#autriche

  • #Nul_homme_n'est_une_île

    ...« chaque homme est un morceau du continent, une partie de l’ensemble. » Nul Homme n’est une île est un voyage en Europe, de la Méditerranée aux Alpes, où l’on découvre des hommes et des femmes qui travaillent à faire vivre localement l’esprit de la #démocratie et à produire le #paysage du #bon_gouvernement. Des agriculteurs de la #coopérative le Galline Felici en Sicile aux architectes, artisans et élus des #Alpes suisses et du #Voralberg en #Autriche, tous font de la politique à partir de leur travail et se pensent un destin commun. Le #local serait-il le dernier territoire de l’#utopie ?


    http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=260888.html
    #agriculture #alternative #agriculture_biologique #Sicile #Italie #agrumes #Galline_felici #localisme #Suisse #commons #communs #film #documentaire


  • Liste sur les morts aux #frontières des #Alpes

    Première décompte des morts, à ma connaissance, celui de Médecins Sans Frontières, dans un rapport de 2018 :
    https://fuoricampo.medicisenzafrontiere.it/Fuoricampo2018.pdf
    A la page 17, on peut lire : plus de 20 cadavres retrouvés aux frontières alpines, dont 15 entre l’Italie et la France

    Quand j’aurai le temps, je chercherais les références des cas antérieures que j’ai répertoriés sur seenthis par le passé...

    #frontière_sud-alpine #montagne #mourir_aux_frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #décès #morts #frontières

    J’ajoute à la #métaliste sur la frontière sud-alpine :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/733721

    Voir aussi ces articles consacrés aux morts aux frontières à Vintimille, Brenner et Côme :
    https://openmigration.org/analisi/i-morti-di-confine-a-ventimiglia
    https://openmigration.org/analisi/morire-di-confine-al-brennero
    https://openmigration.org/analisi/morire-di-confine-a-como

    ping @reka @isskein


  • Autriche : Maintenant, on est ensemble !
    https://wiederdonnerstag.at

    Wir sind jetzt zusammen!

    Als im Jahr 2000 die Donnerstagsdemos durch Wien zogen, um gegen die ÖVP-FPÖ-Regierung zu protestieren, war widerständiges Knistern in der Luft zu spüren. Und genau diesen Geist holen wir auf die Straßen zurück! Lauter, lustvoller und kämpferischer als zuvor zeigen wir gemeinsam, was wir von Schwarz-Blau und seiner Politik halten – nämlich gar nix.

    So soll es jeden Donnerstag heißen:

    „Wir sind jetzt zusammen!“

    Und den Regierenden, Nutznießer_innen und Mitläufer_innen werden wir ausrichten:

    „Ihr werdet euch noch wundern, wer da aller geht!“

    (je dégage toute responsabilité quant à la traduction google)
    #Autriche #Manifestations #Anti-fachistes


  • Dieser Zaun stoppt niemanden - weil keiner kommt

    In der Flüchtlingskrise baute Österreich eine Sperranlage an der Grenze zu Slowenien. Drei Jahre später laufen noch immer Soldaten Streife an diesem Zaun. Die Zahl der ertappten Migranten: überschaubar.

    Man könnte das Gras wachsen hören, in der Geister-Zeltstadt von #Spielfeld an Österreichs Südgrenze zu Slowenien. Totenstill ist es in den Riesenzelten für Tausende Menschen, die seit drei Jahren hier stehen, leerstehen.

    Grashalme sprießen durch die Ritzen im Asphalt unter einem Zeltdach. Die Holzplankenböden mit Hunderten Liegen wurden längst abgebaut. Wie auch die elektronischen Anzeigetafeln, die einst den Weg zum nächsten Dixi-Klo wiesen. In den blauen Containerbüros neben den Zelten und meterhohen Sperrgittern lagern kaum benutzte Computer und Fingerabdruckscanner. Denn der erwartete Ansturm der Migranten ist bisher ausgeblieben.

    Die sattgrünen Hänge hoch, am Graßnitzberg über Spielfeld, ragen rostende Pfosten aus der Erde. Hier auf Holger Hagens Weingut wollte der Staat Österreich ein Stück Grenzzaun befestigen. Der Winzer jedoch wollte das nicht. Und so kommen seither Abend für Abend junge Wehrpflichtige zur Lücke im Zaun, zur Nachtwache. Sie bauen olivgrüne Zelte auf und machen Feuer, tratschen und rauchen, frieren und wachen. Bloß Migranten tauchen keine auf. Nicht ein einziger.

    Das war einmal anders: Im Oktober 2015 stand das 1000-Einwohner-Örtchen Spielfeld im Zentrum der Flüchtlingskrise - als Durchgangsstation für Zehntausende Migranten auf ihrem Weg über die Balkanroute ins „Gelobte Land“: Merkels Bundesrepublik. Menschen aus dem Treck durchbrachen Absperrungen, passierten teils unregistriert die Grenze. Eisenbahnstrecken und Straßen mussten gesperrt werden, einige Migranten verließen das provisorische Flüchtlingslager, campierten im Freien und verbrannten Klamotten, weil ihnen so kalt war. Gerüchte über Plünderungen gingen um in Spielfeld; keines erwies sich als wahr.

    Man müsse nun „so rasch wie möglich an einer Festung Europa bauen“, forderte Österreichs damalige Innenministerin Johanna Mikl-Leitner von der konservativen ÖVP. Und die rot-schwarze Wiener Regierung rüstete auf. Sie ließ am Übergang Spielfeld eine zentrale Kontrollstelle errichten: das sogenannte Grenzmanagementsystem mit Gittern, Zelten, Containern, Scannern. Links und rechts neben der Station rammten Arbeiter und Soldaten Pfosten in die Erde. Und befestigten einen Grenzzaun aus Maschendraht: mindestens 2,50 Meter hoch, fast fünf Kilometer lang, quer über die Hügel und Weinberge.

    Der Zaun von Spielfeld sollte die Migranten kanalisieren. Verhindern, dass sie über die grüne Grenze kommen, sie zur Kontrollstelle zwingen. Er war ein Novum: die erste Sperranlage zwischen zwei EU-Staaten, die zum Schengenraum ohne Binnengrenzen gehören.

    „Der Zaun, der passt schon so“

    Aber als der Zaun Anfang Februar 2016 einsatzbereit war, da war er de facto schon wieder überflüssig. Denn es kamen kaum noch Flüchtlinge. Das Innenministerium in Wien räumte auf SPIEGEL-Anfrage ein: „Am Grenzzaun Spielfeld wurden keine illegal Einreisenden aufgegriffen.“

    Trotzdem sagt Reinhold Höflechner: „Der Zaun, der passt schon so“. Der Bürgermeister der Gemeinde Straß, zu der Spielfeld gehört, glaubt: „Er schreckt Schlepper ab.“ Und: „Gerade entwickelt sich eine neue Route über den Balkan. Da sind Tausende unterwegs, die könnten bei uns von der Tür stehen.“ Höflechner ist ÖVP-Mitglied, wie Mikl-Leitner und der jetzige Bundeskanzler Sebastian Kurz. Dessen Regierung hält fest an der Sperranlage: „Die Infrastruktur beim Grenzmanagement in Spielfeld wird aufgrund der aktuellen Lageentwicklungen entlang der Balkanrouten derzeit nicht abgebaut“, schreibt das Innenministerium. Geführt wird es von Herbert Kickl von der rechten FPÖ.

    Und so steht der Drahtzaun noch immer da. Er durchschneidet die Landschaft, trennt Nachbarn und zwei befreundete Staaten mitten in Europa voneinander. Vielen auf dem Graßnitzberg missfällt das. „A Bledsinn is’ des“, sagt eine ältere Weinbäuerin. „An Zaun hat’s net amal beim Tito ’gebn.“ Selbst in dunkelsten Phasen des Kalten Krieges verzichteten die Grenzwächter des sozialistischen Jugoslawien auf einen Eisernen Vorhang.

    2018 laufen hier österreichische Soldaten Streife. An diesem Morgen gehen ein älterer und ein junger Uniformierter den Grenzpanoramaweg ab, wo für Wanderer einige Tore im Zaun offen stehen. Migranten habe man keine gesehen, bloß Touristen, sagt der Ältere. Im Süden nichts Neues.

    Der kleine Grenzübergang an der Landstraße beim Graßnitzberg, den die beiden Soldaten hüten sollen, ist während der Patrouillengänge unbewacht. Dann können Autos völlig unkontrolliert hinein nach Österreich. Wie auch mittags, wenn die Wächter zum Essen fahren.

    „Die Politiker wollten diesen Zaun, damit sich bestimmte Wählergruppen sicher fühlen“, sagt Winzer Holger Hagen. „Aber was bringt eine Grenze, wenn halbmotivierte Soldaten im Wachhäuschen herumsitzen und sogar Lieferwägen mit verdunkelten Scheiben durchwinken, wenn die ein österreichisches Kennzeichen haben?“ Seine rumänischen Mitarbeiter oder andere Grenzgänger mit osteuropäischen Autonummern würden öfter gestoppt, erzählt Hagen. Wohl dem Schlepper, der das richtige Nummernschild hat.

    Der Zaun ist an mehreren Stellen nicht ganz dicht. Auch auf den Grundstücken des steirischen Naturschutzbundes sowie des Anwohners Helmut Strobl klaffen Lücken. „In einem Europa, das immer freizügiger wurde, nun wieder Grenzen zu schließen, ist traurig“, sagt Strobl, der einst selbst für die ÖVP Politik machte. „So entfremden wir uns von unseren slowenischen Nachbarn.“

    Teurer Spaß für die Steuerzahler

    „Diese Maßnahme ist nicht gerechtfertigt und unverhältnismäßig“, erklärt das slowenische Innenministerium. Es gebe heute kaum illegale Migration von Slowenien nach Österreich, und Österreichs innere Sicherheit sei erst recht nicht gefährdet.

    Rund 160 Kilometer grüne Grenze zu Slowenien werden bis heute vom österreichischen Militär überwacht: mit Fußstreifen, motorisierten Patrouillen und Wärmebildkameras. 160 bis 170 Soldaten sind laut FPÖ-Verteidigungsminister Mario Kunasek im sogenannten Assistenzeinsatz. Die Kosten für den Einsatz betragen rund 20 Millionen Euro pro Halbjahr, und in den ersten sechs Monaten 2018 wurden genau zehn illegale Einreisende aufgespürt. Macht zwei Millionen Euro pro Kopf.

    Spielfeld ist ein teurer Spaß für die Steuerzahler. Den Zaun mietete die Landespolizeidirektion zuerst für rund 331.000 Euro - um ihn dann dem Hersteller für 168.000 Euro abzukaufen. Rund 3 Millionen Euro verschlang laut Innenministerium der Aufbau des gesamten „Grenzmanagementsystems“. Laufende Kosten: etwa 1,7 Millionen pro Jahr.

