
More than half of the uncounted deaths identified by CNN happened in the past four years. Those figures mirror a recent investigation by the Arizona Republic, one of a set of pieces on border conditions that won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting. That story documented a significant undercounting of migrant deaths from 2012 to 2016.

https://i.imgur.com/6FdfFf9.png https://ix.cnn.io/dailygraphics/graphics/20180420-border-deaths-by-state/img/ai2html-graphic-desktop.jpg https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180424154456-12-undercounted-border-deaths-super-169.jpg

#manipulation #gardes-frontière #Border_Patrol

Des centaines de migrants attendent d’être rapatriés du Niger

Direction le Niger où des centaines de migrants et réfugiés sont bloqués dans les centres à travers le pays. Ils tentaient de rejoindre l’Europe en passant par la Libye.

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IGFLoDqtHs&feature=youtu.be

L’#ONU a commencé à évacuer des migrants africains de Libye au Niger

Un groupe de 25 migrants originaires d’Erythrée, d’Ethiopie et du Soudan et coincés en Libye dans une situation très vulnérable ont été évacués au Niger, dans la première opération du genre, a annoncé dimanche l’ONU.

▻https://www.voaafrique.com/a/afrique-niger-libye-onu-refugies-migrations-evacuation-/4111650.html
#HCR

A noter que ces personnes évacuées au Niger sont originaires de la Corne de l’Afrique... Où est le sens de les transporter au Niger ??
Ma réaction sur twitter :
▻https://twitter.com/CDB_77/status/929953231031226368

Avec quelques images ici, publiées par HCR Libye :

https://i.imgur.com/QbzGJpx.jpg https://i.imgur.com/RYp8gx5.jpg

cc @isskein @reka

Apparemment, 25 personnes bloquées en Libye ont été réinstallées du Niger à la France :
France to take in refugees rescued from Libya by UN

France will be the first to welcome African refugees evacuated from Libya to Niger by the United Nations refugee agency.

▻http://en.rfi.fr/france/20171120-france-take-refugees-rescued-libya-un

v. aussi :
▻https://www.thelocal.fr/20171120/france-to-take-in-refugees-rescued-from-libya-by-un

Réfugiés évacués de Libye et accueillis en France : « Exfiltrer ces hommes et ces femmes de cet enfer » est un devoir

L’Office français de protection de réfugiés et apatrides (Ofrpa) a annoncé, lundi 20 novembre, que la France allait accueillir 25 réfugiés évacués de Libye avec l’aide du Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR). « Toute démocratie moderne a le devoir d’essayer d’exfiltrer ces hommes et ces femmes de cet enfer », a déclaré François Gemenne, spécialiste des flux migratoires et chercheur à Sciences Po Paris, lundi sur franceinfo.

▻http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/libye/refugies-evacues-de-libye-et-accueillis-en-france-exfiltrer-ces-hommes-

Hotspots gegen die « Libyen-Hölle »

In Frankreich treffen die ersten Flüchtlinge ein, die vor der gefährlichen Mittelmeer-Überquerung in Libyen abgefangen wurden. Das Pilotprojekt des französischen Präsidenten Macron ist für ganz Europa gedacht.

https://files.newsnetz.ch/story/2/4/1/24192133/2/topelement.jpg

▻https://www.bernerzeitung.ch/ausland/europa/hotspots-gegen-die-libyenhoelle/story/24192133

Mon commentaire sur twitter :

https://i.imgur.com/QFXZ6qS.png

Libye : le Conseil de sécurité pour la fermeture des camps

Le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU a examiné mardi à New York la situation des migrants africains en Libye notamment la vente aux enchères des sub-sahariens dans ce pays.

Depuis la diffusion des vidéos qui témoignent des traitements inhumains dont ils sont victimes les noirs africains, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) réclame la fermeture des Camps de détention libyens.

L’OIM a souhaité que quelques 15 000 migrants présents en Libye soient rapatriés dans leurs pays d’origine.