    Im Juni war zumindest einen Tag lang mal richtig was los an der Kontrollstelle - wegen Kickl und Kunasek. Unter dem Motto „Pro Borders“ beorderten die FPÖ-Minister rund 500 Polizisten, 200 Soldaten und Männer der Spezialtruppe „Puma“ nach Spielfeld, um den Stopp von Migranten zu simulieren. Die Eindringlinge wurden von Polizeischülern dargestellt, die am Maschendraht rüttelten und so taten, als ob sie über die Grenze kommen wollten. Ein Panzer rollte an, Hubschrauber stiegen in die Luft, Hunde bellten. Und die Grenzschützer taten so, als würden sie die Migranten stoppen, registrieren und teils wieder nach Slowenien abschieben.

    Ehrengäste applaudierten, TV-Kameras filmten - und Kickl sprach in die Mikrofone: „Diese Übung soll ein ganz klares Signal in die Welt hinaus senden und zeigen, dass unsere Abwehr funktioniert.“ Später fanden Journalisten heraus: Das Manöver kostete über eine halbe Million Euro Steuergeld.

    Nicht ein einziger Migrant an der Sperranlage gefasst

    Sloweniens Regierung hat es vergrätzt. „Die Darstellung von Massenankünften illegaler Migranten von slowenischer auf die österreichische Seite wird unvermeidlich einen sehr negativen Effekt in Slowenien haben“, hatte sie schon zur Ankündigung erklärt. Die Übung helfe keinesfalls den Beziehungen der beiden Länder und der gemeinsamen Arbeit in der Flüchtlingspolitik. Und die minimale Zahl der Zurückweisungen von Österreich - 39 im gesamten Jahr 2017 - zeige: Slowenien hat seine Schengen-Außengrenze zu Kroatien im Griff.

    Nun ist es wieder einsam in Spielfelds Geister-Zeltstadt. Doch im Winter wird sich etwas rühren: die Motoren der hier aufgestellten Heizgeräte. Denn wenn es kalt ist, müssen die leeren Zelte beheizt werden, erzählt ein Polizeisprecher: „Weil sonst das Material kaputt gehen würde.“

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/oesterreich-grenzzaun-kostet-millionen-nur-fluechtlinge-kommen-nicht-a-12405
    #efficacité #inutilité #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Autriche #frontières #fermeture_des_frontières #Slovénie #frontière_sud-alpine (même si en réalité la Slovénie fait partie des Alpes... à voir comment penser ce territoire) #grillages #grillage #barrières_frontalières

    Autour du #prix et du #coût :

    Spielfeld ist ein teurer Spaß für die Steuerzahler. Den Zaun mietete die Landespolizeidirektion zuerst für rund 331.000 Euro - um ihn dann dem Hersteller für 168.000 Euro abzukaufen. Rund 3 Millionen Euro verschlang laut Innenministerium der Aufbau des gesamten „Grenzmanagementsystems“. Laufende Kosten: etwa 1,7 Millionen pro Jahr.

    Petit résumé sur twitter par @twentyone_miles :

    It costs Austria over €3 million per month to police the border with Slovenia. In the first half of 2018, Austrian soldiers picked up 10 refugees at this border

    https://twitter.com/twentyone_miles/status/1069742294478270469


  • Austria agrees benefit cuts aimed at foreigners

    Austria on Wednesday finalised the details of welfare cuts aimed at immigrants, in a move criticised by anti-poverty campaigners and church groups.

    Immigrants whose German-language skills are not up to scratch will see their benefit payments cut under the plan, agreed by the ruling centre-right People’s Party (OeVP) and far-right Freedom Party (FPOe).

    Rules will also be tightened for people judged to be unwilling to work.

    In last year’s election campaigns, both parties promised to get tough on illegal immigration while cutting taxes and bureaucracy and in December they agreed to share power.

    According to their new plan, the minimum monthly payment will be set at 863 euros ($974). For asylum seekers with poor German or English however, that will be cut to 563 euros.

    FPOe Social Affairs Minister Beate Hartinger-Klein summed up the aims of the new measures: “First, fairness for Austrians. Foreigners must wait. This is of clear benefit to our citizens.”

    But critics of the government’s plans expressed concern that the cuts will push children in particular into poverty.

    The anti-poverty network, the Armutskonferenz, said that “instead of turning people into beggars, the laws need to be changed so that they fight poverty and don’t make people poorer.”

    And the head of the church charity Caritas, Michael Landau, posted on Facebook: "If the government reforms the minimum allowance, my call and request is that child and old-age poverty is not allowed to increase in Austria.

    “We have to fight poverty, not people affected by poverty.”

    Critics also hit out at the fact that the reforms focused on the migration background of those receiving benefits.

    The FPOe has argued that migrants who had never worked in Austria or paid into the social system should not be entitled to the same level of benefits as Austrians.

    However, in a ruling last week on a specific case in the province of Upper Austria, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said refugees were entitled to social benefits under the same conditions as nationals, irrespective of the duration of validity of their residence permit.

    The government hopes that the language requirement in the new measures will avoid any claims that it is discriminatory.

    The reform proposals will now have to be put to parliament in February and March before they can legally come into effect starting from April 1.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/austria-agrees-benefit-cuts-aimed-at-foreigners/article/537844#ixzz5YFnTu36v

    #autriche #discriminations #langue #intégration #assistance_sociale #réfugiés #migrations #étrangers #asile


  • The Administrative Arrangement between Greece and Germany

    The Administrative Arrangement between Ministry of migration Policy of the Hellenic Republic and the Federal Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Germany has been implemented already to four known cases. It has been the product of bilateral negotiations that occurred after German Chancellor Merkel faced another political crisis at home regarding the handling of the refugee issue.

    The document which has been the product of undisclosed negotiations and has not been made public upon its conclusion is a brief description of the cooperation of Greek and German authorities in cases of refusal of entry to persons seeking protection in the context of temporary checks at the internal German-Austrian border, as defined in its title. It essentially is a fast track implementation of return procedures in cases for which Dublin Regulation already lays down specific rules and procedures. The procedures provided in the ‘Arrangement’ skip all legal safeguards and guarantees of European Legislation.

    RSA and PRO ASYL have decided to publicize the document of the Arrangement for the purpose of serving public interest and transparency. The considerable secrecy that the two member states kept on a document of such importance is a scandal itself. There are two first underlying observations which incur/ result from studying the document. First, the Arrangement has the same institutional (or by institutional) features with the EU-Turkey deal, it is the product of negotiations which intend to regulate EU policy procedures without having been the product of an EU level institutional procedure. It circumvents European law (the Dublin regulation) in order to serve the interests of a group of particular member states. As a result its status within the legal apparatus of the EU and international law is obscure.

    Secondly, the ‘Arrangement’ introduces a grey zone (intentionally if not geographically) where a bilateral deal between two countries gains supremacy over European (Dublin regulation) and international legislation (Geneva convention). It is therefore an important document that should be critically and at length studied by all scholars and experts active in the field of refugee protection as it deprives asylum seekers of their rights and is a clear violation of EU law.

    Last but not least as Article 15-ii of the ‘Arrangement’ notes “This Administrative Arrangement will also discontinue upon entry into force of the revised Common European Asylum System”. Still as everyone in Brussels already admits the CEAS reform has been declared dead. So if nothing occurs to reconstitute the defunct CEAS policy and the arrangement remains as the only channel/form of cooperation between Greece and Germany in order to establish responsibility for asylum seekers arriving in Germany after coming through Greece, then could Greece and Germany, in their irregular bilateral efforts to circumvent the European process, have actually produced one of the first post EU legal arrangements?

    https://rsaegean.org/en/the-administrative-arrangement-between-greece-and-germany

    #accord #Allemagne #Grèce #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Dublin #Règlement_Dublin #renvois #expulsions #accord_bilatéral #regroupement_familial #liaison_officers #officiers_de_liaison #Eurodac #refus_d'entrée #renvois #expulsions #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Autriche #réadmission #avion #vol

    ping @isskein

    • Germany – Magdeburg Court suspends return of beneficiary of international protection to Greece

      On 13 November 2018, the Administrative Court of Magdeburg granted an interim measure ordering the suspensive effect of the appeal against a deportation order of an international protection beneficiary to Greece.

      The case concerned a Syrian national who applied for international protection in Germany. The Federal Office of Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the application based on the fact that the applicant had already been granted international protection in Greece and ordered his deportation there.

      The Administrative Court held that there were serious doubts regarding the conformity of the BAMF’s conclusion that there were no obstacles to the deportation of the applicant to Greece with national law, which provides that a foreign national cannot be deported if such deportation would be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court found that there are substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would face a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR if returned to Greece.

      The Court based this conclusion, inter alia, on the recent reports highlighting that international protection beneficiaries in Greece had no practical access to accommodation, food distribution and sanitary facilities for extended periods of time after arrival. The Court further observed that access of international protection beneficiaries to education, health care, employment, accommodation and social benefits under the same conditions as Greek nationals is provided in domestic law but is not enforced. Consequently, the ensuing living conditions could not be considered adequate for the purposes of Article 3 ECHR.

      Finally, the Court found that the risk of destitution after return could be excluded in cases where individual assurances are given by the receiving authorities, clarifying, however, that any such guarantees should be specific to the individual concerned. In this respect, guarantees given by the Greek authorities that generally refer to the transposition of the Qualification Directive into Greek law, as a proof that recognised refugees enjoy the respective rights, could not be considered sufficient.

      https://mailchi.mp/ecre/elena-weekly-legal-update-08-february-2019#8


  • Austrian wins Ireland’s biggest international art award

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/austrian-wins-ireland-s-biggest-international-art-award-1.3691393

    Un des co-fondateur du Vegetable orchestra de Vienne

    Austrian artist #Nikolaus_Gansterer has won the 2018 MAC International prize.

    The work of the 44-year-old Vienna-based artist was chosen from more than 800 international submissions for the £20,000 award, which has been described as “Ireland’s Turner Prize”.

    The award, which is funded by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, Tourism NI and Belfast City Council, is Ireland’s largest art prize and one of the most substantial in the UK.

    The shortlist of 13 included artists from Ireland, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Canada, USA, Palestine, Austria, France and Turkey. The artists worked across a range of mediums including photography, film, installation, sculpture and drawing.

    #art #autriche


  • Europe is using smartphone data as a weapon to deport refugees

    European leaders need to bring immigration numbers down, and #metadata on smartphones could be just what they need to start sending migrants back.

    Smartphones have helped tens of thousands of migrants travel to Europe. A phone means you can stay in touch with your family – or with people smugglers. On the road, you can check Facebook groups that warn of border closures, policy changes or scams to watch out for. Advice on how to avoid border police spreads via WhatsApp.

    Now, governments are using migrants’ smartphones to deport them.

    Across the continent, migrants are being confronted by a booming mobile forensics industry that specialises in extracting a smartphone’s messages, location history, and even #WhatsApp data. That information can potentially be turned against the phone owners themselves.

    In 2017 both Germany and Denmark expanded laws that enabled immigration officials to extract data from asylum seekers’ phones. Similar legislation has been proposed in Belgium and Austria, while the UK and Norway have been searching asylum seekers’ devices for years.

    Following right-wing gains across the EU, beleaguered governments are scrambling to bring immigration numbers down. Tackling fraudulent asylum applications seems like an easy way to do that. As European leaders met in Brussels last week to thrash out a new, tougher framework to manage migration —which nevertheless seems insufficient to placate Angela Merkel’s critics in Germany— immigration agencies across Europe are showing new enthusiasm for laws and software that enable phone data to be used in deportation cases.

    Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications. Omar – not his real name – certainly did. He travelled to Germany via Greece. Even for Syrians like him there were few legal alternatives into the EU. But his route meant he could face deportation under the EU’s Dublin regulation, which dictates that asylum seekers must claim refugee status in the first EU country they arrive in. For Omar, that would mean settling in Greece – hardly an attractive destination considering its high unemployment and stretched social services.

    Last year, more than 7,000 people were deported from Germany according to the Dublin regulation. If Omar’s phone were searched, he could have become one of them, as his location history would have revealed his route through Europe, including his arrival in Greece.

    But before his asylum interview, he met Lena – also not her real name. A refugee advocate and businesswoman, Lena had read about Germany’s new surveillance laws. She encouraged Omar to throw his phone away and tell immigration officials it had been stolen in the refugee camp where he was staying. “This camp was well-known for crime,” says Lena, “so the story seemed believable.” His application is still pending.

    Omar is not the only asylum seeker to hide phone data from state officials. When sociology professor Marie Gillespie researched phone use among migrants travelling to Europe in 2016, she encountered widespread fear of mobile phone surveillance. “Mobile phones were facilitators and enablers of their journeys, but they also posed a threat,” she says. In response, she saw migrants who kept up to 13 different #SIM cards, hiding them in different parts of their bodies as they travelled.

    This could become a problem for immigration officials, who are increasingly using mobile phones to verify migrants’ identities, and ascertain whether they qualify for asylum. (That is: whether they are fleeing countries where they risk facing violence or persecution.) In Germany, only 40 per cent of asylum applicants in 2016 could provide official identification documents. In their absence, the nationalities of the other 60 per cent were verified through a mixture of language analysis — using human translators and computers to confirm whether their accent is authentic — and mobile phone data.

    Over the six months after Germany’s phone search law came into force, immigration officials searched 8,000 phones. If they doubted an asylum seeker’s story, they would extract their phone’s metadata – digital information that can reveal the user’s language settings and the locations where they made calls or took pictures.

    To do this, German authorities are using a computer programme, called Atos, that combines technology made by two mobile forensic companies – T3K and MSAB. It takes just a few minutes to download metadata. “The analysis of mobile phone data is never the sole basis on which a decision about the application for asylum is made,” says a spokesperson for BAMF, Germany’s immigration agency. But they do use the data to look for inconsistencies in an applicant’s story. If a person says they were in Turkey in September, for example, but phone data shows they were actually in Syria, they can see more investigation is needed.

    Denmark is taking this a step further, by asking migrants for their Facebook passwords. Refugee groups note how the platform is being used more and more to verify an asylum seeker’s identity.

    It recently happened to Assem, a 36-year-old refugee from Syria. Five minutes on his public Facebook profile will tell you two things about him: first, he supports a revolution against Syria’s Assad regime and, second, he is a devoted fan of Barcelona football club. When Danish immigration officials asked him for his password, he gave it to them willingly. “At that time, I didn’t care what they were doing. I just wanted to leave the asylum center,” he says. While Assem was not happy about the request, he now has refugee status.

    The Danish immigration agency confirmed they do ask asylum applicants to see their Facebook profiles. While it is not standard procedure, it can be used if a caseworker feels they need more information. If the applicant refused their consent, they would tell them they are obliged under Danish law. Right now, they only use Facebook – not Instagram or other social platforms.

    Across the EU, rights groups and opposition parties have questioned whether these searches are constitutional, raising concerns over their infringement of privacy and the effect of searching migrants like criminals.

    “In my view, it’s a violation of ethics on privacy to ask for a password to Facebook or open somebody’s mobile phone,” says Michala Clante Bendixen of Denmark’s Refugees Welcome movement. “For an asylum seeker, this is often the only piece of personal and private space he or she has left.”

    Information sourced from phones and social media offers an alternative reality that can compete with an asylum seeker’s own testimony. “They’re holding the phone to be a stronger testament to their history than what the person is ready to disclose,” says Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International. “That’s unprecedented.”
    Read next

    Everything we know about the UK’s plan to block online porn
    Everything we know about the UK’s plan to block online porn

    By WIRED

    Privacy campaigners note how digital information might not reflect a person’s character accurately. “Because there is so much data on a person’s phone, you can make quite sweeping judgements that might not necessarily be true,” says Christopher Weatherhead, technologist at Privacy International.

    Bendixen cites the case of one man whose asylum application was rejected after Danish authorities examined his phone and saw his Facebook account had left comments during a time he said he was in prison. He explained that his brother also had access to his account, but the authorities did not believe him; he is currently waiting for appeal.

    A spokesperson for the UK’s Home Office told me they don’t check the social media of asylum seekers unless they are suspected of a crime. Nonetheless, British lawyers and social workers have reported that social media searches do take place, although it is unclear whether they reflect official policy. The Home Office did not respond to requests for clarification on that matter.

    Privacy International has investigated the UK police’s ability to search phones, indicating that immigration officials could possess similar powers. “What surprised us was the level of detail of these phone searches. Police could access information even you don’t have access to, such as deleted messages,” Weatherhead says.

    His team found that British police are aided by Israeli mobile forensic company Cellebrite. Using their software, officials can access search history, including deleted browsing history. It can also extract WhatsApp messages from some Android phones.

    There is a crippling irony that the smartphone, for so long a tool of liberation, has become a digital Judas. If you had stood in Athens’ Victoria Square in 2015, at the height of the refugee crisis, you would have noticed the “smartphone stoop”: hundreds of Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghans standing or sitting about this sun-baked patch of grass and concrete, were bending their heads, looking into their phones.

    The smartphone has become the essential accessory for modern migration. Travelling to Europe as an asylum seeker is expensive. People who can’t afford phones typically can’t afford the journey either. Phones became a constant feature along the route to Northern Europe: young men would line the pavements outside reception centres in Berlin, hunched over their screens. In Calais, groups would crowd around charging points. In 2016, the UN refugee agency reported that phones were so important to migrants moving across Europe, that they were spending up to one third of their income on phone credit.

    Now, migrants are being forced to confront a more dangerous reality, as governments worldwide expand their abilities to search asylum seekers’ phones. While European countries were relaxing their laws on metadata search, last year US immigration spent $2.2 million on phone hacking software. But asylum seekers too are changing their behaviour as they become more aware that the smartphone, the very device that has bought them so much freedom, could be the very thing used to unravel their hope of a new life.

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/europe-immigration-refugees-smartphone-metadata-deportations
    #smartphone #smartphones #données #big_data #expulsions #Allemagne #Danemark #renvois #carte_SIM #Belgique #Autriche


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

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

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

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

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

    COSA PREVEDE L’ACCORDO

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

    LE RAGIONI DI VIENNA

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

    “SEGUIAMO IL LORO ESEMPIO”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Arbour said such concerns were unfounded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Amnesty International criticized Vienna’s stance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

      Ambassadeur actif et décrié

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Un débat particulièrement agressif

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

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

      Ignorance ou mauvaise foi ?

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

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

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

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

      Pas le fruit de bureaucrates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Dispute over UN migration pact fractures Belgian government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #Belgique

    • Le pacte migratoire de l’ONU sème la discorde

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

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

      #Libre_circulation_mondiale

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

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

      Un pacte épouvantail de la #globalisation

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

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

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

      Souveraineté intacte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

      #dessin_de_presse #caricature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Analyse du #cyber_activisme de groupuscules d’extrême droite

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

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

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

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

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

      Que votera le parlement suisse ?

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

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

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

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


  • Austria Immigration Detention

    Austria has sharply increased the number of people it places in immigration detention after years of declining detainee populations. While it continues the controversial practice of placing immigration detainees in “Police Detention Centres,” the country opened a new dedicated immigration detention centre in 2014, which is partly operated by the multinational security company #G4S. The country has also announced plans to significantly boost removals, focusing mainly on people from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

    https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/austria?platform=hootsuite
    #autriche #détention_administrative #rétention #statistiques #chiffes #migrations #asile #réfugiés #privatisation


  • Qualtinger Der Herr Karl (1961)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KUV7Vzyr_Q

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Herr_Karl

    Der Herr Karl ist ein knapp einstündiger – zwischen Theaterstück und Kabarett angesiedelter – Monolog, der 1961 von Helmut Qualtinger und Carl Merz geschrieben wurde. Das Ein-Personen-Stück, das zunächst mit Qualtinger als Darsteller für das österreichische Fernsehen verfilmt (Regie: Erich Neuberg, Erstausstrahlung am 15. November 1961) und anschließend auf zahlreichen Bühnen aufgeführt wurde, sorgte in Österreich für heftige Kontroversen.

    #Autriche #cabaret #politique


  • The Grand Refugee Hotel: The Sequel to My Grandfather’s Germany

    On a visit to one of Germany’s most radical refugee integration experiments, U.S. migration journalist and academic Daniela Gerson went in search of her family history and found an increasingly uneasy relationship between past and present.

    At the #Grand_Hotel_Cosmopolis, an African teenager served cappuccinos to European travelers below clocks telling the time in Kabul, Damascus, Grozny and other global centers of crisis.

    Lamin Saidy – sporting a style he described as “American proper” with tight jeans, lots of earrings and a big smile – was 13 when he fled violence in the Gambia. After he arrived in Germany as a refugee, he was told about this place, where tourists, asylum seekers and artists all share one building. The hotel is run by staff composed of a core group of resident German artists and a diverse team that includes volunteers who may be refugees like Saidy or local college students who want to join the experiment.

    Then, in the fall of 2016, at a meeting in Washington, D.C., on immigration, a public artist gave a presentation on cultural integration initiatives in #Augsburg like none I had seen in more than a decade of reporting on immigration in the United States and Europe.

    The artist flashed images of the migrant job center, cafe and immigrant rights organization called Tuer an Tuer, which helped convince the city to take a stance against large institutional centers. Instead, all asylum seekers in Augsburg have been housed in residences of 100 or fewer people. She also showed photos of the colorful, boundary-bending Grand Hotel. This was Augsburg? It was definitely not the city of my imagination.