William Lacy Swing, directeur de l’OIM, estime que « la mise en œuvre d’une telle stratégie ne peut pas être possible sans l’implication de tous les acteurs internationaux y compris les pays d’origines des migrants, a fait entendre à cette occasion ». Pour le Directeur de l’OIM la priorité est de démanteler les réseaux des trafiquants.

A l’initiative de la France, le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU s’est réuni pour dénoncer la vente aux enchères de migrants en Libye. Il s’est aussi réuni pour apporter des réponses concrètes à cette situation.

Le représentant libyen défend que son pays n’est pas raciste comme les pressentent les images de la vente aux enchères des migrants qui suscitent aujourd’hui une indignation générale. Il a réaffirmé l’engagement de Tripoli à identifier et sanctionner les auteurs de ces crimes.

▻http://www.bbc.com/afrique/region-42162382

A noter que :
– la priorité est de démanteler les réseaux de trafiquants... et non pas de sortir les gens de là...
– ... et quand on pense à les sortir de l’enfer, on pense tout de suite à les renvoyer chez eux, comme si... en prenant le risque du voyage, ils avaient quitter leur pays pour fun et que du coup, parmi eux, il y en a pas quelques-uns qui risque leur vie en rentrant dans le pays d’origine, ou qui vont rentrer sans un sous et plein de dettes...

Sortons de Libye ces personnes, mais laissons-les aller là où elles le souhaitent ! Comme nous, les occidentaux pouvons le faire, bon sang !

vu sur twitter, 08.12.2017 :

https://i.imgur.com/XojdKtt.png

▻https://twitter.com/dueniger/status/938788551864541185

https://i.imgur.com/F5WU3MC.jpg

Retour effectif ce jour de 525 enfants, femmes et hommes, 1er contingent de 4000 nigériens émigrés en #Lybie. #UE & #OIM/IOM appuient ces retours à travers le Mécanisme de Réponse et des Ressources pour les Migrants (MRRM) et @AfricaTrustFund

UN Migration Agency in Niger Helps Over 10,000 Migrants Return Home in 2017

The UN Migration Agency (IOM) in Niger assisted more than 10,000 migrants to return home in 2017. The returnees included Nigeriens and third-country nationals, mostly from Sub-Saharan countries.

In 2017, a total of over 3,500 Nigerien migrants were assisted with voluntary humanitarian return (VHR) from Libya and over 7,000 third-country nationals were assisted with voluntary return (AVR) to their countries of origin.

https://i.imgur.com/0uWMOrU.jpg

UNHCR Flash Update Libya (20 - 26 January 2018)

Highlights

On 26 January, UNHCR evacuated 134 vulnerable refugees, including 74 unaccompanied and separated children, from Libya to UNHCR’s Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) in Niger. There, they will await durable solutions, including resettlement. With this flight, UNHCR will have evacuated 523 refugees from Libya (361 to the Niger ETM and 162 to Italy). In September 2017, the High Commissioner appealed for 40,000 additional resettlement places for 15 priority countries of asylum and transit along the Central Mediterranean route. Against these projected needs, UNHCR has to date received approximately 13,000 offers of resettlement places in 2018 and 2019. UNHCR continues to identify and process vulnerable cases for resettlement and other durable solutions, including from its urban caseload.
Over the last three months, UNHCR processed and referred 400 cases of those in need of resettlement directly from Libya.

On 25 January, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Libya launched the Humanitarian Response Plan 2018 for Libya, to support the humanitarian needs of 940,000 people living in the country. The event was co-chaired by H.E. Fayez al-Sarraj, President of the Presidency Council, and Dr. Ghassan Salame, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya. Under the HRP, UNHCR is appealing for $ 85 million.

Population movements

So far in 2018, over 1,430 refugees and migrants were disembarked in Libya by the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG). In January 2018, UNHCR has observed an increase in numbers of rescue/interception operations conducted by the LCG when compared to the same month in 2017 (1,025 individuals) and previous months such as November (1,214 individuals) and December 2017 (1,157 individuals). During January, departures were predominantly recorded in the area east of Tripoli, near Garabulli, and to a lesser extent in areas around Sabratha and Zwara. UNHCR partner International Medical Corps provided medical assistance and distributed core relief items at disembarkation points and detention centres.

UNHCR Response

On 25 January, UNHCR and UNICEF jointly distributed winter clothes for children in the Triq Al Matar detention centre in Tripoli. To provide relief from the cold temperatures, UNHCR will continue the distribution in several detention centres and urban areas.

The rehabilitation of the Gathering and Departure facility in Tripoli continues. The facility will host up to 160 vulnerable refugees for short stays before their evacuation or resettlement to third countries. At the facility, UNHCR staff and partners will provide registration and life-saving assistance such as accommodation, food, medical care and psychosocial support.

UNHCR continues to support over 1,100 refugees and asylum-seekers on a weekly basis in the two Community Development Centres in Tripoli.
UNHCR, IMC and CESVI are assisting refugees with primary healthcare, provision of psychosocial support, cash, core relief items, registration and documentation.

▻https://reliefweb.int/report/libya/unhcr-flash-update-libya-20-26-january-2018

Commentaire d’Emmanuel Blanchard via mailing-list Migreurop :

Bilan public de l’action du HCR en Libye : à retenir notamment le nombre de personnes évacuées vers le Niger (360, depuis sept 2017 ?) et l’italie (160, depuis sept 2017). Dans les camps de Libye, le HCR continue d’identifier les personnes « vulnérables » en demande de protection et d’apporter un soutien humanitaire aux autres détenus. Alors que même pour les premières les propositions de #réinstallation sont très rares, on peut s’interroger sur ce que vont de venir les secondes.
Pendant ce temps, les #gardes-côtes Libyens multiplient les interceptions en mer ( (1430 « migrants et réfugiés » en janv. 2018) et les retours forcés vers les camps de détention de Libye.

#Niger #renvois #retour_au_pays #retour_volontaire #statistiques #chiffres

Vu sur twitter, le 08.03.2018 :

« A ce jour, nous avons évacué 1334 réfugiés vulnérables de Libye, y compris 1020 au Niger et 312 en Italie »

▻https://twitter.com/UNHCRfrance/status/971306389351161856

Je me demande bien de quelle nationalité sont ces réfugiés rapatriés au Niger... probablement pas nigériens... et alors ils irons où ? Est-ce que le Niger s’occupera de les reconduire vers leur pays d’origine ? Ils resteront au Niger ? Pour quoi faire ? Ils reprendront la route et le chemin de la #migrerrance ?

v. notamment ici :
►https://euobserver.com/migration/140967
et ici : ▻http://seen.li/eces

Police in #Agadez #Niger have taken 135 Sudanese #refugees from prison to unknown location. Refugees who resisted were beaten. Other Sudanese said they fear police will come for them in UNHCR housing next. Fear of deportation to #Libya or #Sudan

–-> vu sur twitter, le 09.05.2018

https://i.imgur.com/KokriDy.jpg https://i.imgur.com/GIOa45L.jpg

EXCLUSIVE: Niger sends Sudanese refugees back to Libya

Niger has deported at least 132 Sudanese refugees and asylum seekers back to Libya, drawing criticism that it is flouting international law by sending them back to dangerous and inhumane conditions from which they recently escaped.

https://assets.irinnews.org/styles/responsive_large/s3/sudanese_refugees_waiting_to_be_loaded_into_trucks_to_be_deported_to_libya_rotate.jpg?QQepIWroGKhFCKUO3OWpswFYOaeT7Irr&itok=mRErsXC2#.jpg https://assets.irinnews.org/s3fs-public/styles/responsive_medium/public/man_who_managed_to_run_away_after_being_beaten_by_police_while_trucks_were_being_loaded_for_deportation_retouch.jpg?g4zzwE2hqoipHYc2JKGpvCdWyq3CkpSd&itok=Z9CwlH8O#.jpg

Le Niger expulse 140 Soudanais vers la Libye

Ces réfugiés font partie d’un groupe arrivé il y a quelques jours de Libye. Pour des raisons de sécurité, les autorités d’Agadez les ont renvoyés du côté de #Madama, à la frontière libyenne, d’où ils sont entrés.