    Soon after, my mother forwarded me an invitation. In summer 2017, there was going to be a gathering of Jews from Augsburg and their families to commemorate the 100-year anniversary of the synagogue. I set off, eager to explore my family’s past and to see if a city I associated with historic brutality had succeeded in building a more welcoming society as a result.
    A Welcoming Nation

    When I arrived in Munich, the Bavarian capital, I borrowed a friend’s bike and pedaled down to the vast main train station. In 2015, in what was known as the Welcoming Summer, more than 1 million asylum seekers came to Germany and the station was full of arriving migrants. There was such an outpouring of public support for them that they had to close the station to donations.

    Two years later, the backlash was mounting. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government had taken steps to slow the tide of arrivals, limiting countries from which people are eligible for asylum and speeding up deportations of people whose applications had been rejected.

    Munich’s size has helped mask the impact of the refugee influx. Augsburg, founded more than 2,000 years ago, is a different story. With a population approaching 300,000, and a popular destination for refugees and foreign laborers, it was a contender to become the first majority minority city in Germany. Now almost 50 percent residents have a “migration background.”

    After a quick train trip an hour east of Munich, I biked across Augsburg’s picture-perfect main square of churches and beer gardens, passing by women strolling in hijabs and Chechnyan kids racing in circles on scooters. And near one of the largest cathedrals, down a cobblestone street, I found the Grand Hotel Cosmopolis. On first impression, it hardly felt grand, but rather like the 1960s old-age home it once was, converted into a lively Berlin artists’ squatter house.

    In a sun-drenched garden, I joined two of the artist founders and a refugee artist for a vegetarian lunch cooked in the communal basement kitchen. As we ate, they explained that the building had been abandoned for six years when some local artists spotted it and inquired about renting it out as a temporary exhibition space. But the owners, a Protestant social enterprise, said they had already entered into negotiations with the government to house asylum seekers.

    That’s when the idea came up to merge the two concepts, and add a hotel. The artists take care of the hotel, cafe and ateliers. The social enterprise, with government support, provides housing for the migrants.

    Three days after the first asylum seekers moved in, it became clear to the artists this was not just a utopian experiment in aesthetics and communal living when the first deportation letter for one of its residents arrived. “Many of the artists stopped their artistic work,” one of my guides, Susa Gunzner, told me. Instead, they focused all of their energies on learning about immigration laws and how to help the refugees.

    After lunch, I toured the 12 uniquely designed hotel rooms: One was bordello hot pink, another constructed to feel like a container ship, a third had a forest growing through it. My stark room, with a long wooden bench of a bed and simple, low table, struck me as a very elegant prison cell.

    Three days after the first asylum seekers moved in, it became clear to the artists this was not just a utopian experiment in aesthetics and communal living when the first deportation letter for one of its residents arrived.

    Gunzner, who teamed up with an Iranian artist to create the room, told me it symbolized freedom. The room is a homage to a Persian woman who moved with her family to Europe at the beginning of the 20th century and later became a spy against the Nazis. Gunzner pointed out illustrations of trees on the wall from Shiraz. “We are always trying to enrich each other and find out – sometimes through very slow processes – who the other person is,” she told me.

    Left on my own, I walked downstairs to the refugee floor, and passed a half-dozen or so baby carriages crowding the stairwell. I had been warned I was only allowed to intrude if an asylum seeker invited me in. The founders of the hotel like to say they “only have guests – with and without asylum.” I was also struck by the strangeness of putting us all in one building as fellow travelers: people on holiday rubbing elbows with people who have been running for their lives.

    Not far from Augsburg, in the aftermath of World War II, my other grandparents – on my father’s side – landed in a very different type of refugee camp, set up by the United Nations and largely funded by the United States. They were Polish Jews whose families had been slaughtered in the streets and in concentration camps. They survived the war in Siberian labor camps and in Uzbek villages, where my father was born.

    In the desperate limbo of the displaced persons camp, they created a community – my grandfather took part in local governance; my father remembers a pet dog, Blackie, a synagogue and a school. What would my grandmother have said if artists lived upstairs and American tourists stayed for a week or two, temporarily sharing her first home outside Poland, the place where my father formed his first memories? Would she have appreciated the attention, or would she have felt like a monkey in the zoo?
    The Shadow of the Past

    It was not the first time that I had traveled to Germany and discovered echoes of my family’s past in my present, as I grapple with issues of migration, persecution and intolerance today as a journalist and academic.

    A decade ago, I spent a little over a year researching contemporary guest worker policies in Berlin and Bonn. Despite my last living relative who survived the Holocaust reprimanding me that Germany was no place for a nice Jewish girl, I fell for the country’s bike and cafe culture, numerous lakes and deliberate approach to its troubled history. I almost always felt welcome as a Jew. Even my neighbor who was a neo-Nazi was dating a Venezuelan and liked to come over and chat with me. Another neighbor, whose grandfather had been active in Hitler Youth, became one of my closest friends.

    Though I was sometimes disturbed by the recent stance that Germany was not a country of immigration, as well as the focus on integration – this notion some leaders interpreted as demanding that newcomers should cede their other cultural identities – I, in many ways, felt that Germany had dealt with its past in ways that could be a lesson to all nations.

    Ten years later, I visited a Germany increasingly conflicted about its moral obligations as it confronted the refugee crisis. And in Augsburg the juxtaposition of this tolerant, generous nation and the pernicious shadow of its intolerant past were in stark relief.

    I left the Grand Hotel on Sunday morning to meet other descendants of Augsburg Jews in the glorious sanctuary of the synagogue built in 1917. The descendants of those who fled the Nazis, or had the foresight or luck to leave before the war, had traveled from South Africa, Norway, Israel and across the United States. Civil leaders turned out in large numbers to pledge “never again.” It was a familiar message. But the synagogue’s attic museum reminded me how quickly a nation can shift toward hate. For the first time, it felt less like a history lesson and more like a warning that struck very close to home.

    In Augsburg, the juxtaposition of this tolerant, generous nation, and the pernicious shadow of its intolerant past were in stark relief.

    Created in 1985, the Augsburg synagogue houses the first independent museum in Germany dedicated to Jewish history. It tells the story of how there were only 1,500 Jews in Augsburg when the Nazis came, but they enjoyed comfortable local prominence. The synagogue is a clear sign of that position. Congregants built the sanctuary – one of the most beautiful I have ever seen, with its 95ft (29m) dome and an architectural style that spans from Byzantine and Oriental elements to Art Noveau – investing in what they imagined would be a vibrant future in Augsburg.

    I was struck by a slide titled “Integration through Achievement.” The museum describes the dreams of these Jews, and it reminded me of the aspirations of many of the asylum seekers I met during my stay in Augsburg. They did not want just to live free from danger, they wanted an opportunity to be productive, successful German citizens. Chillingly, the museum concludes, the local Jewish communities were “extinguished totally.”
    Looking Back, Looking Forward

    In the year since my visit to the synagogue, I have covered U.S. authorities tearing apart asylum-seeking families as part of a larger, often vicious, crackdown. While I wish I could at least point to Germany today as a model of how to do things differently, the picture is unfortunately not so black and white.

    In German elections last fall, the far-right anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party – whose senior member maintains that the country should be more positive about its Nazi past – won 13 percent of the popular vote. According to current polls, the party is on track to win around a similar proportion of votes in upcoming regional parliamentary elections in Bavaria on October 14.

    This year, the leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s sister party in Bavaria, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, pushed her to clamp down on border policy. In the eastern German city of Chemnitz, far-right protests against immigrants in recent weeks were accompanied by xenophobic tirades.

    In August Seehofer instituted the beginning of a new plan in Bavaria that could soon transform how asylum seekers are treated. In what he described as a national model, the goal is to expedite rapid deportations. Most new asylum seekers will be transported to institutions that can house more than 1,000 people, where they will not be in contact with anyone who is not an official or a lawyer or has specific permission.

    “That’s the opposite of what we tried to do in the last years, now we are going two steps back,” said Tuelay Ates-Brunner, the managing director of Tuer an Tuer. “For people who will be rejected, nobody will see them, nobody will know them.”

    “My first impression was that I felt like I was in a new world,” Saidy told me to the beat of Afro Pop on the jukebox. “The hotel is kind of incomparable.”

    The Grand Hotel is located in Augsburg, an ancient German city on Bavaria’s tourist-trod Romantic Road. It is also the place where my mother’s father was born. He was one of the first boys to have a bar mitzvah in the ornate, domed synagogue in Augsburg – just a few years before the Jews were forced to flee or perished at the hands of the Nazis.

    Nearly a century later, I went to stay at the Grand Hotel – one of Germany’s most radical refugee integration experiments.

    Like so many inherited homelands, Augsburg was a mythical place for me, formed from family memories I had never lived – portraits of stern ancestors, the men with elaborate waxy mustaches, the buxom women with beautifully tailored clothes and lace collars. My Augsburg froze when the Nazis took over.


    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2018/10/08/the-grand-refugee-hotel-the-sequel-to-my-grandfathers-germany

    #Allemagne #hôtel #réfugiés #travail #migrations #asile


  • Une affaire d’évasion fiscale coûte 55 milliards d’euros aux Etats européens Cédric Guigon/gma - 18 Octobre 2018 - RTS
    https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/9928011-une-affaire-d-evasion-fiscale-coute-55-milliards-d-euros-aux-etats-europ

    Le quotidien français Le Monde, associé à 17 autres médias européens, révèle jeudi une gigantesque affaire d’évasion fiscale. La somme dérobée serait de 55 milliards d’euros en l’espace de quinze ans à plusieurs Etats européens.
    L’enquête internationale s’appelle « CumEx Files ». Contrairement à l’affaire des Panama Papers, il ne s’agit pas de paradis fiscaux mais de financiers, en bande organisée, qui opèrent sur les marchés par des échanges rapides et discrets d’actions de grandes entreprises cotées en Bourse.

    L’escroquerie aurait donc profité de la souplesse qu’offrent les marchés. A l’origine, l’enquête s’appuie sur une fuite de documents judiciaires en Allemagne. En 2015, une bande de #traders, de #banques et d’#avocats auraient mis en place un montage fiscal pour frauder l’administration du pays. La facture aurait coûté plus de 10 milliards d’euros au contribuable allemand.


    Taxe sur les dividendes
    La technique, baptisée « Cum Ex », consiste à duper les Etats européens, qui ont mis en place une taxe sur les dividendes des actionnaires.

    Le but est de transférer rapidement les actions entre différents propriétaires étrangers afin que les Etats européens peinent à en retrouver les véritables détenteurs, et rembourse ainsi plusieurs fois la taxe sur les dividendes.

    Banques dans le coup
    Traders, courtiers, fonds, avocats et mêmes banques, seraient alliés dans cette escroquerie. L’enquête des CumEx Files affirme que cinquante institutions financières parmi les plus grandes de la planète y auraient participé, à des degrés divers.

    Les établissements bancaires auraient été au courant et auraient même joué le jeu. Le directeur de l’administration fiscale allemande, cité par Le Monde, parle de « crime organisé ». Les banques françaises, contactées par le quotidien, ont démenti catégoriquement toute implication.

    La Suisse concernée
    Le schéma aurait été répliqué sous des formes similaires au #Danemark, en #Belgique, en #Autriche, en #Norvège et en #Suisse. L’enquête ne précise en revanche pas quels montants auraient été dérobés à la Confédération, ni si certaines banques seraient impliqués.

    La #France, les #Pays-Bas, l’#Espagne auraient également subis des préjudices.

    La fraude liée au CumEx serait la partie émergée d’un problème bien plus important et qui coûterait des milliards de francs aux Etats : l’arbitrage des dividendes. Une forme d’optimisation fiscale qui permettrait aux banques internationales d’éviter l’impôt sur les dividendes.

     #bourse #cac40 #dividendes #économie #finance #capitalisme #actionnaires #fiscalité #CumEx



  • L’#Autriche et le #Danemark présentent leur projet de #centre_de_déportation pour demandeurs d’asile #déboutés

    La semaine dernière, le Danemark et l’Autriche ont présenté conjointement à Vienne un projet pour réformer le système de l’asile au sein de l’Union européenne. Ce projet prévoit d’établir un centre de déportation basé hors de l’UE pour les demandeurs d’asile refoulés.

    La ministre danoise de la migration, #Inge_Støjberg, s’était rendue à Vienne jeudi, où elle a rencontré le ministre de l’Intérieur autrichien, #Herbert_Kickl, membre du parti d’extrême droite autrichien, le FPÖ.

    Støjberg est membre du parti libéral du Danemark (Venstre), et depuis juin 2015, elle occupe le poste de ministre de l’Immigration et de l’Intégration dans le gouvernement du Premier ministre Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

    Un projet qui n’est pas nouveau

    Leur projet vise à fournir un hébergement aux réfugiés déboutés du droit d’asile plus proche de leur pays d’origine, tout en perturbant les activités des activités de trafiquants.

    La création de centres d’accueil hors de l’Europe, des “#plate-formes_de_retour”, pour accueillir les migrants déboutés du droit d’asile en Europe, en attendant leur retour dans leur pays d’origine, est une idée chère à M. Kickl. Elle avait déjà été proposée cet été, mais jusqu’à présent, aucun pays situé hors de l’UE n’a accepté de se porter candidat pour ouvrir de tels centres sur son territoire. L’#Egypte, le #Maroc, la #Tunisie, l’#Algérie, l’#Albanie, et la #Macédoine ont tous décliné l’invitation jusqu’ici.

    Quant à Mme Støjberg, l’année dernière, elle envisageait d’adopter un projet de l’extrême-droite danoise consistant à exiler les demandeurs d’asile déboutés par son pays sur une ou plusieurs des 300 îles inhabitées au large de la côte danoise.

    Un centre d’accueil hors de l’UE pour décourager les migrants d’entreprendre le voyage

    « Nous maintenons que [les réfugiés] devraient réclamer le droit d’asile dans le premier pays où ils arrivent, plutôt qu’on leur permette de voyager dans toute l’Europe », a affirmé Mme Støjberg. « De notre côté, nous nous engageons à augmenter les capacités d’accueil [des pays voisins des zones de conflit pour gérer les arrivées de demandeurs d’asile]. Cela peut signifier des choses telles que les soins de santé, l’éducation, les gardes-frontières, et un système pour gérer les demandeurs d’asile », a-t-elle ajouté.

    Selon la ministre danoise, un centre d’accueil situé hors de l’UE réduirait la tentation des migrants de se rendre en Europe pour y trouver l’asile. « Si vous pouvez voir à quelle vitesse vous pouvez être renvoyé, il n’y a plus de raison de dépenser votre argent et de risquer votre vie pour vous rendre là-bas », a-t-elle dit.

    Selon elle, le projet respecte les conventions de l’Union européenne en matière de droit des réfugiés, et elle a exhorté les autres pays membres à soutenir le projet.

    Des contours encore très flous

    Néanmoins, le site choisi et le calendrier pour l’ouverture de ce centre n’ont pas été révélés. M. Kickl s’est montré optimiste quant aux perspectives d’aboutissement ce projet, mais n’a pas voulu donner plus de détails.

    Reste à savoir si ce projet sera accepté par les collègues européens de Mme Støjberg et M. Kickl. L’idée de la création de centres de déportation hors de l’UE avait déjà été évoquée cet été, notamment lors d’une réunion des ministres de l’Intérieur des pays membres de l’UE à Innsbruck en Autriche au mois de juillet, et n’avait pas été bien accueillie par un certain nombre d’officiels européens.

    https://fr.express.live/2018/10/09/lautriche-et-le-danemark-presentent-leur-projet-de-centre-de-deportatio

    #centre_d'expulsion #expulsions #renvois #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #UE #EU #île #îles #plate-forme_de_retour

    • Les Danois veulent loger les demandeurs d’asile déboutés sur une #île_déserte

      La ministre danoise de l’Immigration Inger Støjberg (photo) songe à adopter un projet de l’extrême-droite, qui consisterait à exiler les demandeurs d’asile déboutés sur une ou plusieurs des 300 îles inhabitées au large de la côte danoise. À l’heure actuelle, près d’un millier de demandeurs d’asile déboutés au Danemark attendent leur expulsion.

      Støjberg est membre du parti libéral du Danemark (Venstre), et depuis juin 2015, elle occupe le poste de ministre de l’Immigration et de l’Intégration dans le gouvernement du Premier ministre Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

      « Je suis toujours prête à écouter les bonnes idées pour le suivi des demandeurs d’asile », dit-elle dans le journal Berlingske.

      La proposition d’exil des demandeurs d’asile déboutés vient du parti populiste d’extrême droite danois « parti du peuple danois » (Dansk Folkeparti, ou DF). Ce parti soutient la coalition au gouvernement, mais n’en fait pas partie.

      Pourtant, selon Støjberg, le projet est intéressant mais pas immédiatement réalisable. « Il pourrait y avoir des obstacles pratiques et juridiques pour établir un centre de déportation dans un endroit très isolé, et ce sont des choses qu’il faut prendre en compte », a-t-elle déclaré.
      Dansk Folkeparti : loger les demandeurs d’asile déboutés « dans des containers, ou des tentes »
      La plupart des demandeurs d’asile déboutés résident actuellement dans une ancienne #prison d’état dans le centre du pays. Mais les résidents locaux se sont plaints de vols à l’étalage et affirment qu’ils ne se sentent pas en #sécurité en raison de la présence de ces migrants à proximité.

      Selon le DF, le coût ne devrait pas être un obstacle. « Peut-être que nous pouvons trouver une île sur laquelle il y a déjà des constructions, mais sinon, le centre pourrait être établi à partir de n’importe quoi : de #containers dans lesquels les gens pourraient vivre, ou de #tentes ». C’est ce qu’a déclaré le porte-parole du parti, Martin Henriksen.

      Le DF est très attaché à la politique d’asile du gouvernement. L’année dernière, il a suggéré la possibilité que la police impose une #assignation_à_résidence aux demandeurs d’asile mineurs qui se seraient mal comportés.

      Cette proposition faisait suite à la mise en cause que 5 garçons âgés d’entre 14 et 17 ans du centre d’asile de #Tullebølle. Ils avaient été accusés d’#agressions_sexuelles et de #viol commis sur des visiteuses du festival Langeland, sur l’île de Funen.

      https://fr.express.live/2017/12/08/danemark-demandeurs-dasile-deboutes-exil

    • Denmark Plans to Isolate Unwanted Migrants on a Small Island

      Denmark plans to house the country’s most unwelcome foreigners in a most unwelcoming place: a tiny, hard-to-reach island that now holds the laboratories, stables and crematory of a center for researching contagious animal diseases.

      As if to make the message clearer, one of the two ferries that serve the island is called the Virus.

      “They are unwanted in Denmark, and they will feel that,” the immigration minister, Inger Stojberg, wrote on Facebook.

      On Friday, the center-right government and the right-wing Danish People’s Party announced an agreement to house as many as 100 people on #Lindholm_Island — foreigners who have been convicted of crimes and rejected asylum seekers who cannot be returned to their home countries.

      The 17-acre island, in an inlet of the Baltic Sea, lies about two miles from the nearest shore, and ferry service is infrequent. Foreigners will be required to report at the island center daily, and face imprisonment if they do not.

      “We’re going to minimize the number of ferry departures as much as at all possible,” Martin Henriksen, a spokesman for the Danish People’s Party on immigration, told TV 2. “We’re going to make it as cumbersome and expensive as possible.”

      The deal allocates about $115 million over four years for immigrant facilities on the island, which are scheduled to open in 2021.

      The finance minister, Kristian Jensen, who led the negotiations, said the island was not a prison, but added that anyone placed there would have to sleep there.

      Louise Holck, deputy executive director of The Danish Institute for Human Rights, said her organization would watch the situation “very closely” for possible violations of Denmark’s international obligations.

      The agreement was reached as part of the annual budget negotiations. Each year, the Danish People’s Party demands restrictions on immigrants or refugees in return for its votes on a budget.

      In Denmark, as in much of Europe, the surge in migration from the Middle East and Africa in 2015 and 2016 prompted a populist, nativist backlash.

      The government has vowed to push immigration law to the limits of international conventions on human rights.

      Legal experts said it was too early to tell whether the Lindholm Island project would cross those boundaries, constituting illegal confinement. They said it resembled an Italian government project that was struck down in 1980 by the European Court of Human Rights.

      The Lindholm Island plan furthers the government’s policy of motivating failed asylum seekers to leave the country by making their lives intolerable.

      Asylum seekers with criminal records are not allowed to work in Denmark. Rejected asylum seekers who cannot be deported are given accommodations, where they cannot prepare their own meals, food and an allowance of about $1.20 per day, which is withheld if they fail to cooperate with the authorities.

      A former immigration minister, Birthe Ronn Hornbech, called the island project “a joke” and a blunder comparable to a soccer player scoring a goal for the opposing team.

      “Nothing will become of this proposal,” she wrote in her newspaper column.

      Many foreigners who have been denied asylum cannot be deported to their home countries for fear of abuse or persecution, or simply because those countries refuse to take them back.

      Hundreds lingering in two deportation centers refuse to leave — a challenge for a government that has promised to get rid of those who have no legal right to remain in Denmark.

      Some have held out for more than a decade despite a steady deterioration in living conditions. An independent study by a former prison director now working for the rights group Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly found conditions in one of the deportation centers to be comparable to those in some prisons, or worse.

      Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said last month that the government’s aim in receiving refugees would no longer be to integrate them, but to host them until they can return to their countries of origin.

      “It’s not easy to ask families to go home, if they’ve actually settled,” he told a meeting of his party. “But it is the morally right thing. We should not make refugees immigrants.”

      This summer, a ban on face coverings was introduced and quickly nicknamed “the burqa ban” as it followed a debate on the Islamic garment seen by some as “un-Danish.” This month, Parliament is expected to pass legislation requiring immigrants who want to obtain citizenship to shake hands with officials as part of the naturalization ceremony — though some Muslims insist that they cannot shake hands with someone of the opposite sex.

      The government contends that hand shakes are “a basic Danish value.”


      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/world/europe/denmark-migrants-island.html
      #Lindholm #mer_Baltique

    • La Danimarca confinerà i migranti su un’isola con gli animali infetti. Così l’Europa muore.

      C’è del marcio in Danimarca. Senza scomodare Amleto e i rimandi shakespeariani, bisogna constatare l’ennesima trovata discriminatoria quanto disumana di un Paese del “civile e ordinato” Nord Europa. Le normative internazionali non consentono l’espulsione di alcuni richiedenti asilo: secondo l’articolo 33 della Convenzione di Ginevra: “Nessuno Stato Contraente espellerà o respingerà, in qualsiasi modo, un rifugiato verso i confini di territori in cui la sua vita o la sua libertà sarebbero minacciate a motivo della sua razza, della sua religione, della sua cittadinanza, della sua appartenenza a un gruppo sociale o delle sue opinioni politiche”. Tali leggi non si possono ignorare, ma evidentemente si possono aggirare. Dunque il governo danese ha pensato bene non di espellere questi immigrati, ma di relegarli su un’isola-prigione.

      Per la precisione si tratta dell’isola di Lindholm, con una superficie di sette ettari. Pressoché deserta, viene usata esclusivamente come luogo per ricerche veterinarie, e vi soggiornano diversi medici che studiano la peste suina e la rabbia canina. Adesso cani e maiali dovranno cedere il posto agli immigrati, che qualcuno, vista la deriva che sta prendendo il pianeta sotto il profilo dei diritti umani, sembra non considerare tanto dissimili.

      L’idea scellerata è della coalizione di governo che comprende i Conservatori e il Dansk Folkeparti. Quest’ultimo, il Partito popolare danese, è noto per la perenne caccia all’immigrato, tanto veemente da far sembrare Matteo Salvini un misto tra Nicola Fratoianni e il Papa. Sull’isola verrà costruito, entro il 2021, un centro di espulsione dove i migranti – un massimo di 125 persone, che hanno compiuto un reato e ai quali è stata rifiutata la richiesta d’asilo – saranno costantemente sorvegliati dalla polizia. Potranno lasciare l’isola solo dopo aver ottenuto permessi speciali, per qualche ora durante la giornata, ma con l’obbligo di tornarvi la sera. E il biglietto del traghetto dovranno pagarselo da soli, a un prezzo inaccessibile per la loro condizione economica. D’altronde, il governo non ha alcuna intenzione di ammorbidire il loro soggiorno, e lo scopo è proprio quello di non permettere loro di lasciare l’isola-prigione. Di tutti i modi escogitati per camuffare una detenzione, questo pare di certo il meno credibile.

      Suonano paradossali anche le precisazioni della sezione danese di Amnesty International, che spiega come la misura riguarderà i soli richiedenti asilo con precedenti penali. Quindi quelli che hanno già scontato una pena in una prigione reale, e che si ritroveranno nuovamente in stato di detenzione, stavolta senza colpe e senza processi, è giusto, secondo un’organizzazione che dovrebbe tutelare i diritti umani, che ne scontino una nuova. Il clima di ostilità nei confronti dei migranti è così accentuato che la misura, palesemente in conflitto con i più basilari principi di tutela delle libertà, ha generato addirittura festeggiamenti sui social. In particolare, è un video a rendere chiaro il sentimento di molti, diffuso in rete dal Dansk Folkeparti: si tratta di un cartone animato dove un uomo di colore, con abiti da musulmano, viene scaricato su un’isola deserta. Il testo di accompagnamento alle immagini recita: “Gli stranieri criminali non hanno motivo di stare in Danimarca. Finché non riusciremo a liberarcene, li trasferiremo sull’isola di Lindholm”. Come cani e maiali, appunto.

      L’isola sarà trasformata in una prigione grazie a un investimento di 100 milioni di dollari che servirà a smantellare i laboratori e le stalle dell’istituto di veterinaria e a costruire la struttura con i dormitori per gli immigrati. Sarà pronta entro il 2021, salvo improbabili ripensamenti o interventi da parte della comunità europea. Inger Støjberg, ministra dell’immigrazione in quota Venstre, partito di destra della coalizione, ha usato Facebook per lanciare un messaggio che suona come un lapidario avvertimento: “Alcuni migranti si accorgeranno di non essere i benvenuti”. In pratica la versione danese di “È finita la pacchia”.

      Già in passato la Danimarca si era distinta per il pugno duro contro i migranti, sino al punto di minare la loro libertà e addirittura privarli dei loro effetti personali. Il Parlamento danese ha infatti approvato nel 2016 una legge tesa a scoraggiare le richieste d’asilo, che conferisce alle autorità il potere di perquisire vestiti e bagagli dei migranti per confiscare beni superiori a 10mila corone (circa 1.350 euro) e usarli per contribuire al loro mantenimento. Eppure la Danimarca, così come gran parte dei paesi del Nord Europa e tutta l’area scandinava, viene dipinta come l’espressione massima del “Paese civile”. Questa definizione a quanto pare si riferisce all’ordine e alla pulizia di una nazione, mentre si chiudono entrambi gli occhi sulle politiche disumane e dal sapore fascista – dove “ordine e pulizia” assumono un altro significato.

      Il governo, intanto, continua a ripetere che quella che verrà realizzata non sarà una prigione, perché non ci saranno vere e proprie celle. Si potrebbe comunque fare un paragone con il regime carcerario, considerando le condizioni nelle quali verseranno gli “ospiti” dell’isola. I danesi hanno probabilmente preso spunto dalla politica sull’immigrazione australiana. L’isola di Nauru, nell’Oceano Pacifico, è il luogo dove il governo “scarica” i richiedenti asilo: per dirla alla Toninelli, i migranti restano a Nauru “per mesi, al massimo anni”. Ci sono intere famiglie, bambini che vengono seguiti dalla polizia anche quando vanno a scuola, mentre gli adulti vengono vessati quotidianamente dalle guardie e vivono in condizioni precarie. Il Guardian Australia ha denunciato abusi su minori e violenze sessuali sulle donne. Ovviamente, in Italia, c’è chi ha lodato il No Way australiano e la detenzione dei migranti a Nauru. È un politico di spicco. Sì, proprio lui.

      Matteo Salvini, durante lo stallo della nave Diciotti, ha dichiarato: “Il mio obiettivo è il No Way australiano. Nessun migrante soccorso in mare mette piede in Australia”. Nel 2015, sulla sua pagina Facebook, si era spinto oltre, parlando proprio di Nauru: “In Australia per me fanno bene! Che dite, affittiamo un’isola anche noi?”. Salvini, invece di gongolare di fronte alle sirene australiane e danesi, dovrebbe semplicemente ripassare la nostra storia. Mandare al confino gli “indesiderati”, cacciandoli su un’isola per allontanarli dalla civiltà, era una prerogativa di Mussolini. Forse il ministro dell’Interno non ha mai sentito parlare di Ventotene o delle isole Tremiti.

      Dopo le leggi speciali del 1926, gli individui ritenuti pericolosi per lo Stato e per l’ordine pubblico venivano spediti in queste isole. È bene sottolineare che, quasi cento anni fa, venivano considerati pericolosi anche gli omosessuali, gli avversari politici, i credenti di fede diversa, come i testimoni di Geova, o i lettori di libri considerati sovversivi. Durante il fascismo vennero emesse 12mila ordinanze dalle commissioni Provinciali, e le isole si riempirono. Una volta giunti in quei luoghi, ai confinati venivano sottratti i documenti personali, non potevano interagire con gli isolani o superare zone di confine sorvegliate da guardie armate. Sulla carta era vietato anche ascoltare la radio o parlare di politica, mentre era permesso l’invio di una sola lettera alla settimana, non più lunga di 24 righe. Da Ventotene passò anche Sandro Pertini, che poi divenne uno dei più amati presidenti della Repubblica. Quando Salvini si lancia in azzardati inviti ad affittare isole, ricordiamoci quanto ci hanno trasmesso i libri di storia.

      È proprio per la memoria storica ancora pulsante, da preservare il più a lungo possibile, che proposte come quella del governo danese dovrebbero mettere in allarme le democrazie europee, che sono sotto attacco anche per questo e non solo per gli attacchi terroristici di individui radicalizzati e riempiti di odio esattamente come i sostenitori di simili politiche.

      Nessun uomo è un’isola, scriveva il poeta John Donne. Rivisitando i suoi versi, auspichiamo “nessun uomo su un’isola”, se viene intesa come prigionia e azzeramento dei diritti fondamentali dell’uomo. Che sia in Danimarca, nel profondo Sud dell’Oceania o in qualche nostalgia malsana di un politico nostrano che strizza troppo spesso l’occhio a un passato nero che non dovrebbe ripetersi.

      https://thevision.com/politica/danimarca-migranti-isolamento




  • Austrian Cultural Forum New York: EXHIBITION OPENING | WOMEN.NOW
    http://www.acfny.org/event/womennow

    Exhibition: Women.Now
    September 26, 2018 - February 18, 2019
    Austrian Cultural Forum New York
    open daily, 10 AM - 6 PM
    11 East 52nd Street, between Fifth Avenue and Madison Avenue, New York City

    The group exhibition Women.Now showcases seventeen contemporary female artists based in Austria and the United States. The artworks on display unite artists from different generations and offer a poignant commentary on women’s role in society and the arts, using a wide range of media including film, painting, pottery, and installation art.

    The exhibition pays homage to several anniversaries: In 1918 and 1920 women in Austria and the U.S., respectively, were given the right to vote, a milestone in political equality. It also recalls 1968, a year in which social norms defined by patriarchal structures saw a radical upheaval as the feminist avant-garde was formed. In Women.Now, curator Sabine Fellner sheds light on the legacies of these historic developments and how they impact current artistic discourse.

    Join us on Tuesday, September 25th for an artist talk at 6pm with curator Sabine Fellner, Wendy Vogel, and exhibiting artists Uli Aigner and Sevda Chkoutova, followed by the possibility to view the exhibition for the first time. Starting at 7pm, the reception will feature live music with Dida Pelled (guitar, vocals). She will present The Lost Women of Song, where she interprets remarkable songs by underground female artists whose work is hardly known, from Connie Converse and Elizabeth Cotton to Molly Drake and Norma Tanega.

    Uli Aigner | Smolka Contemporary – Galerie Elisabeth Melichar – Wien
    http://smolkacontemporary.at/de/kuenstler/uli-aigner

    #art #Autriche #USA


  • Camminata al Brennero oltre il confine

    Il gruppo Forum Per Cambiare l’Ordine delle Cose sta organizzando una camminata in montagna per attraversare il confine del Brennero per il prossimo 16 settembre, un gesto simbolico per sottolineare l’importanza dell’apertura dei confini. Il programma prevede il ritrovo all’entrata della stazione del Brennero alle 9. Chi parte da Bolzano può prendere il treno delle 07.32.
    Ci si incammina assieme seguendo il sentiero numero 1 salendo fino alla linea del confine con l’Austria. In quel punto, in corrispondenza del plateau, ci fermeremo per un momento di condivisione in cui verranno letti dei brani significativi per il senso della camminata. Si prosegue poi per il biotopo Sattelmoser, per la Malga Sattelbergalm, fino a scendere a Gries am Brenner. La durata del percorso è di circa 4 ore, dislivello in salita di 550 metri, in discesa 110m.
    La camminata è di bassa difficoltà, affinché tutti vi possano partecipare. Da Gries am Brenner si prende poi il treno per tornare al Brennero.
    Non si tratta di una manifestazione né di un presidio, bensì di un gesto simbolico e pacifico per lanciare un messaggio di apertura dei confini affinché questi luoghi tornino ad essere territori di passaggio sicuri. A tal proposito s’invitano tutte le realtà altoatesine, austriache e tedesche attive sul territorio ad aderire a questa camminata. In un momento delicato come questo, è fondamentale l’unione e la collaborazione di tutti verso un obiettivo comune, verso un mondo senza muri, per un’Europa che accoglie, aperta e solidale.


    http://www.cronachediordinariorazzismo.org/camminata-al-brennero-oltre-il-confine

    L’événement sur une page FB :
    https://www.facebook.com/events/1915245175236105
    #frontière_sud-alpine #Brenner #marche #asile #migrations #réfugiés #autriche #italie #frontières


  • Le projet de passeport autrichien pour ses germanophones fâche l’Italie Belga - 7 Septembre 2018 - RTBF
    https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_le-projet-de-passeport-autrichien-pour-ses-germanophones-fache-l-italie?

    Le ministère italien des Affaires étrangères a dénoncé vendredi soir la poursuite du projet de Vienne d’offrir un passeport autrichien aux habitants germanophones de la province de Bolzano, dans le nord-est de la péninsule.

    Le ministère a annoncé avoir appris l’existence à Vienne d’une commission gouvernementale chargée de préparer un projet de loi pour sur l’instauration de cette double nationalité.

    « Cette initiative est inopportune en raison de sa portée potentiellement perturbatrice », a insisté le ministère.



    « Il est surtout singulier que le gouvernement assurant la présidence tournante de l’Union européenne, plutôt que de se concentrer sur des actions qui unissent et favorisent la concorde réciproque entre les pays, cultive des projets de loi susceptibles de fomenter la discorde », a-t-il ajouté.

    « Une telle initiative est de plus vraiment curieuse si l’on considère que pour unir les citoyens des différents pays membres de l’UE, il existe déjà la citoyenneté européenne, comme le stipulent les passeports délivrés par chaque Etat » membre, a poursuivi le ministère.

    Province autonome
    La province de #Bolzano, une région montagneuse appelée Alto Adige (Haut-Adige) en italien et Südtirol en allemand, a été principalement autrichienne pendant des siècles, avant d’être intégrée après la Première guerre mondiale à l’Italie, où elle bénéficie d’un régime d’autonomie particulier.

    Au dernier recensement en 2011, 70% de ses habitants s’y sont déclarés germanophones, 26% italophones et 4% ladinophones, une langue rare locale d’origine romane. Le programme du gouvernement autrichien prévoit de proposer un passeport aux germanophones et aux ladinophones.

    Lors de l’annonce du projet fin 2017, les responsables de la province autonome de Bolzano s’étaient réjouis de cette opportunité tout en réaffirmant leur ancrage européen, tandis que leurs voisins également germanophones du Trentin avaient regretté de ne pas figurer dans les plans de Vienne.

    #nationalité #citoyenneté #identité #Sudètes #germanophones #frontières #minorités #nationalisme #UE #union_européenne #Autriche #Italie #passeport #patrie




  • #métaliste sur la « #nouvelle_route_des_Balkans », soit l’après-2015 (probablement à compléter) :

    1. Les nouvelles routes des Balkans... qui passent au nord (#Bulgarie, #Roumanie, #Hongrie, #Autriche) et au sud (#Grèce, #Albanie, #Monténégro, #Bosnie, #Croatie, #Slovénie, #Autriche) par rapport l’ « originale », celle de l’automne 2015 :

    2. Description de cette nouvelle route et news :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/669257

    3. #Bosnie, nouveau pays de transit (route du nord) ?
    https://seenthis.net/messages/639454
    3a. sur la fermeture des #frontières entre #Bosnie et #Croatie
    https://seenthis.net/messages/702915

    4. #Bulgarie, nouveau pays de transit (route du sud) ?
    https://seenthis.net/messages/609387
    https://seenthis.net/messages/575032
    https://seenthis.net/messages/554021

    1. sur les #morts sur cette route :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/714897
    #décès #mourir_dans_la_forteresse_europe

    #route_des_Balkans

    cc @isskein @reka


  • So starb eine Partei - Romanfragment - Jura Soyfer - 1934
    http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/die-ordnung-schuf-der-liebe-gott-6483/6

    Wenngleich Karrierist, hatte Dreher sich bisher um die Fragen von »Glück haben«, »Pech haben« wenig gekümmert. Er betrachtete seinen Aufstieg als historische und damit gerechtfertigte Notwendigkeit: Wie anders könne der Machtzuwachs des Proletariats sich äußern als dadurch, daß es seine besten Söhne die Sprossenleiter des Staates hinaufklimmen lasse? Und, was das Wettklettern selbst betraf, hatte es in diesem Lande weit weniger den Charakter eines Hasardspiels als etwa in der französischen Demokratie. Listenwahlrecht, Zweiparteiensystem, strenge Parteidisziplin – das hieß in diesem Fall: sich langsam hinaufdienen müssen. Nur wer eine genügende Weile auf Bürostühlen gesessen war, hatte sich durchgesetzt und durchgewetzt. Für Eigenbrötler und Renegaten war nichts zu holen. (Auch schon darum nicht, weil die Bourgeoisie hier so arm war, daß sie kaum die eigenen Korruptionisten zu sättigen vermochte.) Das System der Glückssterne verlief in geregelten Bahnen. Kometen waren rar.

    Daß Dreher 1924, getragen von einem ungeheuren Aufschwung der Wahlstimmen (damals fehlten, so schrieb Otto Bauer, nur 300+000 zur Einführung der klassenlosen Gesellschaft in Österreich), als Vierziger ins Parlament gelangt war, galt schon als staunenswert. Doch, einmal arriviert, war man unter solchen Umständen heroben derart gut geborgen, daß auch ihm nicht annähernd der Gedanke kam, er könne je wieder hinunterpurzeln. Und da sein Aufstieg zwar hurtig, aber normgemäß erfolgt war, vermißte auch er in seiner Stellung keineswegs das gesunde Bewußtsein: Ich habe lange genug selbstlos dem Proletariat gedient – jetzt darf ich mit Recht die Früchte ernten. Ja, seine Verbundenheit mit der Klasse war zweifellos stark. Auf jeder der zurückgelegten Stufen, bis zur untersten hinab, besaß er eine Schar dort zurückgelassener, meist neidloser Freunde. Ihm war wohl in den Kommissionen des Parlaments; stattete er aber dem Betrieb einen Besuch ab, so fand er sich dort ebenso zu Hause. Nicht einen Moment lang empfand er einen leeren Raum zwischen sich und den 700+000. Er fühlte sich als Proletarier und war stolz darauf.

    Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei Deutschösterreichs (SDAPDÖ)
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialdemokratische_Partei_%C3%96sterreichs#1920%E2%80%931934:_Von_der

    Nach dem 4. März 1933 nutzte die christlichsoziale Dollfuß-Regierung die von ihr so genannte Selbstausschaltung des Parlaments, um mit Notgesetzen autoritär weiter zu regieren. Die politischen Rechte wurden sukzessive eingeschränkt, u. a. war der traditionelle Maiaufmarsch der Sozialdemokraten auf der Ringstraße am 1. Mai 1933 verboten worden. Die Sozialdemokraten reagierten darauf paralysiert: Es fehlte eine klare Strategie, wie man den antidemokratischen Tendenzen Dollfuß’ begegnen könnte.

    Als Dollfuß den nun verbotenen paramilitärischen Schutzbund in Oberösterreich entwaffnen wollte, kam es am 12. Februar 1934 in Linz zu einer bewaffneten Auseinandersetzung, der zum Februaraufstand von Teilen der SDAP führte. Am selben Tag wurde Bürgermeister Karl Seitz in Wien von Polizei aus dem Rathaus entfernt und die Sozialdemokratische Partei verboten.[25] Der Aufstand wurde von Gendarmerie, Polizei, Bundesheer und Heimwehren bis zum 14. Februar niedergeschlagen.

    An den Februarkämpfen beteiligte sich bei weitem nicht die gesamte österreichische Sozialdemokratie; sie war darauf nicht vorbereitet. Der Aufstand ging auch nicht von der Parteizentrale aus, sie wurde davon überrascht. Die bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen zwischen dem Republikanischen Schutzbund einerseits und Polizei und Bundesheer andererseits fanden nur punktuell statt. In anderen Stadt- und Landesteilen sah man nichts davon. Deshalb war die Bekämpfung des „Februaraufstandes“ für die Regierung kein großes Problem.

    #Autriche #histoire #mouvement_ouvrier #social-démocratie #fascisme


  • This European Border Is Still Open. But for How Long?

    The border between Austria and Slovenia runs through Armin Tement’s backyard. Literally.

    Not that you would know it. Neat rows of vines march up and down the valley like military columns with no regard for a frontier laid down by man, why here, no one can quite remember. The Slovene wine workers speak German. The Austrians speak Slovenian, or at least try.

    As for the wine, well, says Mr. Tement, 32, “it tastes exactly the same on both sides.”

    When Mr. Tement’s family started making wine back in the 19th century, there was no border here. The region of Styria, straddling what is now southeastern Austria and northeastern Slovenia, was part of the Hapsburg Empire.

    When the empire was broken up after World War I, Upper Styria became Austrian and Lower Styria became part of Yugoslavia — until the 1990s, when that country, too, was broken up and Slovenia gained its independence.

    The border, a hundred years old this year, was briefly eliminated by advancing Nazi armies, then heavily policed during the Cold War, before vanishing in all but name when Slovenia joined the European Union’s passport-free travel zone in 2007.

    “It was a great moment,” recalled Janez Valdhuber, 53, a winemaker on the Slovenian side. To celebrate, he grabbed his young children, climbed the steep vineyard opposite his house to the top where the border runs, and unfurled a European flag.

    The interrogations at the border stopped, and Mr. Valdhuber’s car trunk was no longer searched when entering Austria.

    But some worry Europe’s open borders might slowly be closing again, one checkpoint at a time.

    This month, Germany announced that at its Bavarian border, it would turn back asylum seekers registered in other European Union countries, a move reintroducing a hard border of sorts with Austria.

    Austria, now run by a conservative government in coalition with the far right, threatened to do the same on its southern border with Italy, Europe’s busiest north-south trade route. And as if to demonstrate its resolve, Austria briefly resurrected checkpoints at the Brenner Pass this month.

    The border at Spielfeld, an Austrian town with barely 1,000 inhabitants, became a stop on the migrant route in 2015, and for a few traumatic weeks that year, tens of thousands of refugees came through.

    Since then, Austrian soldiers have returned.

    They ride in military jeeps along the “Wine Route,” a winding country road that zigzags back and forth across the border. They have built a fence along a small border stretch near Spielfeld and set up makeshift checkpoints in the hills — only sporadically manned, but there — on otherwise deserted lanes.

    No one here reports having seen any refugees in more than two years, and so far the border checks are relatively rare.

    But this month, the Austrian military and police staged a high-profile military exercise, simulating another mass arrival of migrants.

    A platform was set up for the photographers. Two Black Hawk helicopters circled overhead. Two hundred students from the police academy were enlisted as “refugees.” Later, the defense ministry released a video.

    “It feels a bit like we’re backsliding into the old days,” said Marko Oraze, a member of Austria’s Slovene-speaking minority who runs the Council of Carinthian Slovenes.

    Mr. Oraze lives in Austria but gets his car fixed in Slovenia. Many of his friends commute across the border every day.

    “More and more of them are stopped at the border on their way to work,” he said.

    Some in Spielfeld applaud the tougher stance taken by Austria.

    “It’s about time,” said Walpurga Sternad, who runs a restaurant with her husband near the highway connecting Austria and Slovenia. “They should just close all the borders in Europe, go back to what we used to have,” she said, as a group of friends nodded in approval.

    Ms. Sternad remembers the day in October 2015, when some 6,000 migrants poured over the border in Spielfeld, filling the motorway and spilling into her own front yard. “It was scary,” she said. “So many people. They kept coming.”


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/world/europe/austria-slovenia-border-migrants-spielfeld-schengen.html#click=https://t.co/YWlazq9xGU
    #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Autriche #Slovénie #fermeture_des_frontières #Schengen (fin de -) #militarisation_des_frontières #armée #frontière_sud-alpine

    • Anti-immigration mood drives fear of racist profiling on EU borders

      Europe’s passport-free area under pressure as calls grow for tougher migrant controls.

      Police spot checks have become a part of Fahad’s annual summer holiday when driving through the snow-topped mountains of southern Bavaria.

      “This usually happens,” said the Kuwaiti father of three, when his silver people-carrier with his wife and children was stopped by German border officers in the idyllic Alpine town of #Kiefersfelden.

      Fahad and his family had to wait for more than half an hour at the border post, until they were given a pass to drive from Austria into Germany. During the FT’s three-hour stay at the checkpoint, non-white drivers made up about 70 per cent of cars selected for further checks. Fahad was one of a few drivers with beards, while others included women wearing headscarves and motorists who at first sight did not look like white Europeans. All were waved through once their IDs were checked, vehicle boots searched and luggage examined.

      Racial profiling at Europe’s internal borders is forbidden under EU law. But with a fresh wave of anti-immigrant governments calling for tougher controls on migrant movements, there are concerns that non-white people will come under increasing suspicion when travelling in the continent.

      Europe’s passport-free Schengen zone — an area made up of 26 European states that abolished passport control at their mutual borders — has buckled under twin pressures: Europe’s biggest influx of refugees since the second world war, and a growing number of anti-immigrant governments pushing to crack down on irregular migration flows. “There is such a fear that Schengen won’t survive that countries are being given the discretion to do whatever they can to keep it alive,” said Elizabeth Collett, director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe think-tank.

      Although the number of migrants entering the EU has dropped dramatically since the height of the migration crisis in 2015, emergency powers still allow border controls across 20,000km inside the Schengen zone. Kiefersfelden, a popular skiing destination, has become one of Schengen’s pinch points: it is home to one of three emergency police controls along Germany’s 820km border with Austria.

      Every car travelling on the A12 autobahn through Kiefersfelden must pass a police border stop where officers select vehicles for extra spot checks. The cars that are picked are sent to a tented zone, where drivers and passengers must show valid ID documents.

      Border police said they are told to look for signs of undocumented migrants and people smugglers crossing into Germany from Austria. So far this year, an average of 900 illegal migrants per month have been detained on the Austro-German border, down from 1,120 per month in 2017.

      As racial profiling is outlawed, it is the responsibility of European governments to ensure their police forces carry out checks at random. Rainer Schafer, spokesman for the federal police overseeing the Kiefersfelden controls, said race and ethnicity “can be among the indicators” officers look for when deciding to pull over a vehicle for extra checks.

      “But there are no rules that we just pick out the people who look like they are coming from Africa,” he said. Other factors include registration plates (Italian or eastern European plates draw officers’ attention), blacked-out windows, and the number of passengers, he said.

      Police checks in Bavaria are expected to intensify after the region’s conservative local government last month requested tougher migration controls.

      Horst Seehofer, Germany’s interior minister, has also called on the government to break two decades of EU-wide co-operation on migration and unilaterally send people away at Germany’s internal borders. Observers fear that other Schengen countries, like Austria, could in turn erect their own emergency border controls — and that the EU’s principle of free movement of people is at risk of becoming a privilege enjoyed only by white Europeans.

      A report from La Cimade, a French non-governmental organisation, found French border police “systematically check the identity documents of people who do not have the right skin colour” on inbound trains from Italy.

      Inga Schwarz, a researcher at the University of Freiburg, said Europe’s internal border crossings are becoming “increasingly racialised spaces, constructed not only by border guards profiling according to race, but also by European citizens who witness these racialised control practices”.

      In Kiefersfelden, the majority of the non-white drivers selected for checks were tourists in people-carriers and expensive cars — mostly from the Gulf — and were waved through in less than 15 minutes. Uruj, a 27-year-old teacher from Kuwait, her husband and young daughter waited for nearly an hour in their white Mercedes.

      Although they had valid visa documents, police took away their passports and only permitted the family to continue to their holiday destination in Austria once they had obtained a car seat for their three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Wafah. Uruj, who was wearing a pink headscarf, said, “I don’t think they liked the look of us.”


      https://www.ft.com/content/fac891a6-93f9-11e8-b67b-b8205561c3fe?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754
      #contrôles_frontaliers #profiling #Allemagne #Autriche #contrôle_au_faciès

    • Réfugiés : la #Slovénie veut toujours plus de #barbelés sur sa frontière avec la #Croatie

      Les autorités slovènes se veulent rassurantes : la sécurité des frontières est assurée et personne n’a d’information sur l’éventuelle réouverture massive de la « #route_des_Balkans ». Pourtant le nouveau gouvernement ne semble pas avoir l’intention d’infléchir la politique migratoire de son prédécesseur et songerait même à étendre les barbelés qui coupent la Slovénie de son voisin croate.

      Par Charles Nonne

      La question des réfugiés semble ces dernières semaines avoir déserté le débat public en Slovénie. Le contrat de coalition signé le 28 août 2018, lapidaire, dédramatise : « Nous élaborerons une stratégie migratoire exhaustive, basée sur la coopération intergouvernementale. Nous protègerons les frontières de l’espace Schengen avec davantage d’efficacité et nous démonterons les obstacles techniques [barrières et panneaux] dès que les circonstances le permettront. »

      Pourtant, les passages de la frontière se poursuivent, notamment dans la région de la Bela Krajina, au sud-est du pays, où la rivière Kolpa sépare Slovénie et Croatie. Selon la police de Novo Mesto, entre le 1er janvier et le 31 septembre 2018, plus de 2400 ressortissants étrangers auraient illégalement franchi la Kolpa, soit douze fois plus qu’en 2017.

      Fin septembre, en marge d’un déplacement dans le centre régional de Črnomelj, le nouveau ministre de l’Intérieur, Boris Poklukar, avait affirmé vouloir maintenir les barrières en l’état, tout en garantissant que la police était préparée à une augmentation des passages frontaliers. Pour la maire de Črnomelj, Mojca Čemas Stjepanovič, « pour le moment, la sécurité est garantie et nous n’avons aucune raison de nous inquiéter. » Dans les communes les plus exposées, le gouvernement a promis l’érection de nouveaux « obstacles techniques » : sur les 670 kilomètres de frontière slovéno-croate, plus de 160 sont parcourus par des barbelés et 56 par de véritables barrières.

      En Slovénie, c’est notamment les tensions à la frontière entre la Bosnie-Herzégovine et la Croatie qui préoccupent. Si le gouvernement se prépare à plusieurs scénarios, il affirme n’avoir « aucune information laissant penser à une augmentation prochaine des flux », indique le ministre Boris Poklukar. Au nord, l’Autriche a d’ores et déjà annoncé qu’elle ne diminuerait pas la surveillance de sa frontière lors des six prochains mois.

      Au-delà du strict contrôle frontalier, d’autres questions divisent : des inquiétudes pèsent notamment sur la possible installation de centres d’accueil, comme à Debeli Rtič, sur la côte slovène, et à Brežice, à 40 kilomètres de Zagreb. La directrice du bureau gouvernemental pour la prise en charge de l’intégration des migrants, Mojca Špec Potočar, a tenu à indiquer qu’« il n’y [aurait] aucune installation permanente de réfugiés. »

      La question secoue également les rangs de la coalition : l’ancienne ministre de l’Intérieur, Vesna Györkös Žnidar, « faucon » régulièrement critiqué par les défenseurs des droits de l’homme, vient de claquer la porte de son parti, le Parti du centre moderne (SMC) de l’ancien Premier ministre Miro Cerar, en raison de désaccords profonds sur les questions migratoires.

      https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Slovenie-le-gouvernement-poursuit-lentement-le-renforcement-de-sa
      #fermeture_des_frontières #murs #barrières_frontalières