►http://scd.rfi.fr/sites/filesrfi/dynimagecache/0/38/2592/1465/1024/578/sites/images.rfi.fr/files/aef_image/SAHARA_0.JPG
▻http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20180510-niger-expulse-140-soudanais-libye-agadez

Niger, i sudanesi prima accolti, poi ricacciati e abbandonati nel deserto

Reportage. La deportazione di 132 persone lasciate al confine con la Libia fa temere per la loro sorte, ospitati in parte da UNHCR con l’Ong italiana COOPI. Testimonianze: «Siamo tutti in fuga da anni, abbiamo cercato lavoro in Libia per mantenere le famiglie, finché ci hanno detto che in Niger c’era sicurezza». I sospetti che fra loro ci siano combattenti di milizie del Darfur

https://www.repstatic.it/content/nazionale/img/2018/05/12/131516024-051449fd-74b6-431a-8289-0611b38b598a.jpg

A great start! Transferring 220 Asylum seekers and refugees to our new Humanitarian Centre on the outskirts of #Agadez, Niger!

https://i.imgur.com/gKYWfm9.jpg https://i.imgur.com/r3z0isq.jpg https://i.imgur.com/aA1p7CQ.jpg

Niger : des #migrants_soudanais manifestent dans leur camp de transit

http://scd.rfi.fr/sites/filesrfi/aefimagesnew/imagecache/rfi_16x9_1024_578/sites/images.rfi.fr/files/aefimagesnew/aef_image/000_16e6a6_0.jpg

A #Agadez, des réfugiés soudanais fuyant les combats en Libye, et qui sont actuellement internés dans un camp de transit dans la ville du nord du Niger, exigent l’accélération du traitement de leur dossier de demande d’asile. Pour faire monter la pression, ils n’hésitent pas à organiser des manifestations violentes et à s’en prendre au personnel humanitaire. Le gouverneur de la région d’Agadez est sorti de sa réserve et avertit les réfugiés que leur comportement est intolérable.

L’avertissement des autorités nigériennes à l’endroit des 1 400 Soudanais en attente de statut de réfugiés, est on ne peut plus clair : l’Etat du Niger, selon le gouverneur d’Agadez, n’acceptera pas l’installation de l’instabilité dans le #camp géré par l’Agence des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (#HCR) et l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (#OIM).

Depuis quelque temps, des troubles organisés par certains réfugiés sont signalés dans le camp, un site de cinq hectares où le HCR a installé 225 maisons préfabriquées en dehors de la ville d’Agadez.

Lors de la dernière #manifestation mardi 5 mars, les réfugiés s’en sont pris au personnel humanitaire. Certains ont même été physiquement agressés, dit-on.

Les réfugiés soudanais se disent discriminés

À travers ces actions violentes, les réfugiés soudanais entendent mettre ainsi la pression sur les autorités nigériennes et le HCR pour accélérer leur dossier de demande d’asile. Les réfugiés soudanais, en majorité des hommes, dénoncent tout ce qu’ils appellent « la #discrimination » dont ils sont victimes au centre de #tri, où sont traitées les demandes d’asile.

En effet, des dizaines de #réfugiés_érythréens et éthiopiens, passés par ce #centre_de_tri, sont déjà installés dans plusieurs pays européens, ce qui a choqué les Soudanais. Arrivés à Agadez en 2017, fuyant les combats et l’esclavage en Libye, certains d’entre eux sont soupçonnés d’appartenir à des groupes armés, ce qui fait que pour des raisons sécuritaires, aucun pays ne veut de leur présence sur son sol.

▻http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20190309-niger-migrants-soudanais-manifestent-leur-camp-transit
#centre_de_tri #réfugiés_ethiopiens
#réfugiés_soudanais #catégorisation

La France, l’UE et les réseaux criminels, main dans la main

Le Dr Joanne Liu, Présidente internationale de MSF, accuse la France et d’autres pays européens d’entretenir, via leur politique migratoire, un réseau criminel en Libye.

▻http://www.msf.fr/actualite/articles/france-ue-et-reseaux-criminels-main-main

Lager Libia. I migranti raccontano l’indicibile

Nel febbraio del 2017 l’Italia ha stipulato con la Libia un nuovo accordo sui migranti. Oggi si conoscono gli effetti di questo accordo: una drastica diminuzione degli sbarchi in Italia e centinaia di migliaia di migranti intrappolati nel paese nordafricano. Si tratta di persone provenienti sia dall’Africa occidentale che dal Corno d’Africa, in fuga da violenze, guerre, persecuzioni e miseria estrema. Cosa sia la Libia oggi lo raccontano migliaia di testimonianze dei migranti: un grande lager dove si consumano atrocità degne dei peggiori campi di sterminio del XX secolo. Le testimonianze di questo video sono state raccolte a Roma e in Sicilia nei progetti di Medici per i Diritti Umani a supporto delle vittime di tortura. Video di Noemi La Barbera/Medici per i Diritti Umani.

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m93RBg8kCWA

#viols #Libye #témoignages #vidéo

Inferno in Libia, «oggi vi ammazziamo tutti»: i migranti torturati e i video per chiedere il riscatto

Plastica fusa sulla schiena, frustate su tutto il corpo: tutto ripreso con i cellulari e poi inviato ai parenti delle vittime. Il governo libico: «Catturati gli aguzzini autori delle torture»

▻http://www.corriere.it/video-articoli/2018/01/24/inferno-libia-oggi-vi-ammazziamo-tutti-migranti-torturati-video-chiedere-riscatto/2a2dce8c-0144-11e8-b515-cd75c32c6722.shtml

Rapporto choc. Torture e stupri in Libia: l’ultima accusa dell’Onu

Una strage occultata: migranti fucilati da militari libici in un centro di detenzione. Non ne avremmo saputo nulla se il segretario generale dell’Onu non ne avesse rivelato l’esistenza in un rapporto choc – visionato da Avvenire – trasmesso al Consiglio di sicurezza nel quale vengono riportati anche i soprusi della Guardia costiera e le crudeltà dei funzionari incaricati del contrasto all’immigrazione illegale. Nero su bianco Antonio Guterres smaschera la narrazione di una Libia in via di stabilizzazione, con i profughi finalmente trattati con più umanità. «I migranti sono stati sottoposti a detenzione arbitraria e torture, tra cui stupri e altre forme di violenza sessuale», scrive il segretario generale, basandosi sulle inchieste di Unsimil, la missione Onu a Tripoli. Indistintamente, nei centri governativi come nei lager clandestini, avvengono «rapimenti per estorsione, lavori forzati e uccisioni illegali» si legge nel documento consegnato al Consiglio di sicurezza il 12 febbraio.

►https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/torture-e-stupri-in-libia-lultima-accusa-dellonu

Ecco come vengono torturati i migranti in Libia: i referti shock della «pacchia»

Profughi in catene, ustionati e denutriti, aggrediti con acido, picchiati con martelli e tubi. Siamo in grado di farvi leggere i documenti medici sulle ferite delle persone che fuggono dall’Africa e la prova delle violenze nei luoghi di detenzione

http://espresso.repubblica.it/polopoly_fs/1.324221.1530092290!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/articolo_648/image.jpg

▻http://espresso.repubblica.it/inchieste/2018/06/27/news/ecco-come-vengono-torturati-i-migranti-in-libia-i-referti-shock-
#viol

EU’s foreign policy chief demands closure of migrant shelters in Libya

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini demanded the closure of migrant shelters in Libya, on claims that their conditions of detention were unacceptable.

“The European Commission is unable to act alone to eliminate the violent practices and violations of the rights of migrants and asylum seekers in shelters in Libya,” Mogherini said through her spokeswoman, Maja Kocijancic.

Mogherini pointed out that the goal of the European Union is to secure safe spaces for asylum seekers, especially women, children and the marginalized groups, according to Italian Aki news agency.

▻https://www.libyaobserver.ly/inbrief/eus-foreign-policy-chief-demands-closure-migrant-shelters-libya

comme dit un collègue: