• How #ICE Exported the Coronavirus

    An investigation reveals how Immigration and Customs Enforcement became a domestic and global spreader of COVID-19.

    Admild, an undocumented immigrant from Haiti, was feeling sick as he approached the deportation plane that was going to take him back to the country he had fled in fear. Two weeks before that day in May, while being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Louisiana, he had tested positive for the coronavirus — and he was still showing symptoms.

    He disclosed his condition to an ICE official at the airport, who sent him to a nurse.

    “She just gave me Tylenol,” said Admild, who feared reprisals if his last name was published. Not long after, he was back on the plane before landing in Port-au-Prince, one of more than 40,000 immigrants deported from the United States since March, according to ICE records.

    Even as lockdowns and other measures have been taken around the world to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, ICE has continued to detain people, move them from state to state and deport them.

    An investigation by The New York Times in collaboration with The Marshall Project reveals how unsafe conditions and scattershot testing helped turn ICE into a domestic and global spreader of the virus — and how pressure from the Trump administration led countries to take in sick deportees.

    We spoke to more than 30 immigrant detainees who described cramped and unsanitary detention centers where social distancing was near impossible and protective gear almost nonexistent. “It was like a time bomb,” said Yudanys, a Cuban immigrant held in Louisiana.

    At least four deportees interviewed by The Times, from India, Haiti, Guatemala and El Salvador, tested positive for the virus shortly after arriving from the United States.

    So far, ICE has confirmed at least 3,000 coronavirus-positive detainees in its detention centers, though testing has been limited.

    We tracked over 750 domestic ICE flights since March, carrying thousands of detainees to different centers, including some who said they were sick. Kanate, a refugee from Kyrgyzstan, was moved from the Pike County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania to the Prairieland Detention Facility in Texas despite showing Covid-19 symptoms. He was confirmed to have the virus just a few days later.

    “I was panicking,” he said. “I thought that I will die here in this prison.”

    We also tracked over 200 deportation flights carrying migrants, some of them ill with coronavirus, to other countries from March through June. Under pressure from the Trump administration and with promises of humanitarian aid, some countries have fully cooperated with deportations.

    El Salvador and Honduras have accepted more than 6,000 deportees since March. In April, President Trump praised the presidents of both countries for their cooperation and said he would send ventilators to help treat the sickest of their coronavirus patients.

    So far, the governments of 11 countries have confirmed that deportees returned home with Covid-19.

    When asked about the agency’s role in spreading the virus by moving and deporting sick detainees, ICE said it took precautions and followed guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of last week, ICE said that it was still able to test only a sampling of immigrants before sending them home. Yet deportation flights continue.

    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/07/10/how-ice-exported-the-coronavirus

    #covid-19 #coronavirus #USA #Etats-Unis #migrations #migrerrance #renvois #expulsions #déportations #avions #transports_aériens #contamination #malades #rétention #détention_administrative #asile #réfugiés #déboutés #distanciation_sociale #swiftair #visualisation #cartographie #géographie

    ping @isskein @simplicissimus @karine4 @reka

  • UK Deportations 2020: how BA, #Easyjet and other airlines collaborate with the border regime

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis, with hundreds of people released from detention. But a recent charter flight to Poland shows the motor is still ticking over. Will things just go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts, or can anti-deportation campaigners push for a more radical shift? This report gives an updated overview of the UK deportation system and focuses in on the role of scheduled flights run by major airlines including: #BA, Easyjet, #Kenya_Airways, #Qatar_Airways, #Turkish_Airlines, #Ethiopian_Airlines, #Air_France, #Royal_Jordanian, and #Virgin.

    On 30 April, with UK airports largely deserted during the Covid-19 lockdown, a Titan Airways charter plane took off from Stansted airport deporting 35 people to Poland. This was just a few days after reports of charter flights in the other direction, as UK farmers hired planes to bring in Eastern European fruit-pickers.

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis. Hundreds of people have been released from detention centres, with detainee numbers dropping by 900 over the first four months of 2020. But the Poland flight signals that the Home Office motor is still ticking over. As in other areas, perhaps the big question now is whether things will simply go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts. Or can anti-deportation campaigners use this window to push for a more radical shift?
    An overview of the UK’s deportation machine

    Last year, the UK Home Office deported over seven thousand people. While the numbers of people “removed” have been falling for several years, deportation remains at the heart of the government’s strategy (if that is the term) for “tackling illegal immigration”. It is the ultimate threat behind workplace and dawn raids, rough-sleeper round-ups, “right to rent” checks, reporting centre queues, and other repressive architecture of the UK Border Regime.

    This report gives an overview of the current state of UK deportations, focusing on scheduled flights run by major airlines. Our previous reports on UK deportations have mainly looked at charter flights: where the Home Office aims to fill up chartered planes to particular destinations, under heavy guard and typically at night from undisclosed locations. These have been a key focus for anti-deportation campaigners for a number of reasons including their obvious brutality, and their use as a weapon to stifle legal and direct resistance. However, the majority of deportations are on scheduled flights. Deportees are sitting – at the back handcuffed to private security “escorts” – amongst business or holiday travellers.

    These deportations cannot take place without extensive collaboration from businesses. The security guards are provided by outsourcing company Mitie. The tickets are booked by business travel multinational Carlson Wagonlit. The airlines themselves are household names, from British Airways to Easyjet. This report explains how the Home Office and its private sector collaborators work together as a “deportation machine” held together by a range of contractual relationships.

    Some acknowledgements

    Many individuals and campaign groups helped with information used in this report. In particular, Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants shared their valuable research and legal advice, discussed below.

    We have produced this report in collaboration with the Air Deportation Project led by William Walters at the University of Carleton in Canada, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Corporate Watch received funding from this project as a contribution for our work on this report.

    Names, numbers

    First a quick snapshot of deportation numbers, types and destinations. We also need to clear up some terminology.

    We will use the term “deportations” to refer to all cases where the Home Office moves someone out of the country under direct force (for scheduled flights, this usually means handcuffed to a security “escort”). In the Home Office’s own jargon, these are called “enforced returns”, and the word “deportation” is reserved for people ejected on “public policy” rather than “immigration” grounds – mostly Foreign National Offenders who have been convicted by criminal courts. The Home Office refers to deportations carried out under immigration law euphemistically, calling them “removals” or “returns”.i

    As well as “enforced returns”, there are also so-called “voluntary returns”. This means that there is no direct use of force – no guard, no leg or arm restraints. But the term “voluntary” is stretched. Many of these take place under threat of force: e.g., people are pressured to sign “voluntary return” agreements to avoid being forcibly deported, or as the only chance of being released from detention. In other cases, people may agree to “voluntary return” as the only escape route from a limbo of reporting controls, lack of rights to work or rent legally, or destitution threatened by “no recourse to public funds”.

    In 2019, the Home Office reported a total of 18,782 returns: 7,361 “enforced” and 11,421 “voluntary”.ii
    These figures include 5,110 “Foreign National Offenders” (27%). (The Home Office says the majority of these were enforced returns, although no precise figure is provided.)
    There is a notable trend of declining removals, both enforced and “voluntary”. For example, in 2015 there were 41,789 returns altogether, 13,690 enforced and 28,189 “voluntary”. Both enforced and voluntary figures have decreased every year since then.
    Another notable trend concerns the nationalities of deportees. Europeans make up an increasing proportion of enforced deportations. 3,498, or 48%, of all enforced returns in 2019 were EU citizens – and this does not include other heavily targeted non-EU European nationalities such as Albanians. In 2015, there were 3,848 EU enforced returns – a higher absolute figure, but only 28% of a much higher overall total. In contrast, EU nationals still make up a very small percentage of “voluntary” returns – there were only 107 EU “voluntary returns” in 2019.
    The top nationalities for enforced returns in 2019 were: Romania (18%), Albania (12%), Poland (9%), Brazil (8%) and Lithuania (6%). For voluntary returns they were: India (16%), China (9%), Pakistan (9%).

    We won’t present any analysis of these figures and trends here. The latest figures show continuing evidence of patterns we looked at in our book The UK Border Regime.iii One key point we made there was that, as the resources and physical force of the detention and deportation system are further diminished, the Border Regime is more than ever just a “spectacle” of immigration enforcement – a pose for media and key voter audiences, rather than a realistic attempt to control migration flows. We also looked at how the scapegoat groups targeted by this spectacle have shifted over recent decades – including, most recently, a new focus on European migration accompanying, or in fact anticipating, the Brexit debate.

    Deportation destinations

    Home Office Immigration Statistics also provide more detailed dataiv on the destinations people are “returned” to, which will be important when we come to look at routes and airline involvement. Note that, while there is a big overlap between destinations and nationalities, they are of course not the same thing. For example, many of those deported to France and other western European countries are “third country” removals of refugees under the Dublin agreement – in which governments can deport an asylum seeker where they have already been identified in another EU country.

    Here are the top 20 destinations for deportations in 2019 – by which, to repeat, we mean all enforced returns:

    It is worth comparing these figures with a similar table of top 20 deportation destinations in the last 10 years – between 2010 and 2019. This comparison shows very strongly the recent shift to targeting Europeans.

    The Home Office: who is targeted and how

    As we will see, the actual physical business of deporting people is outsourced to private companies. The state’s role remains giving the orders about who is targeted for arrest and detention, who is then released, and who is forced onto a plane. Here we’ll just take a very quick look at the decision-making structures at work on the government side. This is based on the much more detailed account in The UK Border Regime.

    The main state body responsible for immigration control in the UK is the Home Office, the equivalent of other countries’ Interior Ministries. In its current set-up, the Home Office has three divisions: Homeland Security, which runs security and intelligence services; Public Safety, which oversees the police and some other institutions; and Borders, Immigration and Citizenship. The last of these is further divided into three “directorates”: UK Visas and Immigration, which determines visa and asylum applications; Border Force, responsible for control at the frontiers; Immigration Enforcement, responsible for control within the national territory – including detention and deportations. Immigration Enforcement itself has an array of further departments and units. Regular restructuring and reshuffling of all these structures is known to bewilder immigration officers themselves, contributing to the Home Office’s notoriously low morale.v

    At the top of the tree is the Home Secretary (interior minister), supported by a more junior Immigration Minister. Along with the most senior civil servants and advisors, these ministers will be directly involved in setting top-level policies on deportations.

    For example, an enquiry led by then prisons and probation ombudsman Stephen Shaw into the Yarl’s Wood detention centre revolt in 2002 has given us some valuable insight into the development of modern Home Office deportation policy under the last Labour government. Then Home Secretary Jack Straw, working with civil servants including the Home Office permanent secretary Sir David Omand, introduced the first deportation targets we are aware of, in 2000. They agreed a plan to deport 12,000 people in 2000-1, rising to 30,000 people the next year, and eventually reaching 57,000 in 2003-4.vi

    Nearly two decades later, Home Secretary Amber Rudd was pushed to resign after a leak confirmed that the Home Office continued to operate a deportation targets policy, something of which she had denied knowledge.vii The 2017-18 target, revealed in a leaked letter to Rudd from Immigration Enforcement’s director general Hugh Ind, was for 12,800 enforced returns.viii

    As the figures discussed above show, recent austerity era Conservative governments are more modest than the last Labour government in their overall deportation targets, and have moved to target different groups. Jack Straw’s deportation programme was almost entirely focused on asylum seekers whose claims had been refused. This policy derived from what the Blair government saw as an urgent need to respond to media campaigns demonising asylum seekers. Twenty years on, asylum seekers now make up a minority of deportees, and have been overtaken by new media bogeymen including European migrants.

    In addition, recent Home Office policy has put more effort into promoting “voluntary” returns – largely for cost reasons, as security guards and detention are expensive. This was the official rationale behind Theresa May’s infamous “racist van” initiative, where advertising vans drove round migrant neighbourhoods parading “Go Home” slogans and a voluntary return hotline number.

    How do Home Office political targets translate into operations on the ground? We don’t know all the links, but can trace some main mechanisms. Enforced returns begin with arrests. One of the easiest ways to find potential deportees is to grab people as they walk in to sign at an Immigration Reporting Centre. 80,000 migrants in the UK are “subject to reporting requirements”, and all Reporting Centres include short-term holding cells.ix Other deportees are picked up during immigration raids – such as daytime and evening raids on workplaces, or dawn raids to catch “immigration offenders” in their beds.x

    Both reporting centre caseworkers and Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) raid squads are issued with targets and incentives to gather deportees. An Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) report from 2017 explains how reporting centre staff work specifically to deportation targets. The inspector also tells us how:

    Staff at the London Reporting Centres worked on the basis that to meet their removal targets they needed to detain twice the number of individuals, as around half of those detained would later raise a barrier to removal and be released from detention.

    ICE raid teams are set monthly priorities by national and regional commanders, which may include targeting specific nationalities for deportation. For example, the Home Office has repeatedly denied that it sets nationality targets in order to fill up charter flights to particular destinations – but this practice was explicitly confirmed by an internal document from 2014 (an audit report from the director of Harmondsworth detention centre) obtained by Corporate Watch following a Freedom of Information legal battle.xi

    Day-to-day deportation and detention decisions are overseen by a central unit called the National Removals Command (NRC). For example, after ICE raid officers make arrests they must call NRC to authorise individuals’ detention. This decision is made on the basis of any specific current targets, and otherwise on general “removability”.

    “Removability” means the chance of successfully getting their “subject” onto a plane without being blocked by lack of travel documents, legal challenges and appeals, or other obstacles. For example, nationals of countries with whom the UK has a formal deportation agreement are, all other things being equal, highly removable. This includes the countries with which the UK has set up regular charter flight routes – including Albania, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana, and more recently Jamaica and a number of EU countries. On the other extreme, some nationalities such as Iranians present a problem as their governments refuse to accept deportees.

    The Home Office: “arranging removal” procedure

    A Home Office document called “Arranging Removal” sets out the steps Immigration Enforcement caseworkers need to take to steer their “subject” from arrest to flight.xii

    On the one hand, they are under pressure from penny-pinching bosses keen to get the job done as quick and cheap as possible. On the other, they have to be careful not to make any mistakes deportees’ lawyers could use to get flights cancelled. Immigration Officers have the legal power to order deportations without the need for any court decision – however, many deportations are blocked on appeal to courts.

    Here are some of the main steps involved:

    Removability assessment. The caseworker needs to assess that: there are no “casework barriers” – e.g., an ongoing asylum claim or appeal that would lead to the deportation being stopped by a court; the detainee is medically “fit to fly”; any family separation is authorised correctly; the detainee has a valid travel document.
    Travel Document. If there is no valid travel document, the caseworker can try to obtain an “emergency travel document” through various routes.
    Executive approval. If all these criteria are met, the caseworker gets authorisation from a senior office to issue Removal Directions (RD) paperwork.
    Risk Assessment. Once the deportation is agreed, the caseworker needs to assess risks that might present themselves on the day of the flight – such as medical conditions, the likelihood of detainee resistance and of public protest. At this point escorts and/or medics are requested. A version of this risk assessment is sent to the airline – but without case details or medical history.xiii
    Flight booking. The caseworker must first contact the Airline Ticketing Team who grant access to an online portal called the Electronic Removal Form (ERF). This portal is run by the Home Office’s flight booking contractor Carlson Wagonlit (see below). Tickets are booked for escorts and any medics as well as the deportee. There are different options including “lowest cost” non-refundable fares, or “fully refundable” – the caseworker here should assess how likely the deportation is to be cancelled. One of the options allows the caseworker to choose a specific airline.
    Notice of removal. Finally, the deportee must be served with a Removal Directions (RD) document that includes notification of the deportation destination and date. This usually also includes the flight number. The deportee must be given sufficient notice: for people already in detention this is standardly 72 hours, including two working days, although longer periods apply in some situations.

    In 2015 the Home Office brought in a new policy of issuing only “removal window” notification in many cases – this didn’t specify the date but only a wide timeframe. The window policy was successfully challenged in the courts in March 2019 and is currently suspended.

    #Carlson_Wagonlit

    The electronic booking system is run by a private company, #Carlson_Wagonlit_Travel (#CWT). CWT is also in charge of contracting charter flights.

    Carlson Wagonlit has been the Home Office’s deportation travel agent since 2004, with the contract renewed twice since then. Its current seven year contract, worth £5.7 million, began in November 2017 and will last until October 2024 (assuming the two year extension period is taken up after an initial five years). The Home Office estimated in the contract announcement that it will spend £200 million on deportation tickets and charters over that seven year period.xiv

    Carlson is a global #business travel services company, i.e., a large scale travel agent and booker for companies and government agencies. Its official head office is in France, but it is 100% owned by US conglomerate #Carlson_Companies Inc. It claims to be active in more than 150 countries.

    A report on “outsourced contracts” by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration gives us some information on CWT’s previous (2010-17) contract.xv This is unlikely to be substantially changed in the new version, although deportation numbers have reduced since then. The contract involved:

    management of charter flights and ticketing provision for scheduled flights for migrants subject to enforced removal and escorts, where required, and the management of relationships with carriers to maintain and expand available routes. […] Annually, CWT processed approximately 21,000 booking requests from Home Office caseworkers for tickets for enforced removals. Some booking requests were for multiple travellers and/or more than one flight and might involve several transactions. CWT also managed flight rescheduling, cancellations and refunds. The volume of transactions processed varied from 5,000 to 8,000 per month.

    The inspection report notes the value of CWT’s service to the Home Office through using its worldwide contacts to facilitate deportations:

    Both Home Office and CWT managers noted that CWT’s position as a major travel operator had enabled it to negotiate favourable deals with airlines and, over the life of the contract to increase the range of routes available for enforced removals. (Para 5.10).

    The airlines: regular deportation collaborators

    We saw above that Home Office caseworkers book flight tickets through an online portal set up and managed by Carlson Wagonlit Travel. We also saw how CWT is praised by Home Office managers for its strong relationships with airlines, and ability to negotiate favourable deals.

    For charter flight deportations, we know that CWT has developed a particular relationship with one charter company called Titan Airways. We have looked at Titan in our previous reports on charter flight deportations.

    Does the Home Office also have specific preferred airline partners for scheduled flights? Unfortunately, this isn’t an easy question to answer. Under government procurement rules, the Home Office is required to provide information on contracts it signs – thus, for example, we have at least a redacted version of the contract with CWT. But as all its airline bookings go through the intermediary of CWT, there are no such contracts available. Claiming “commercial confidentiality”, the Home Office has repeatedly information requests on its airline deals. (We will look in a bit more depth at this issue in the annex.)

    As a result, we have no centrally-gathered aggregate data on airline involvement. Our information comes from individual witnesses: deportees themselves; their lawyers and supporters; fellow passengers, and plane crew. Lawyers and support groups involved in deportation casework are a particularly helpful reference, as they may know about multiple deportation cases.

    For this report, we spoke to more than a dozen immigration lawyers and caseworkers to ask which airlines their clients had been booked on. We also spoke to anti-deportation campaign groups including Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants, who have run recent campaigns calling on airlines to refuse to fly deportees; and to the trade union Unite, who represent flight crew workers. We also looked at media reports of deportation flights that identify airlines.

    These sources name a large number of airlines, and some names come up repeatedly. British Airways is top of the list. We list a few more prominent collaborators below: Easyjet, Kenya Airways, Ethiopian Airlines, Qatar Airways, Turkish Airlines, Royal Jordanian. Virgin Airlines is the only company to have publicly announced it has stopped carrying deportees from the UK – although there have been some questions over whether it is keeping this promise.

    However, the information we have does not allow us to determine the exact nature of the relationship with these airlines. How many airlines appear in the CWT booking system – what determines which ones are included? Does CWT have a preferential arrangement with BA or other frequent deportation airlines? Does the Home Office itself have any direct interaction with these airlines’ management? How many airlines are not included in the CWT booking system because they have refused to carry deportees?

    For now, we have to leave these as open questions.

    British Airways

    We have numerous reports of British Airways flying deportees to destinations worldwide – including African and Caribbean destinations, amongst others. Cabin crew representatives in Unite the Union identify British Airways as the main airline they say is involved in deportation flights.

    The airline has long been a key Home Office collaborator. Back in 2003, at the height of the Labour government’s push to escalate deportations, the “escort” security contractor was a company called Loss Prevention International. In evidence to a report by the House of Commons home affairs committee, its chief executive Tom Davies complained that many airlines at this point were refusing to fly deportees. But he singled out BA as the notable exception, saying: “if it were not for […] the support we get from British Airways, the number of scheduled flight removals that we would achieve out of this country would be virtually nil”.xvi

    In 2010, British Airways’ role was highlighted when Jimmy Mubenga was killed by G4S “escorts” on BA flight 77 from Heathrow to Angola.

    Since 2018, there has been an active calling on BA to stop its collaboration. The profile of this issue was raised after BA sponsored Brighton Pride in May 2018 – whilst being involved in deportations of lesbian and gay migrants to African countries where their lives were in danger. After winning a promise from Virgin Airways to cease involvement in deportations (see below), the group Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) have made BA the main target for their anti-deportation campaigning.

    The campaign has also now been supported by BA cabin crew organised in the union Unite. In December 2019 Unite cabin crew branches passed a motion against airline scheduled flight deportations.xvii

    Kenya Airways

    We have numerous reports from caseworkers and campaigners of Kenya Airways flying deportees to destinations in Africa.

    The typical route is a flight from Heathrow to Nairobi, followed by a second onward flight. People deported using this route have included refugees from Sudan and Somalia.

    Easyjet

    We have numerous reports of Easyjet flying deportees to European destinations. Easyjet appears to be a favoured airline for deportations to Eastern European countries, and also for “third country” returns to countries including Italy and Germany. While most UK scheduled deportations are carried out from Heathrow and Gatwick, we have also seen accounts of Easyjet deportations from Luton.

    Qatar Airways

    We have numerous reports of Qatar Airways carrying deportees to destinations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Qatar Airways has carried deportees to Iraq, according to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), and also to Sudan. (In March 2019 the airline suspended its Sudan route, but this appears to have been restarted – the company website currently advertises flights to Khartoum in April 2020.xviii) Other destinations include Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Thailand, the Philippines, and Uganda. The typical route is from Heathrow via Doha.

    Turkish Airlines

    We have numerous reports of Turkish Airlines carrying deportees. The typical route is Heathrow or Gatwick to Istanbul, then an onward flight to further destinations including Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), Turkish Airlines has been one of the main companies involved in deportations to Iraq. A media report from June 2019 also mentions Turkish Airlines carrying someone being deported to Somalia via Istanbul.xix In August 2017, a Turkish Airlines pilot notably refused to fly an Afghani refugee from Heathrow to Istanbul, en route to Kabul, after being approached by campaigners – but this does not reflect general company policy.xx

    Ethiopian Airlines

    We have reports of this airline deporting people to Ethiopia and other African countries, including Sudan. Flights are from Heathrow to Addis Ababa. In April 2018, high-profile Yarl’s Wood hunger striker Opelo Kgari was booked on an Ethiopian flight to Addis Ababa en route to Botswana.

    Air France

    Air France are well-known for carrying deportees from France, and have been a major target for campaigning by anti-deportation activists there. We also have several reports of them carrying deportees from the UK, on flights from Heathrow via Paris.

    Royal Jordanian

    According to IFIR, Royal Jordanian has been involved in deportations to Iraq.

    Virgin Airlines

    In June 2018, Virgin announced that it had ceased taking bookings for deportation flights. Virgin had previously been a regular carrier for deportations to Jamaica and to Nigeria. (NB: Nigeria is often used as a deportation transit hub from where people are subsequently removed to other African countries.) The announcement came after the Windrush scandal led to the Home Office apparently suspending deportations to the Caribbean, and following campaigning by Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) – although Virgin claimed it had made the decision before being contacted by the campaign. A Virgin statement said:

    we made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have already informed the Home Office. We believe this decision is in the best interest of our customers and people, and is in keeping with our values as a company.xxi

    But there are doubts over just how much Virgin’s promise is worth. According to a report by The Independent:

    The airline had agreed to deport a man to Nigeria […] a day after announcing the decision. The only reason he wasn’t removed was because the Home Office agreed to consider new representations following legal intervention.xxii

    Do airlines have a choice?

    In response to its critics, British Airways has consistently given the same reply: it has no choice but to cooperate with the Home Office. According to an August 2018 article in The Guardian, BA says that it has “a legal duty under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove individuals when asked to do so by the Home Office.” A company spokesperson is quoted saying:

    Not fulfilling this obligation amounts to breaking the law. We are not given any personal information about the individual being deported, including their sexuality or why they are being deported. The process we follow is a full risk assessment with the Home Office, which considers the safety of the individual, our customers and crew on the flight.xxiii

    The last parts of this answer fit the process we looked at above. When booking the flight, the Home Office caseworker sends the airline a form called an Airline Risk Report (ARA) which alerts it to risk issues, and specifies why escorts or medics are needed – including an assessment of the likelihood of resistance. But no information should be shared on the deportee’s medical issues or immigration case and reasons for deportation.

    But is it true that an airline would be breaking the law if it refused a booking? Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants have shared with us a legal opinion they received from law firm Duncan Lewis on this issue. We summarise the main points here.

    The law in question is the Immigration Act 1971, Section 27(1)(b)(iii). This states that, when issued the correct legal order by the Home Office, the “owner or agent of a ship or aircraft” must “make arrangements for or in connection with the removal of a person from the United Kingdom when required to do so [by appropriate Removal Directions]”. It is an offence to fail to do so “without reasonable excuse”.

    The offence is punishable by a fine, and potentially a prison sentence of up to six months. As a minor “summary only” offence, any case would be heard by a magistrates’ court rather than a jury.

    In fact many airline captains have refused to carry deportees – as we will see in the next section. But there are no recorded cases of anyone ever being prosecuted for refusing. As with many areas of UK immigration law, there is simply no “case law” on this question.

    If a case ever does come to court, it might turn on that clause about a “reasonable excuse”. The legal opinion explains that the airline might argue they refused to carry a deportee because doing so would present a risk to the aircraft or passengers, for example if there is resistance or protest. A court might well conclude this was “reasonable”.

    On the other hand, the “reasonable excuse” defence could be harder to apply for an airline that took a principled stand to refuse all deportations as a general rule, whether or not there is disruption.

    Again, though, all this is hypothetical as the Home Office has never actually prosecuted anyone. Virgin Airlines, the first company to have publicly stated that it will not fly deportees from the UK, so far has not faced any legal comeback. As reported in the press, a Virgin spokesperson explained the company’s position like this:

    We’ve made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have informed the Home Office. We always comply with the law and would continue to comply with legislation; however, we have ended our contractual agreement to carry involuntary deportees.xxiv

    Due to our lack of information on Home Office agreements with airlines, it’s hard to assess exactly what this means. Possibly, Virgin previously had an outstanding deal with the Home Office and Carlson Wagonlit where their tickets came up on the CWT booking portal and were available for caseworkers, and this has now ended. If the Home Office insisted on contacting them and booking a ticket regardless, they might then be pushed to “comply with the law”.

    Above we saw that, according to evidence referred to in a report of the House of Commons home affairs select committee, in 2003 the majority of airlines actually refused to carry deportees, leaving the Home Office to depend almost exclusively on British Airways. Even in this context there were no prosecutions of airlines.

    This is not an uncommon situation across UK immigration law: much of it has never come to court. For example, as we have discussed in reports on immigration raids, there have been no legal cases testing many of the powers of ICE raid squads. To give another example, on numerous occasions campaigners have obstructed buses taking detainees to charter flights without any prosecution – the Stansted 15 trial of protestors blocking a plane inside the airport was the first high-profile legal case following an anti-deportation action.

    Even if the government has a legal case for prosecuting airlines, this could be a highly controversial move politically. The Home Office generally prefers not to expose the violence of its immigration enforcement activities to the challenge of a public legal hearing.

    Resistance

    We want to conclude this report on an upbeat note. Deportations, and scheduled airline flights in particular, are a major site of struggle. Resistance is not just possible but widespread and often victorious. Thousands of people have managed to successfully stop their “removals” through various means, including the following:

    Legal challenges: a large number of flights are stopped because of court appeals and injunctions.
    Public campaigning: there is a strong tradition of anti-deportation campaigning in the UK, usually supporting individuals with media-focused and political activity. Common tactics include: media articles highlighting the individual’s case; enlisting MPs and appealing to ministers; petitions, letters of support; mass phone calls, emails, etc., to airlines; demos or leafletting at the airport targeting air crew and passengers.
    Solidarity action by passengers: in some high-profile cases, passengers have refused to take their seats until deportees are removed. This creates a safety situation for the airline which may often lead to the pilot ordering escorts to remove their prisoner.
    Direct action by detainees: many detainees have been able to get off flights by putting up a struggle. This may involve, for example: physically resisting escorts; taking off clothes; shouting and appealing to passengers and air crew for help. Unless the deportee is extremely strong physically, the balance of force is with the escorts – and sometimes this can be lethal, as in the case of Jimmy Mubenga. However, pilots may often order deportees off their plane in the case of disruption.

    There are many reports of successful resistance using one or more of these tactics. And we can also get some glimpses of their overall power from a few pieces of aggregate information.

    In a 2016 report, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration revealed one telling figure. Looking at the figures for six months over 2014-15, he found that “on average 2.5 tickets were issued for each individual successfully removed.”xxv Some of this can be put down to the notorious inefficiency of Home Office systems: the Inspection report looks at several kinds of coordination failures between Home Office caseworkers, the escort contractor (at that point a subsidiary of Capita), and Carlson Wagonlit.

    But this is not the biggest factor. In fact, the same report breaks down the reasons for cancellation for a sample of 136 tickets. 51% of the sampled cancellations were the result of legal challenges. 18% were because of “disruptive or non-compliant behaviour”. 2% (i.e., three cases) were ascribed to “airline refusal to carry”.

    Where there is resistance, there is also reaction. As we have discussed in previous reports, one of the main reasons prompting the development of charter flights was to counter resistance by isolating deportees from passengers and supporters. This was very clearly put in 2009 by David Wood, then strategic director of the UK Border Agency (Home Office), who explained that the charter flight programme is:

    “a response to the fact that some of those being deported realised that if they made a big enough fuss at the airport – if they took off their clothes, for instance, or started biting and spitting – they could delay the process. We found that pilots would then refuse to take the person on the grounds that other passengers would object.”xxvi

    For both deportees and supporters, charter flights are much harder to resist. But they are also very expensive; require specific diplomatic agreements with destination countries; and in some cases (Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) have been blocked by legal and political means.xxvii The Home Office cannot avoid the use of scheduled flights for the majority of deportations, and it will continue to face resistance.

    –—
    Annex: issues with accessing airline information

    We will expand a bit here on the issues around obtaining information on the Home Office’s relationships with airlines.

    Under UK and EU public sector procurement rules, central government departments are obliged to publish announcements of all contracts valued over £10,000, including on the contractsfinder website. However, there is no publicly available information on any contracts between the Home Office and specific airlines. This is legally justifiable if the Home Office has no direct contractual agreements with airlines. It has a signed contract with Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT), which is published in a redacted form; and CWT then makes arrangements with airlines on a per-ticket basis.

    The Home Office certainly has knowledge of all the tickets booked on its behalf by CWT – indeed, they are booked by its own employees through the CWT maintained portal. And so it certainly knows all the airlines working for it. But it has refused all requests for this information, using the excuse of “commercial confidentiality”.

    There have been numerous attempts to request information on deportation airlines using the Freedom of Information Act.xxviii All have been refused on similar grounds. To give one standard example, in December 2018 A. Liberadzki requested statistics for numbers of removals carried out by British Airways and other scheduled airlines. The response confirmed “that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested.” However, it argued that:

    “we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)e and 43(2) of the FOIA. These provide that information can be withheld if its disclosure would have a detrimental effect on the Home Office and its ability to operate effective immigration controls by carrying out removals or would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any persons (including the public authority holding it).”

    In April 2019 Kate Osamor MP put similar questions to the Home Secretary in parliament.xxix She received the same reply to all her questions:

    “The Home Office does not disclose the details or values of its commercial contracts. Doing so could discourage companies from dealing with the Home Office.”

    Of course this answer is blatantly false – as we just saw, the Home Office is legally obliged to disclose values of commercial contracts over £10,000.

    https://corporatewatch.org/uk-deportations-2020-how-ba-easyjet-and-other-airlines-collaborate-w

    #rapport #corporate_watch #compagnies_aériennes #British_Airways #avions #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #déboutés #sans-papiers #UK #Home_Office #résistance #Jimmy_Mubenga

    ping @isskein @karine4 @reka

  • Terrestrial Revolutionary Aircraft International Network
    http://carfree.fr/index.php/2020/06/10/terrestrial-revolutionary-aircraft-international-network

    Nouvelle pluie de milliards en perspective pour l’industrie aéronautique avec l’inénarrable #bruno_le_maire qui annonce un « plan de soutien » à la filière de 15 milliards d’euros et, dans l’euphorie, Lire la suite...

    #Alternatives_à_la_voiture #Transports_publics #art #avions #carbone #CO2 #critique #humour #industrie #innovations #trains #transports_en_commun

  • Autour des avions et de la #diffusion du #coronavirus, dans la conférence de #Sansonetti :


    –-> plutôt que la théorie du #climat (là où il fait chaud, pas de virus), c’est celle des connexions par #avion qui serait à privilégier pour la #propagation du #virus...

    La conférence :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/834008

    #géographie #ressources_pédagogiques #coronavirus
    Et comme dit ma collègue Sarah Mekdjian :

    j’ajoute à mon TD sur le #déterminisme_climatique

    #déterminisme_géographique #avions #transports #températures #Afrique #Asie #Europe #transport_aérien #température #cartographie #visualisation

    #Philippe_Sansonetti

    • Reçu d’une amie à qui j’ai envoyé le commentaire ci-dessus

      Avevo visto la cartina in gennaio : une crisi annunciata.

      Pensa te che Zurigo in febbraio ha chiuso i voli diretti con la Cina, Ginevra no (3 voli /settimana con Pechino). All’atterraggio ricevevano un foglio dell’ufsp con scritto: in CH non é obbligatorio portare la mascherina (gettatela uscendo dall’aereo). Poi nessun controllo (febbre, quarantena... niente ).

      Morale ? Confronta il numero di casi à GVA e ZH !

      La politica ginevrina Del non chiudere l’aeroporto a Ginevra é stata spiegata pubblicamente dal medico cantonale il 25 febbraio all’unige (conferenza disponibile su mediaserver dell’uni).

      Remarque : la conferenza era sul mezzo giorno e gli esperti facevano « blagues » perché « je vous rappelle qu’au jour d’aujourd’hui il n’y a aucun cas en Suisse »..... un’ ora dopo la stampa annunciava il primo caso in Ticino. Tu vuoi farmi credere che il medico cantonale non lo sapevo ????

      #Suisse #Zurich #aéroports #Genève

    • Coronavirus en Afrique : pourquoi la catastrophe annoncée n’a pas eu lieu ?

      Les experts annoncent depuis des mois une déferlante de l’épidémie de coronavirus en Afrique, où la pauvreté et le manque d’infrastructures de santé font craindre le pire. Pourtant, alors que le premier cas remonte au 14 février sur le continent, la vague n’est toujours pas arrivée. Comment expliquer cette relative préservation ?

      Depuis le premier cas de coronavirus sur le continent, le 14 février en Égypte, les experts nous prédisent un scénario effrayant. L’Afrique allait être rapidement submergée par la pandémie de Covid-19 avec à la clé un cataclysme sanitaire dans un continent pauvre au système de santé défaillant. L’Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS) appelle presque chaque jour le continent « à se préparer au pire ». Deux mois plus tard, le tsunami n’a toujours pas eu lieu, alors que les pays européens et les États-Unis sont violemment frappés.
      L’Afrique est le continent le moins touché par l’épidémie de coronavirus

      Avec 1.216 décès et 26.058 cas recensés au 22 avril, l’Afrique est le continent le moins touché par l’épidémie de coronavirus. L’Algérie, est le pays qui déplore le plus grand nombre de décès (402) devant l’Égypte, le Maroc et l’Afrique du Sud. Par comparaison, la France et ses 66 millions d’habitants a dépassé la barre des 20.000 morts du Covid-19. Alors pourquoi l’Afrique avec ses 1,2 milliard d’habitants semble échapper à l’épidémie ?

      Évidemment, le faible nombre de tests et le manque de données faussent en partie le bilan, le nombre de cas étant sans doute largement sous-estimé. Le chef du Centre africain de contrôle et de prévention des maladies, John Nkengasong, concède à l’AFP que, faute de tests, les statistiques ne sont pas parfaites. Mais il écarte l’idée que de nombreux cas passent sous les radars. « Les hôpitaux seraient envahis de malades, ce qui n’est pas le cas », confirme le médecin. D’autres facteurs peuvent en revanche apporter quelques pistes d’explication.

      Une longueur d’avance

      L’épidémie a gagné l’Afrique quelques semaines après l’Europe, permettant à ses dirigeants d’adopter des mesures préventives très en amont. « Avant même la détection des premiers cas de coronavirus sur le sol rwandais, nous avons pris très tôt des mesures d’hygiène qui ont été appliquées sur presque toute l’étendue du territoire », corrobore le docteur Sabin Nsanzimana, directeur général du Rwanda Biomedical Centre, à RFI. L’Afrique du Sud, la Tunisie, le Maroc et l’Algérie ont imposé un confinement et des couvre-feux avant que l’épidémie n’ait eu le temps de se propager.
      Une faible densité de population

      Avec 43 habitants par kilomètre carré, contre 181 en Europe de l’Ouest ou 154 en Asie du Sud-Est, l’Afrique demeure un continent faiblement peuplé dans la plupart des régions. Les habitants sont généralement concentrés dans les capitales, qui ont été très tôt confinées. En Côte d’Ivoire, le grand Abidjan est ainsi officiellement isolé du reste du pays depuis le 30 mars. Idem au Lagos, où les habitants des deux mégalopoles, Abuja et Lagos, ont interdiction de quitter la ville. Cette faible densité limite considérablement les contacts et donc la transmission du virus.

      Moins de circulation des personnes

      Contrairement à la plupart des pays occidentaux, de nombreuses régions africaines restent très isolées et vivent en quasi-autarcie. Le virus circule donc très peu dans la population. L’Afrique est également beaucoup moins touristique que l’Europe ou les États-Unis. Sur les 50 aéroports les plus fréquentés au monde, un seul est africain (celui de Johannesburg). L’Afrique ne compte pas non plus de diaspora importante comme la Chine ou l’Inde, qui doivent faire face au retour de nombreux étudiants revenant de l’étranger. Peu de grands mouvements de population ont d’ailleurs été constatés en Afrique subsaharienne.
      Une pyramide des âges beaucoup plus jeune

      Environ 60 % de la population africaine est âgée de moins de 25 ans. Or, le coronavirus frappe plus particulièrement les personnes âgées : en France, 75 % des personnes décédées du Covid-19 ont plus de 75 ans. L’Italie du Nord, région la plus touchée au monde, est aussi caractérisée par une très forte population âgée. « En Afrique, il n’y a plus de vieux à tuer sur le continent » résume sarcastiquement l’écrivain ivoirien Gauz, dans une tribune sur le site de Jeune Afrique. L’Afrique présente aussi un très faible taux d’obésité, qui est un facteur de risque majeur de mortalité au Covid-19.

      Une immunité pré-existante ?

      Une étude préliminaire du NHS (National Health Service) et de King’s College montre une corrélation négative entre les pays affectés par la malaria et ceux touchés par le Covid-19, qu’elle explique par un possible effet protecteur des traitements prophylactiques pour la malaria comme la chloroquine contre le coronavirus. Or, 93 % des cas de malaria sont enregistrés en Afrique, selon l’OMS. D’après une autre étude, c’est la vaccination systématique du BCG déployée en Afrique qui pourrait expliquer l’immunisation de la population. Les pays sans politique de vaccination universelle du BCG comme l’Italie et les États-Unis sont à l’inverse les plus touchés par le Covid-19, notent les auteurs. Des corrélations qui n’apportent toutefois aucune preuve de cause à effet.
      Famine, criquets, effondrement de l’économie : ces autres menaces bien plus concrètes

      Malgré ces atouts, l’Afrique risque pourtant de faire les frais de l’épidémie de Covid-19. Conséquence de la fermeture des frontières, des mesures de confinement et de la hausse des prix des denrées alimentaires, « le nombre de personnes menacées de famine en Afrique de l’Ouest pourrait quasi tripler en trois mois », a ainsi alerté l’ONG Oxfam le 21 avril. Une invasion de criquets fait également des ravages en ce moment en Afrique de l’Est. En Éthiopie, 200.000 hectares de terres agricoles ont été dévorées et un million de personnes ont désormais besoin d’une aide alimentaire d’urgence. La pandémie de coronavirus a également mis à l’arrêt la plupart des campagnes de vaccination contre la polio, la rougeole ou la diphtérie. En Afrique, le coronavirus est loin d’être la priorité des habitants.

      https://www.futura-sciences.com/alternative/amp/actualite/79699/?__twitter_impression=true
      #pyramide_des_âges #densité_de_population

  • Didier Sicard : « Il est urgent d’enquêter sur l’origine animale de l’épidémie de Covid-19 »
    https://www.franceculture.fr/sciences/didier-sicard-il-est-urgent-denqueter-sur-lorigine-animale-de-lepidemi

    D’un côté, déforestation massive et trafic d’animaux sauvages. De l’autre, désintérêt et financement anémique des recherches sur les virus hébergés par ces mêmes animaux… Tableau flippant d’un cocktail explosif par un spécialiste des maladies infectieuses
    #coronavirus

    • #animaux #animaux_sauvages #déforestation

      #Rony_Brauman en parle un peu :

      Le point commun du Covid, du Sras, du Mers et d’Ebola est que ces maladies sont le fruit d’un passage de la #barrière_virale_d'espèces entre les #animaux et les hommes. L’extension des certaines mégapoles entraîne une interpénétration entre #ville et #forêts : c’est le cas d’Ebola, qui trouve son origine dans la présence des #chauves-souris en ville et qui mangeaient par des humains. Mais ce paramètre, s’il faut avoir à l’esprit, est à manier avec une certaine retenue. Car il s’agit d’une constance dans l’histoire des épidémies : la plupart, à commencer par la #peste, sont liées à ce franchissement. L’homme vit dans la compagnie des animaux depuis le néolithique, notre existence est rendue possible par cette coexistence. Mais la peste avait été importée par la puce du rat qui était disséminé sur les bateaux et les caravanes ; pour le corona, ce sont les #avions qui ont fait ce travail. La spécificité du Covid-19, c’est sa vitesse de #diffusion. Le professeur Sansonnetti, infectiologue et professeur au Collège de France, parle d’une « maladie de l’#anthropocène » : en superposant la carte de l’extension du virus et celle des déplacements aériens, il montre que les deux se recouvrent parfaitement.

      https://www.nouvelobs.com/coronavirus-de-wuhan/20200327.OBS26690/rony-brauman-repond-a-macron-la-metaphore-de-la-guerre-sert-a-disqualifie

      Et #Sansonetti dans sa conférence :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/834008

    • L’indifférence aux #marchés d’#animaux sauvages dans le monde est dramatique. On dit que ces marchés rapportent autant d’argent que le marché de la #drogue.

      [...]

      on sait que ces #épidémies vont recommencer dans les années à venir de façon répétée si on n’interdit pas définitivement le #trafic d’animaux sauvages. Cela devrait être criminalisé comme une vente de cocaïne à l’air libre. Il faudrait punir ce #crime de prison. Je pense aussi à ces élevages de poulet ou de porc en batterie que l’on trouve en #Chine. Ils donnent chaque année de nouvelles crises grippales à partir de virus d’origine aviaire. Rassembler comme cela des animaux, ce n’est pas sérieux.

      [...]

      C’est comme si l’art vétérinaire et l’art médical humain n’avaient aucun rapport. L’origine de l’épidémie devrait être l’objet d’une mobilisation internationale majeure.

    • animaux sauvages ou non (poissons oiseaux mamifères) avec les parasites et les insectes par les déjections alvines à ciel ouvert ou en bout de canal , le cycle de contamination n’est jamais simple

    • Les pangolins, les mammifères les plus braconnés au monde, ont été identifiés comme des porteurs du coronavirus.
      https://www.nationalgeographic.fr/animaux/2020/03/les-pangolins-sont-bien-porteurs-de-souches-de-coronavirus

      Bien que le commerce international des huit espèces connues de #pangolins soit strictement interdit, ceux-ci restent les mammifères les plus braconnés au monde. Les écailles de milliers de pangolins sont chaque année passées en contrebande en Chine à des fins médicinales. Leur viande est par ailleurs considérée comme un mets délicat par certaines franges des populations chinoise et vietnamienne. Étant donné que les coronavirus peuvent être transmis par certains fluides corporels, les matières fécales et la viande, le commerce de pangolins vivants à des fins alimentaires est plus préoccupant pour la propagation de la maladie que celui des écailles.

    • Ban wildlife markets to avert pandemics, says UN biodiversity chief

      Warning comes as destruction of nature increasingly seen as key driver of zoonotic diseases.

      The United Nations’ biodiversity chief has called for a global ban on wildlife markets – such as the one in Wuhan, China, believed to be the starting point of the coronavirus outbreak – to prevent future pandemics.

      Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the acting executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, said countries should move to prevent future pandemics by banning “wet markets” that sell live and dead animals for human consumption, but cautioned against unintended consequences.

      China has issued a temporary ban on wildlife markets where animals such as civets, live wolf pups and pangolins are kept alive in small cages while on sale, often in filthy conditions where they incubate diseases that can then spill into human populations. Many scientists have urged Beijing to make the ban permanent.
      Using the examples of Ebola in west-central Africa and the Nipah virus in east Asia, Mrema said there were clear links between the destruction of nature and new human illnesses, but cautioned against a reactionary approach to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

      “The message we are getting is if we don’t take care of nature, it will take care of us,” she told the Guardian.

      “It would be good to ban the live animal markets as China has done and some countries. But we should also remember you have communities, particularly from low-income rural areas, particularly in Africa, which are dependent on wild animals to sustain the livelihoods of millions of people.

      “So unless we get alternatives for these communities, there might be a danger of opening up illegal trade in wild animals which currently is already leading us to the brink of extinction for some species.

      “We need to look at how we balance that and really close the hole of illegal trade in the future.”

      As the coronavirus has spread around the world, there has been increased focus on how humanity’s destruction of nature creates conditions for new zoonotic illness to spread.

      Jinfeng Zhou, secretary general of the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation, called on authorities to make the ban on wildlife markets permanent, warning diseases such as Covid-19 would appear again.

      “I agree there should be a global ban on wet markets, which will help a lot on wildlife conservation and protection of ourselves from improper contacts with wildlife,” Zhou said. “More than 70% of human diseases are from wildlife and many species are endangered by eating them.”

      Mrema said she was optimistic that the world would take the consequences of the destruction of the natural world more seriously in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak when countries returned to negotiate the post-2020 framework for biodiversity, billed as the Paris agreement for nature.

      “Preserving intact ecosystems and biodiversity will help us reduce the prevalence of some of these diseases. So the way we farm, the way we use the soils, the way we protect coastal ecosystems and the way we treat our forests will either wreck the future or help us live longer,” she said.

      “We know in the late 1990s in Malaysia with the outbreak of Nipah virus, it is believed that the virus was a result of forest fires, deforestation and drought which had caused fruit bats, the natural carriers of the virus, to move from the forests into the peat farms. It infected the farmers, which infected other humans and that led to the spread of disease.

      “Biodiversity loss is becoming a big driver in the emergence of some of these viruses. Large-scale deforestation, habitat degradation and fragmentation, agriculture intensification, our food system, trade in species and plants, anthropogenic climate change – all these are drivers of biodiversity loss and also drivers of new diseases. Two thirds of emerging infections and diseases now come from wildlife.”

      In February, delegates from more than 140 countries met in Rome to respond for the first time to a draft 20-point agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, including proposals to protect almost a third of the world’s oceans and land and reduce pollution from plastic waste and excess nutrients by 50%.

      A major summit to sign the agreement in October was scheduled in the Chinese city of Kunming but has been postponed because of the coronavirus outbreak.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/ban-live-animal-markets-pandemics-un-biodiversity-chief-age-of-extincti

      #animaux_sauvages

  • « Rester confiné chez soi, sur son canapé, n’a strictement rien à voir avec une période de #guerre »

    Les mots ont un sens. « La #pandémie à laquelle nous sommes confrontés exigent des mesures plutôt opposées à un temps de guerre » explique l’économiste et chroniqueur de Basta ! Maxime Combes dans cette tribune.

    Non, nous ne sommes pas en guerre. Nous sommes en pandémie

    « Nous sommes en guerre ». A six reprises, lors de son allocution, Emmanuel #Macron a utilisé la même expression, en essayant de prendre un #ton_martial. L’anaphore voulait marquer les esprits et provoquer un effet de #sidération. Avec deux objectifs sous-jacents. L’un sanitaire : s’assurer que les mesures de #confinement – mot non prononcé par le président de la République – soient désormais appliquées. L’autre politique : tenter d’instaurer une forme d’#union_nationale derrière le chef de l’Etat. Le tout également pour faire oublier les mesures contradictoires et les hésitations coupables de ces derniers jours.

    Pourtant les mots ont un sens. Et c’est non, mille fois non : nous ne sommes pas en guerre. Nous sommes en pandémie. C’est suffisant, et totalement différent. Aucun État, aucun groupe armé n’a déclaré la guerre à la France, ou à l’Union européenne. Pas plus que la France n’a déclaré la guerre (article 35 de la Constitution) à un autre État. Le #Covid-19 ne se propage pas en raison du feu de ses blindés, de la puissance de son aviation ou de l’habilité de ses généraux, mais en raison des mesures inappropriées, insuffisantes ou trop tardives prises par les pouvoirs publics.

    La pandémie à laquelle nous sommes confrontés exigent des #mesures plutôt opposées à un temps de guerre

    Non, le virus Covid-19 n’est pas un « #ennemi, invisible, insaisissable, et qui progresse » comme l’a affirmé Emmanuel Macron ce lundi 16 mars. C’est un #virus. Un virus qui se propage au sein d’une population non immunisée, porté par nombre d’entre nous et disséminé en fonction de l’intensité de nos relations sociales. Il est très contagieux, se propage vite et peut avoir des conséquences terribles si rien n’est fait. Mais c’est un virus. Pas une armée. On ne déclare pas la guerre à un virus : on apprend à le connaître, on tente de maîtriser sa vitesse de propagation, on établit sa sérologie, on essaie de trouver un ou des anti-viraux, voire un vaccin. Et, dans l’intervalle, on protège et on soigne celles et ceux qui vont être malades. En un mot, on apprend à vivre avec un virus.

    Oui, les mots ont un sens. Nous ne sommes pas en guerre car la pandémie à laquelle nous sommes confrontés exige des mesures plutôt opposées à celles prises en temps de guerre : ralentir l’activité économique plutôt que l’accélérer, mettre au #repos_forcé une part significative des travailleuses et travailleurs plutôt que les mobiliser pour alimenter un effort de guerre, réduire considérablement les #interactions_sociales plutôt qu’envoyer toutes les forces vives sur la ligne de front. Quitte à provoquer, disons-le ainsi : rester confiné chez soi, sur son canapé ou dans sa cuisine, n’a strictement rien à voir avec une période de guerre où il faut se protéger des bombes ou des snipers et tenter de survivre.

    Il n’est pas question de sacrifier le personnel médical, au contraire, il faut savoir les protéger

    Cette référence à la « guerre » convoque par ailleurs un #imaginaire_viril peuplé d’#héroïsme_masculin – bien que largement démenti par les faits – et du sacrifice qui n’a pas lieu d’être. Face au coronavirus – et à n’importe quelle pandémie – ce sont les #femmes qui sont en première ligne : 88 % des infirmières, 90 % des caissières, 82 % des enseignantes de primaire, 90 % du personnel dans les EHPAD sont des femmes. Sans même parler du personnel de crèche et de garderie mobilisés pour garder les enfants de toutes ces femmes mobilisées en première ligne. Le #personnel_médical le dit clairement : nous avons besoin de soutien, de #matériel_médical et d’être reconnus comme des #professionnels, pas comme des #héros. Il n’est pas question de les sacrifier. Au contraire, il faut savoir les protéger, en prendre soin pour que leurs compétences et leurs capacités puissent être mobilisés sur le long terme.

    Non, définitivement, nous ne sommes pas en guerre. Nous sommes face à une pandémie. Et c’est déjà bien assez. Nous ne sommes pas des soldats, mais des citoyennes et citoyens. Nous ne voulons pas être gouvernés comme en temps de guerre. Mais comme en temps de pandémie. Nous n’avons pas d’ennemi. Ni à l’extérieur, ni à l’intérieur des frontières. Confrontés pendant des semaines à l’incurie d’un gouvernement incapable de prononcer un discours clair et des #mesures cohérentes entre elles, nous sommes juste des citoyennes et citoyens progressivement en train de comprendre que la meilleure chose à faire est de rester confinés. A devoir apprendre à vivre au ralenti. Ensemble mais sans se rencontrer. A rebours de toutes les exigences de #compétitivité et de #concurrence qui nous ont été assénées depuis des dizaines d’années.

    Instituer la #solidarité et le soin comme principes cardinaux, pas les valeurs martiales et belliqueuses

    Lutter contre la pandémie du coronavirus n’est pas une guerre car il n’est pas question de sacrifier les plus vulnérables au nom de la raison d’État. Comme celles qui sont en première ligne, il nous faut au contraire les protéger, prendre soin d’eux et d’elles, y compris en se retirant physiquement pour ne pas les contaminer. SDF, migrant.e.s, les plus pauvres et plus précaires sont des nôtres : nous leur devons pleine et entière assistance pour les mettre à l’abri, autant que faire se peut : la #réquisition de logements vides n’est plus une option. Lutter contre le coronavirus c’est instituer la solidarité et le #soin comme les principes cardinaux de nos vies. La solidarité et le soin. Pas les valeurs martiales et belliqueuses.

    Ce principe de solidarité ne devrait d’ailleurs pas avoir de frontière, car le virus n’en a pas : il circule en France parce que nous circulons (trop) dans le pays. Aux mesures nationales, voire nationalistes, brandies ici et là, nous devrions collectivement étendre ce principe de solidarité à l’international et nous assurer que tous les pays, toutes les populations puissent faire face à cette pandémie. Oui, la mobilisation doit être générale : parce qu’une #crise_sanitaire mondiale l’exige, cette #mobilisation doit être généralisée à la planète entière. Pour que pandémie ne rime pas avec inégalités et carnages chez les pauvres. Ou simplement chez les voisins.

    Point besoin d’#économie_de_guerre, juste d’arrêter de naviguer à vue

    Alors, oui, sans doute faut-il prendre des mesures d’exception pour réorganiser notre système économique autour de quelques fonctions vitales, à commencer par se se nourrir et produire le matériel médical nécessaire. Deux mois après les premières contaminations, il est d’ailleurs incroyable qu’il y ait encore des pénuries de #masques pour protéger celles qui sont en première ligne : réorienter, par la réquisition si nécessaire, des moyens de production en ce sens aurait déjà dû être fait. Histoire de ne pas avoir à refuser d’exporter des masques comme l’UE le fait désormais, y compris avec la Serbie qui a pourtant entamé son processus d’adhésion : où est donc la solidarité européenne ?

    Point besoin d’économie de guerre pour cela. Juste besoin d’arrêter de naviguer à vue et d’enfin prendre les mesures cohérentes entre elles, fondées sur ce principe de solidarité, qui permettront que chaque population, riche ou pauvre, puisse faire face à la pandémie. La participation consciente et volontaire de l’ensemble de la population aux mesures de confinement nécessaires n’en sera que facilitée. Et la dynamique de l’épidémie d’autant plus facilement brisée. Le monde de demain se joue dans les mesures d’exception d’aujourd’hui.

    Maxime Combes, économiste et membre d’Attac.

    https://www.bastamag.net/pandemie-covid19-coronavirus-Macron-guerre-virus-confinement
    #épidémie #vocabulaire #terminologie #mots #coronavirus

    ping @mobileborders

    • Non Monsieur le Président de la République, nous ne sommes pas en guerre

      La déclaration du Chef de l’Etat qui amène un confinement général de la population et n’autorise les déplacements que par dérogation marque un véritable tournant dans la lutte contre l’épidémie généralisée en France. La guerre est déclarée ? Non Monsieur le Président, la Résistance collective est à l’ordre du jour pour sortir de cette épreuve.

      La déclaration du Chef de l’Etat ce 16 mars qui amène un confinement général de la population et n’autorise les déplacements que par dérogation marque un véritable tournant dans la lutte contre l’épidémie généralisée en France. Jusque-là des recommandations, des consignes, des prescriptions amenaient chacun à prendre sa part à la sûreté de contacts raréfiés. Point de contrôle, point de sanctions mais appel à prendre conscience des mesures d’hygiène à respecter puis du confinement.

      La crise sanitaire s’aggrave comme attendue. Les contaminations réalisées avant l’effectivité des mesures successives ne produisent leurs effets en terme de symptômes, qu’après le délai d’incubation de 5 à 14 jours comme nous pouvons le lire ici et là. Il y a donc mécaniquement une aggravation inévitable avant les possibles effets de ralentissement si ces mesures sont efficaces et suffisantes. Insuffisantes, à l’évidence les mesures prises jusqu’ici l’étaient, raison essentielle d’un strict confinement depuis ce 17 mars à midi.

      Crainte des autorités et politique de santé

      La crainte des autorités que partagent tous les observateurs attentifs - et ils sont nombreux - est la saturation des possibilités d’hospitalisation en réanimation pour les symptômes les plus graves qui menacent la vie même du patient avec une vulnérabilité particulière des personnes âgées ou des personnes souffrant de co-morbidités (affections chroniques ou déficiences organiques etc) sans exclure pour autant ces développements graves de la maladie respiratoire chez des sujets plus jeunes ou à l’occasion d’une « deuxième vague ».

      Cette crainte est d’autant plus vive que nos responsables gouvernementaux, le Chef de l’Etat lui-même, savent bien que les politiques de santé menées depuis des décennies, poursuivies et aggravées depuis la dernière présidentielle à coups d’économies budgétaires inconséquentes ont largement diminuées la capacité à faire face aux circonstances exceptionnelles que nous connaissons aujourd’hui. Les gouvernements successifs, et plus encore celui-ci, quand les économies en grattant toujours plus ont atteint l’os, sont restés sourds aux demandes, revendications, exhortations des professionnels de santé, de leurs organisations syndicales y compris même au début de cette épidémie. Quelle imprévoyance ! La préparation aux moyens de la protection elle-même est manifestement déficiente : les volumes des gels hydroalcooliques, masques, équipements divers sont largement insuffisants ou limites même pour les professionnels de santé, hôpitaux et médecine de ville, sont même menacés de pénurie dans des délais relativement brefs (déclaration Olivier Véran, ministre de la santé).

      Il faut l’abnégation de ceux et celles à qui on a refusé les moyens de soigner, pour faire face, héroïquement chaque jour, à cette montée des périls. La fermeture d’hôpitaux, de services et de lits, la fermeture de postes de soignants pèsent aujourd’hui dans cette lutte de résistance, jour après jour, pied à pied. Les encenser aujourd’hui ne disculpe pas de sa responsabilité, de ses choix politiques.

      Il faudra en rendre compte au peuple français après l’épreuve en changeant radicalement de politique de santé en associant les organisations syndicales et les forces vives du pays : la santé est un bien collectif pas seulement l’affaire du ministère et du gouvernement ! Il faut espérer que cet épisode douloureux amènera un changement complet de politique de santé pour faire face à d’autres épidémies qui ne manqueront pas d’arriver. Elles ne manquerons pas d’arriver dans un monde dominé par la recherche du profit à tout prix pesant en premier lieu sur la santé des populations qui ne pèse pas lourd face aux profits des firmes pharmaceutiques, phyto-sanitaires, tabagiques, agro-alimentaires et de toutes celles qui commercialisent ou utilisent des produits toxiques en semant le doute sur cette toxicité quand bien même ils ont les preuves – qu’ils cachent – d’effets graves sur la santé. Le profit d’abord et quand ce sont des milliards à la clef, on peut tout se permettre et tout maquiller.

      Malheureusement, pour le moment et dans les semaines qui viennent, nous voyons et verrons les résultats de cet abaissement des digues : l’affaiblissement des effectifs soignants et les nombreuses fermetures notamment des hôpitaux de proximité ont abaissé dramatiquement le seuil de saturation des services de réanimation qui prennent en charge les malades du CoVid-19. Nous, c’est-à-dire les citoyen.ne.s de ce pays, en feront les frais. Les petits hôpitaux aujourd’hui avec leurs soignants seraient une réserve de lits pour endiguer ce flot croissant comme autrefois les terrains ouverts sur le Rhône absorbaient les inondations périodiques.

      Nous ne sommes pas en guerre mais en Résistance

      Aujourd’hui si les soignants sont en première ligne y compris avec un risque pour leur propre santé, tous les professionnels de la logistique alimentaire, pharmaceutique, administrative sont à leur côté et assurent le service du public, au service de la Nation.

      La guerre est déclarée ? Non Monsieur le Président, nous ne sommes pas en guerre. Vous devez organiser la Résistance avec nous. Avec la guerre, le chef s’adjuge tous les pouvoirs pour vaincre, ne cherche aucunement à convaincre mais à imposer, à contraindre pour mener la bataille comme il l’entend et dans ce cas, les contestataires et les critiques sont traître et traîtrise à faire taire, vite et bien.

      La stigmatisation de groupes au contact vus à la télé sur les bords de Seine, dans des parcs amène un discours sur l’irresponsabilité de certain.e.s qui n’ont pas pris la mesure du danger pour eux et pour les autres, prétexte à introduire le contrôle et la sanction. C’est un peu facile ! Facile d’oublier son propre manque de responsabilité dans la politique de riches menée depuis son accession à la Présidence notamment la politique de santé qui a abaissé le niveau de protection, de l’assurance-chômage qui abaisse les droits et indemnisations des chômeurs, des chercheurs précarisés qui doivent plus chercher des financements que faire de la recherche. Etait-il bien responsable de matraquer et blesser ces Gilets Jaunes durant plus d’un an sans les entendre, de les poursuivre aujourd’hui pénalement pour se venger d’avoir eu peur et de s’être laissé déborder sur les Champs-Elysées ? Sans parler de bien des affaires qui ont amené certain.e.s à démissionner.

      Reconnaissons-le, la responsabilité n’est chose aisée pour personne surtout dans une société où l’enjeu est de passer la patate chaude de la responsabilité à un.e autre. La première intervention du chef de l’état du 12 mars a certainement manqué de punch pour responsabiliser. Les réactions dimanche sous le soleil sont aussi à inscrire, sans les excuser, à un déni d’ordre psychique d’entrée dans cette période de restriction, en gros, encore un dernier bol d’air avant le confinement. Après, il est possible de rappeler en direct le danger et le devoir. Pourquoi, in fine, et à peu près systématiquement - en acte contrairement aux paroles – devrait-on prendre la population pour non-responsable collectivement ? Individuellement, nous le sommes tour à tour pour, pour sujet plus ou moins important mais collectivement nous pouvons être sérieusement responsables (un peu comme la patience dans mille impatiences) surtout face à ce danger réel, palpable, identifié.

      Le confinement par la force ou la responsabilité ?

      Mais l’ennemi est là, l’invasion a eu lieu : le virus est partout. Oui, le cap doit être clair pour résoudre cette crise d’exception mais faire appel à 100.000 policiers et gendarmes c’est s’engager dans une voie où la coercition, la sanction dispensent de convaincre tout en faisant « comme si », double discours qui rappelle celui pour le premier tour des municipales. Dans ces conditions, la menace de sanction devient, de fait, la seule voie audible, choisie pour parvenir à maintenir le confinement, moyen pour stopper cette épidémie. Ce moyen n’est pas en cause. La contamination a lieu par contact : nécessité du confinement et des mesures-barrières.

      La question est la voie choisie pour parvenir à un confinement : le contrôle par les forces de Police et de Gendarmerie et la sanction financière (on imagine mal engorger les prisons déjà pleine – problème en soi - et propager le virus !). Cette voie prend le risque d’une escalade dans le contrôle de la population par des forces de l’ordre (largement utilisées depuis deux ans, sorte de réflexe) voire de déboucher sur des scènes de chaos plus ou moins localisées ou momentanées.

      Nous comprenons bien que légiférer par ordonnance n’est pas anodin et amorce une éventuelle escalade avec état de siège, intervention de l’Armée au maintien de l’ordre, pourquoi pas in fine l’article 16. Piège de l’escalade qui prend toujours le comportement marginal pour prétexte, piège aux conséquences lourdes et en quelque sorte mécaniques pour la démocratie.

      Sans protection ou avec des protections insuffisantes, les forces de l’ordre pourraient être affectées par l’épidémie. Elles pourraient l’être et affecter un volume plus ou moins important de policiers et gendarmes que leurs armes ne protègent pas comme dans une guerre, rendant impossible de remplir leur mission.

      La Résistance, au contraire, engage le peuple à entrer en Résistance conscient des enjeux pour la santé de tous. Vous n’avez pas vu que partout, à côté de contacts de moins en moins fréquents - aujourd’hui plus un seul – spontanément, les gens dans la rue, devant les magasins, tiennent leurs distances, ne s’affolent pas et s’ils parlent, c’est à distance et pas en face à face. La Résistance c’est avant tout engager chacun à devenir responsable pour devenir collectivement responsable. Et devenir collectivement responsable, c’est non seulement éviter les contacts qui transmettent le virus, mais encore organiser des réseaux de solidarités de proximité pour l’alimentation, la pharmacie etc... en respectant les consignes d’hygiène et de contacts. Tout le monde ne peut pas se déplacer. C’est bien au-delà de la peur du gendarme.

      A défaut, en durcissant encore le confinement, il faudrait organiser un réseau national de distribution à domicile ! Les forces de l’ordre pourraient-elles s’y employer ? Là encore, ce serait faire sans la population quand il s’agit de résister avec la population.

      Organiser la Résistance et mobiliser par des actes

      Il n’y a pas possibilité de résistance si la population n’est pas incitée à s’associer à cette résistance, chacun à sa mesure. La Résistance c’est le peuple et ses dirigeants, quand ceux-ci savent impulser et non seulement commander, contrôler, sanctionner. Les forces de l’ordre plutôt que sanctionner ce qui peut amener à la clandestinité des déplacements devenus illicites, pourraient se transformer en agent de persuasion en rappelant les consignes, en écoutant les nécessités explicitées sans chercher à sanctionner bref... discernement. La campagne c’est pas la ville et chacun ne va pas faire du jogging autour de sa maison ou de son pâté d’immeubles. En Auvergne, balader sur un des Puys en solitaire ou en couple de retraités est sans risque plutôt que rester aux abords de la maison et rencontrer des connaissances ! Les services de santé seront d’autant moins débordés (ou moins vite !) que chacun se sentira, se sent responsable des soignants, en actes et pas seulement en paroles.

      Sans association et conscience de la population, il n’y a en effet que la guerre et son cortège d’oeufs cassés toujours justifiés en toute bonne foi.

      Pour associer le peuple, la suspension des réformes en cours est enfin une mesure de sagesse et d’apaisement. De toutes façons, le calendrier de la réforme des retraites ne peut plus être tenu. Avant l’été c’est râpé ! Le report de la mise en place de la réforme de l’assurance-chômage est aussi la démonstration en creux de revenus dramatiquement insupportables pour quantités de chômeurs, à repousser hors cette période exceptionnelle. Seraient-ils véritablement plus supportables après un retour à la normale ? Revoir la copie.

      Il faut aller plus loin. Pour une adhésion et une responsabilité de la population, Il faut permettre un minimum de confiance quand celle-ci a été dilapidée par une attitude intransigeante toujours dans le sens des riches en pompant l’argent des autres. Il faut annoncer quelles réformes deviennent prioritaires, quel cap social et sociétal elles prendront, avec qui et comment elles seront travaillées (pas seulement une concertation sur un texte à trous béants comme celui des retraites).

      L’indemnisation du chômage partiel prise actuellement pour garder les moyens de subsistance n’illustre-t-elle pas la nécessité de la mise en place d’un revenu universel ? Ce pourrait être un dispositif qui l’initie à élargir et pérenniser.

      Une mesure forte immédiate qui ne coûte pas un euro mais vaudra crédit : arrêter toutes les poursuites pour fait social, grèves et manifestations. La paix sociale ne s’achète pas, elle s’obtient avec des actes.

      La guerre alors n’aura pas lieu

      Vaincre l’épidémie c’est engager la population dans la Résistance et non la délégation aux chefs de mener une guerre qui n’existe pas, même si l’économie s’en rapproche, si l’organisation du fonctionnement en société s’en rapproche. C’est apporter un tournant social à ce quinquennat de riches, non pas le passer au Ripolin vaguement rose mais s’engager à des réformes nécessaires et identifiées dès maintenant avec les moyens d’une co-construction postérieure chacun à sa place. Alors les forces vives de la nation seront mobilisées pour vaincre par la responsabilité et la solidarité. La guerre alors n’aura pas lieu !

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/georges-andre/blog/170320/non-monsieur-le-president-de-la-republique-nous-ne-sommes-pas-en-gue

    • #Rony_Brauman répond à Macron : « La #métaphore de la guerre sert à disqualifier tout débat »

      Rony Brauman, ancien président de Médecins sans frontières, approuve les mesures de confinement, mais dénonce la #rhétorique_martiale du chef de l’Etat : « Qualifier les soignants de "#héros", c’est gommer les raisons de la crise sanitaire. »

      Médecin, diplômé de médecine tropicale et épidémiologie, Rony Brauman a été président de Médecins sans frontières (MSF) de 1982 à 1994. Il est aujourd’hui directeur d’études à la fondation de l’ONG. Son dernier livre, « Guerres humanitaire ? Mensonges et intox », conversation avec Régis Meyran, est paru aux éditions Textuel en 2018.
      Interview.

      Comment analysez-vous l’épidémie du #Covid-19 et sa gestion par les autorités françaises ?
      Cette épidémie n’avait pas été prévue, mais elle avait été prédite. De nombreux épidémiologistes avaient anticipé l’apparition d’un nouveau virus se répandant à la faveur de l’accroissement démographique, de l’accélération des voyages internationaux, de l’urbanisation, du changement climatique. Cette crainte, déjà ancienne, s’était renforcée avec les épidémies de sida, le Sras, le Mers, le Zika, le chikungunya, Ebola. Nous savions que le rêve d’un monde débarrassé d’un risque infectieux était une #illusion et les gouvernements successifs ne pouvaient méconnaître ces analyses. Cela ne les a pas empêchés, depuis des années, de réduire les capacités des hôpitaux, avec les effets que l’on voit aujourd’hui. Plus de 4 000 lits ont été supprimés ces trois dernières années, mais c’est depuis trente ans que gagne une #logique_comptable, entrepreneuriale (notamment la loi Hôpital, Patient, Santé, Territoire de 2009, qui concrétise la notion d’« #hopital-entreprise », introduite par #Claude_Evin dès 1989). Pourtant, aujourd’hui, Emmanuel Macron ne tarit pas d’éloge sur le personnel hospitalier... Ses propos qualifiant les soignants de « héros » me semblent particulièrement mal venus. Cette qualification a quelque chose de pervers, parce qu’elle gomme les raisons de la #crise_sanitaire. Outre qu’elle oubliait les autres professions qui continuent à travailler pour que notre vie soit encore vivable (éboueurs, policiers, livreurs, caissières, producteurs, distributeurs de produits essentiels), elle met les soignants dans une position délicate. Un héros, ça ne demande pas des journées de récupération pour s’occuper de ses enfants, de prime de risque, un salaire décent. On sait bien qu’une partie du vidage des hôpitaux vient de ce qu’on paye les gens de façon indécente. Brandir la figure du héros, c’est sous-entendre par contraste la médiocrité de revendiquer des #conditions_de_travail correctes.

      Pourtant, quand les gens applaudissent à leurs fenêtres à #20_heures, n’est-ce pas aussi une façon de saluer dans les soignants des figures héroïques ?
      Si, bien sûr, et je m’y associe. Ces applaudissements constituent un rite de reconnaissance collective vis-à-vis d’une catégorie qui s’expose de façon constante, quotidienne. Mais ils ne doivent pas être séparés d’une interrogation politique sur les #restrictions_budgétaires imposées depuis des années à ceux qui sont considérés aujourd’hui comme les sauveurs de la nation.
      J’ajoute que, dans les propos d’Emmanuel Macron, cette #héroïsation n’est que le complètement logique du discours de la guerre, la métaphore du combat engagé contre l’#ennemi_invisible. Cette notion ne me semble pas la bonne. Nous sommes face à une #catastrophe. Au moment où nous parlons, des structures de soins sont débordées et l’on voit réapparaître les méthodes de la #médecine_de_catastrophe, mises au point, il est vrai, par la #médecine_militaire mais élargies aux situations de crises majeures, notamment de catastrophes naturelles : les techniques de #triage séparant les gens qu’on va pouvoir aider à sortir et ceux pour lequel le pronostic est trop mauvais, relèvent typiquement de la médecine de catastrophe. De façon plus générale, cette métaphore est trompeuse, en ce qu’elle laisse entendre que la #santé passe par la défaite de la maladie. Mais la maladie fait partie de la vie et l’on devrait parler de #droit_à_la_maladie, plutôt que de #droit_à_la santé. Je pense au philosophe #Georges_Canguilhem observant que pour la plupart des gens, la santé, ce n’est pas l’#absence_de_maladie mais la possibilité de tomber malade et de s’en relever.

      Mais n’est-il pas vrai que nous combattons un ennemi : le #virus ?
      Un point, encore : depuis #Pasteur, le germe infectieux place les sociétés dans une situation complexe. Dès lors que nous sommes tous potentiellement vecteurs de #contagion, chaque individu devient une #menace pour la collectivité, chaque voisin est un risque potentiel. Et inversement, l’individu se sent menacé par le groupe, qui peut cacher des malades, et il va donc chercher à s’en isoler. Le #confinement nous demande d’être à la fois solidaires et individualistes. C’est le #paradoxe de l’#épidémie, que dissimule la métaphore de la guerre. Dire qu’on mène une guerre contre un virus, c’est prendre le risque d’alimenter la #guerre_de_tous_contre_tous, chacun étant potentiellement le vecteur de l’ennemi invisible.
      Quand j’entends le président conclure son discours de Mulhouse, le 25 mars, par un martial « Nous ne céderons rien ! », je suis abasourdi. Céder quoi, à qui ? Craignez-vous la restriction des libertés liée au confinement ? J’approuve le confinement et des mesures actuellement en vigueur, à défaut d’autres moyens de protection pour l’instant. Ces mesures sont le résultat, forcément instable, de la recherche d’un équilibre entre trois exigences : la #sécurité_sanitaire, la #liberté des individus et la continuité de la machine économique. La liberté peut être restreinte, mais il est impossible de confiner tout le monde, car une partie l’#activité_économique doit se poursuivre, sous peine d’une morte lente générale. Je rappelle qu’une épidémie peut faire plus de #victimes_indirectes que directes, comme cela a été probablement le cas d’#Ebola : je pense aux malades qui n’ont pas pu se soigner, qui ont été conduits à une issue fatale à cause de la paralysie des régions frappées par la maladie.
      Pour ma part, je comprends le retard de confinement mis en oeuvre en France : l’exigence de #santé_publique était en balance avec l’exigence de liberté et l’exigence de #continuité_économique. Prenons garde à ne pas porter sur les mesures du gouvernement Philippe un regard anachroniquement sévère ! Reste que je m’inquiète de l’empilement des #mesures_autoritaires. N’oublions pas que des dispositions de l’#état_d'urgence antiterroriste ont été intégrées à la #loi_ordinaire et appliquées contre des militants écolos et syndicalistes. On doit craindre une reproduction de ce précédent.

      Portez-vous le même regard compréhensif sur la stratégie de la France en matière de #masques et de #tests ?
      Non ! Ce sont clairement deux loupés de la politique et de la communication gouvernementales. Autant j’apprécie les points quotidiens de #Jérôme_Salomon, le directeur général de la Santé, et son ministre #Olivier_Véran, qui sont très pédagogiques, didactiques, non arrogants, autant la question des masques et des tests a été traitée de façon extrêmement grossière, là encore infantilisante comme l’est la métaphore de la guerre. Ils auraient pu reconnaître qu’il y avait un retard à rattraper - retard imputable aux gouvernements successifs et non au seul gouvernement Philippe - et qu’il fallait plus de masques et plus de tests. Ils pouvaient expliquer que le #rationnement ne durerait pas, qu’ils y travaillaient, bref traiter leurs concitoyens en adultes. Au lieu de cela, ils ont choisi de tenir un discours de #déni. « Pourquoi ne pas faire plus de tests ? - Parce que c’est inutile ! » « Pourquoi ne pas distribuer pas plus de masques ? - Parce que c’est inutile ! » Et ce n’est pas vrai... Oui, c’est mensonger et ce point-là n’a rien à voir avec les choix difficiles, évolutifs, du confinement et de ses limites. Les masques sont indispensables pour les personnels soignants et pour les professions exposées au public. Quant au test, on nous explique qu’il n’est utile que pour les cas graves. Ce n’est pas vrai ! Dans les cas graves, il ne fait que confirmer le #diagnostic_clinique, alors que dans les cas moins graves ou bénins, il permet de connaître le #statut_sérologique des individus. On peut alors choisir pour chacun la solution adaptée : confinement à la maison, isolement dans des structures médicalisées (pour ne pas engorger l’hôpital) et hôpital (si nécessaire). Je suis consterné que les porte-parole du gouvernement se soient cramponnés à cette #pseudoscience. Un tel manquement est très contre-productif car il vient affaiblir la #confiance que l’opinion peut avoir dans d’autres mesures gouvernementales, qui, elles, sont tout à fait argumentables, tel que le confinement.

      Derrière ce loupé, y a-t-il des dissensions internes au champ médical ? Certains scientifiques ont-ils sous-estimé l’épidémie ?
      La #médecine n’est pas une science, c’est une #pratique_scientifiquement_informée. On le voit à l’échelle d’un organisme individuel : le corps n’est pas une matière inerte qui répondrait toujours de la même façon aux mêmes actions. Pour les questions de #santé_publique, c’est encore plus net, car la médecine est alors confrontée à toutes sortes d’événements inattendus et d’une variabilité extrême. La science aide à prendre les décisions, mais elle ne sait pas tout et, dans l’incertitude, ce sont les politiques qui doivent trancher.

      Sur cette épidémie, il n’y a pas de #consensus_médical ?
      Non, pour les raisons que je viens de dire. De plus, la familiarité des médecins avec les réalités épidémiologiques est très limitée. Le métier des médecins est de soigner les pathologies, mais pas forcément de connaître leur diffusion. Cela relève d’un autre type de savoir : l’épidémiologie. Il y a les épidémiologistes médecins, bien sûr, mais aussi des épidémiologistes non-médecins, notamment les statisticiens, les modélisateurs, qui n’ont pas la même approche que les médecins. Il peut y avoir des désaccords et c’est alors au politique de trancher, et de s’en expliquer. Néanmoins, sur la question de l’intérêt des masques et des tests pour gérer l’épidémie au mieux, il y a un consensus quasi-total.

      Mais alors, pourquoi les principaux responsables de la santé en France ont-ils dit le contraire ? Après tout, Jérôme Salomon et Olivier Véran, ainsi que sa prédécesseure #Agnès_Buzyn, sont tous des médecins...
      C’est un mystère. Mon hypothèse, toute personnelle, est qu’il s’agit d’un effet de la propension des responsables politiques à la rigidité comme preuve de leur détermination. En toutes circonstances, ils veulent afficher leur assurance et voient dans toute remise en question un affaiblissement de leur #autorité. Le fantasme de #toute-puissance est à l’oeuvre ! C’est ce que nous disait encore Macron, qualifiant de « polémiques », forcément stériles, et de tentatives de « fracture » de la société, forcément dangereuses, les critiques qui lui sont adressées. Il faut « #faire_bloc », c’est-à-dire marcher au pas, fleur au fusil. Où l’on voit que la métaphore de la guerre sert à disqualifier toute mise en #débat.

      Vous-même, avez-vous changé d’avis sur l’épidémie ?
      J’ai hésité en janvier, mais j’ai été assez rapidement convaincu que le #risque_pandémique était bien réel, tout en considérant la réaction des pouvoirs publics en France était correcte, et que par exemple on n’avait pas de raison de coller immédiatement à ce que faisait l’Italie. Il y a eu des discussions, y compris au sein de Médecins sans frontière, où certains étaient très sceptiques. Dès le début février, il a été clair que la cinétique de l’épidémie était inquiétante, en découvrant que des patients asymptomatiques pouvaient être transmetteurs du virus. Dans une épidémie, ce n’est pas le chiffre de mortalité à un instant T qui importe. On peut toujours comparer ces chiffres à bien d’autres, comme l’ont fait trop longtemps les « corona-sceptiques ». C’est le #temps_de_doublement des cas qu’il faut regarder attentivement : 2,5 jours pour le Covid-19. Là, on comprend assez rapidement que la progression est effrayante, surtout si on le rapporte aux mesures de confinement, qui mettent quinze jours à commencer à produire de l’effet : en quinze jours, on a six fois le doublement des cas, ce qui signifie qu’un porteur contamine 64 personnes en quinze jours, 244 en un mois.

      Que pensez-vous de la polémique sur la #chloroquine ? N’est-ce pas affligeant, dans une telle période ?
      La forme a été parfois affligeante, mais pas la controverse elle-même. Ce qui donne le caractère polémique à cette discussion, c’est le sentiment de vivre une #tragédie_collective dans laquelle tout #désaccord prend une dimension énorme. Mais, en temps normal, c’est le lot commun du travail médical. Pour des #pathologies_émergentes et même pour des pathologies déjà connues, il faut des années d’essais cliniques et de traitement pour obtenir un #consensus. Regardez les médicaments contre le cholestérol, qui font l’objet d’une controverse très vive depuis plusieurs années. Ce n’est pas parce qu’on est en période d’état d’urgence sanitaire qu’il faudrait fermer la porte aux discussions contradictoires, aux critiques. Surtout pas. Nous avons besoin de cette pluralité d’avis. Cela étant dit, la façon dont #Didier_Raoult a présenté la chloroquine comme un médicament miracle appartient plus à un prophète qu’à un spécialiste de santé.

      Il n’y aura pas de médicament miracle pour le Covid-19 ?
      Non, pas plus qu’il n’y en a eu pour les autres infections. Cela me rappelle l’annonce faite en 1985 par le professeur #Andrieux, accompagné de la ministre de la Santé d’alors, #Georgina_Dufoix, donnant la #cyclosporine comme le médicament qui allait tout changer à partir d’un essai sur quelques cas. Pour ce qui est de la chloroquine, ses effets antiviraux et antibactériens sont bien connus, mais l’essai de Marseille n’a rien de concluant, contrairement à ce qu’en disent certains, y compris des politiques qui se croient autorisés à avoir un avis sur cette question totalement technique. C’est une ressource possible, il faut la tester. Le bon côté de cette controverse, c’est que la chloroquine va être jointe aux nombreux essais cliniques en cours. Mais il ne faut pas créer de #faux_espoirs. Didier Raoult a un passé de chercheur sérieux, mais son personnage de génie autoproclamé n’incite pas à la confiance. Quant à la validité de son essai, elle a été très précisément analysée.

      Parmi les multiples réflexions suscitées par l’épidémie, il y a cette idée que la nature malmenée par la #mondialisation serait en train de se venger avec ces différents virus venus du monde animal. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
      Le point commun du Covid, du Sras, du Mers et d’Ebola est que ces maladies sont le fruit d’un passage de la #barrière_virale_d'espèces entre les #animaux et les hommes. L’extension des certaines mégapoles entraîne une interpénétration entre #ville et #forêts : c’est le cas d’Ebola, qui trouve son origine dans la présence des #chauves-souris en ville et qui mangeaient par des humains. Mais ce paramètre, s’il faut avoir à l’esprit, est à manier avec une certaine retenue. Car il s’agit d’une constance dans l’histoire des épidémies : la plupart, à commencer par la #peste, sont liées à ce franchissement. L’homme vit dans la compagnie des animaux depuis le néolithique, notre existence est rendue possible par cette coexistence. Mais la peste avait été importée par la puce du rat qui était disséminé sur les bateaux et les caravanes ; pour le corona, ce sont les #avions qui ont fait ce travail. La spécificité du Covid-19, c’est sa vitesse de #diffusion. Le professeur Sansonnetti, infectiologue et professeur au Collège de France, parle d’une « maladie de l’#anthropocène » : en superposant la carte de l’extension du virus et celle des déplacements aériens, il montre que les deux se recouvrent parfaitement.

      L’enjeu est donc moins la façon dont la #mondialisation malmène la nature, mais dont elle ouvre des avenues à des germes. Faut-il refermer ces avenues ?
      Le propre du vivant, c’est de chercher à répandre ses gènes et le virus obéit à une logique de vie, qui s’inscrit dans une dialectique entre #contagiosité et #mortalité. Il lui faut trouver des #vecteurs - des organismes vivants - qui lui permettent de se répandre. Mais s’il tue trop vite ces vecteurs ou s’il ne trouve pas de nouveaux organismes à contaminer, il arrive à une impasse et meurt. Ce que vise le confinement, c’est à mettre le virus dans une impasse : chacun doit être le cimetière du virus. C’est ici que l’on voit la limite de la méthode : cet isolement total serait notre cimetière à tous, pas seulement celui du virus.
      A quoi cela sert de "gagner du temps" face au coronavirus ?
      #Mutation. Le mot, lorsqu’il est associé au coronavirus, fait peur. Surtout depuis que des chercheurs chinois ont affirmé que le virus avait déjà muté en une variante plus agressive.

      Alors, faut-il redouter ses prochaines transformations ?
      #Luc_Perino, médecin diplômé d’épidémiologie et auteur du livre "Patients zéro" (La Découverte), explique qu’un virus mute en permanence... et pas nécessairement d’une manière défavorable à l’être humain. "Dans la majorité des épidémies, le virus évolue vers moins de #virulence, et vers plus de #diffusion." C’est-à-dire qu’il tend à se propager plus vite... mais en devenant moins mortel.

      https://www.nouvelobs.com/coronavirus-de-wuhan/20200327.OBS26690/rony-brauman-repond-a-macron-la-metaphore-de-la-guerre-sert-a-disqualifie
      #solidarité #individualisme #autoritarisme #mensonge #mensonges #épidémiologie

    • Parler de l’héroïsme des soignants c’est une excision symbolique du corps médical. Les soignants sont des femmes en grande majorité. Les soignantEs ont pour travail de prendre soin, pas de trucider, étriper et violer comme le font les soldats, ni même se sacrifier.
      Les soldat(e)s ne soignent pas.
      Les soignantEs ne tuent pas.

      A la guerre il y a des héros or la racine latine « vir » de viril, virilité, virilisme et aussi vértu viens du sanskrit HERO. L’héroisme c’est ce qui fait l’homme et donc certainement pas les femmes. Traiter les soignantes de héro ou même héroïnes c’est les affubler de virilité.

      #invisibilisation_des_femmes #virilisme #inversion_patriarcale #excision_symbolique

    • La guerre est toujours un beau #prétexte pour imposer la #répression

      « Et nous voilà en dictature ?

      La guerre est toujours un beau prétexte pour imposer la répression.

      Guerre contre les pauvres, contre les travailleur.e.s précarisé.e.s, contre les personnes entassées dans des squats, contre les enfants des quartiers dits « prioritaires », contre les « migrants » comme ils aiment les appeler…Ah, veuillez m’excuser, je n’avais pas compris que notre aimable président parlait de guerre contre un virus…

      Il est vrai qu’en observant le confinement prendre la pelle (l’appel) pour creuser, creuser et creuser encore le gouffre qui sépare les bien loti.e.s des plus précarisé.e.s, je n’avais pas compris qu’il parlait d’une guerre contre la nature… Pourtant, j’aurais dû m’en douter, car il est bien évident que notre président a toujours voué un grand amour pour notre environnement… Mais non, je pensais bêtement que la guerre avait été déclarée. Que l’on nous avait encore pris pour des dindes, en nous faisant par exemple copier deux fois de suite « l’article 3 du décret du 23 mars 2020 prescrivant les mesures générales nécessaires pour faire face à… » blablabla. Et si tu n’as pas de papier pour écrire, tant pis pour toi ! De toute façon, on est en guerre, gamin.e, alors pourquoi veux-tu te promener dans les rues ? Ah ? La rue est ta maison ? Quelle sombre idée… De toute façon, on est en guerre, alors qui se soucie de savoir si tu vis à la rue, hein ?

      Oui, je n’ai pas réussi à entendre le mot virus quand notre cher président a répété six fois que nous étions en guerre…

      Et il est vrai que quand les jeunes avec qui je travaille m’ont transmis leurs angoisses de « ne pas réussir », avec la peur d’être encore mis de côté, exclus dans leur quartier alors même qu’elles et ils me faisaient part il y a peu de leur désir de « bien s’en sortir » pour montrer à leurs pairs que personne n’est éternellement assigné au quartier, je n’ai pas pensé au virus… Mais à la violence de l’Education Nationale.

      Quand mon amie du Sud de la France m’a quant à elle parlé de son combat éreintant pour récupérer son jeune garçon de 5 ans, confiné chez son père violent et fiché S à Paris, je n’ai pas pensé au virus… Mais à l’horreur du confinement.

      Quand une autre m’a parlé de sa colère en tant qu’infirmière de voir tant de gens ne pas respecter leur investissement/épuisement en continuant à vivre « comme si de rien n’était », je n’ai pas pensé au virus… Mais à la stupidité et l’égoïsme qui animent mes « compatriotes ».

      Et enfin, quand mes collègues m’ont fait part au début du confinement des difficultés à trouver des volontaires pour garder les enfants des soignants, je n’ai pas pensé au virus… Mais à la fameuse « Fraternité » oubliée de la devise française.

      Dites-moi qu’au moins, cela servira de prise de conscience ? Car qui tient donc le pays en ce moment ? Qui le fait (sur)vivre ? Ni moi, ni peut-être vous. Mais celles et ceux que l’on a invisibilisé depuis bien trop longtemps. Et si je dois donc applaudir, j’applaudirais tout autant les agriculteurs/trices, les vendeurs/euses en magasin, les bénévoles (devraient-ils vraiment être bénévoles ?), les professeur.e.s et toutes celles et ceux qui nous permettent de continuer à vivre. En fait, qui nous ont toujours permis de continuer à vivre…

      Alors maintenant, je me demande, que pouvons-nous faire de tout ce temps pour celles et ceux qui en ont plus que d’habitude… N’est-il pas le moment de le « prendre ce temps » pour réfléchir à de nouveaux systèmes ? Puisque dans nos vies à 100 à l’heure, celui-ci manque toujours…

      Qu’a-t-on de fait à proposer ? Comment peut-on imaginer une plateforme pour échanger sur de nouveaux modèles ? Sur la manière de visibiliser ces réalités mais également de contribuer à les changer ? Comment peut-on se servir de ce temps pour ne plus panser les blessures de notre système mais bien penser de nouvelles perspectives ? Si tout le monde est davantage connecté, c’est donc l’occasion de toucher de nouveaux publics, de faire connaitre des réalités, de proposer des formations et de construire quelque chose de nouveau…

      Je sais que certain.e.s s’y attellent depuis bien longtemps. Mais n’est-ce pas alors l’occasion de joindre nos forces pour penser collectivement ? Utiliser le confinement pour se mettre davantage en lien et penser autrement ? Servons-nous de cette colère. Transformons-là. »
      Coline

      https://www.modop.org/se-relier/#3avril

    • « De la #guerre_sanitaire à la guerre économique et sociale »

      A la « guerre sanitaire » aujourd’hui déclarée, risque de succéder une « guerre économique et sociale » impitoyable pour les salariés, les fonctionnaires et les habitants des quartiers populaires. J’ai imaginé ce que pourrait être le discours du président de la République...

      La première victime de la guerre, c’est toujours la vérité

      La deuxième victime de la guerre, ce sont les conquis sociaux

      La troisième victime de la guerre, ce sont les droits et libertés démocratiques

      A la manière d’un certain président de la République.

      « Françaises, Français, mes chers compatriotes. Depuis le déclenchement de la crise sanitaire, je me suis plusieurs fois adressé à vous pour évoquer les épreuves que nous avons traversées, pour annoncer les mesures indispensables afin de juguler l’épidémie d’abord et d’en venir à bout ensuite. Ces circonstances exceptionnelles m’ont conduit à prendre, avec le gouvernement, en accord avec l’Assemblée nationale et le Sénat, des mesures elles aussi exceptionnelles sans lesquelles nous n’aurions pu gagner cette bataille décisive contre le Covid-19. Tout d’abord, je veux, au nom de la nation, saluer toutes celles et tous ceux qui, médecins, infirmiers, personnels hospitaliers, ont été aux avant-postes de ce combat, avec un dévouement et un courage exemplaires, et pour certains, hélas, au péril de leur vie. Ils méritent notre reconnaissance. C’est pourquoi j’ai décidé qu’un hommage national leur sera rendu à une date qui sera précisée. Plus encore, toutes et tous recevront, à titre collectif, la légion d’honneur.

      Ensuite, je veux avoir une pensée pour vous, Françaises et Français, qui avez perdu un parent, un proche, un ami. Je sais votre peine infinie et nous la partageons tous. Dans ces moments que je sais ô combien douloureux, soyez assurés que votre deuil est aussi le nôtre, et jamais nous n’oublierons vos chers disparus. Enfin, je veux également saluer celles et ceux qui, envers et contre tout, ont continué de travailler sans se laisser détourner de leurs tâches indispensables au pays par des revendications aussi démagogiques qu’irresponsables. C’est grâce à eux qu’il n’y a pas eu de pénurie et que les approvisionnements n’ont jamais cessé en dépit des difficultés qu’ils ont eux aussi surmontées avec une ténacité et une résilience remarquables. Françaises, Français, mes chers compatriotes, suite aux décisions que j’ai prises, vous avez, vous aussi, consenti de nombreux sacrifices en respectant un confinement toujours plus strict, en bouleversant vos habitudes, en renonçant à bien des loisirs et à bien des plaisirs : ceux de se réunir en famille, entre amis, de dîner au restaurant, d’aller au cinéma, au théâtre, d’écouter des concerts, de faire du sport, de se promener. Qui, en ville, qui à la campagne pour pêcher ou chasser, qui à la mer ou à la montage. Je sais que les décisions prises ont bouleversé vos vies mais elles étaient indispensables pour sauver le plus grand nombre de nos ainés et de nos concitoyens. Vous l’avez assez vite compris et vous l’avez donc accepté. Toutes et tous, vous avez fait la démonstration remarquable que nous sommes un grand peuple et que la France est une nation à nulle autre pareille qui, dans les épreuves, sait se retrouver pour les affronter dans l’unité, la solidarité et la fraternité.

      Nous venons de gagner une bataille majeure mais nous n’avons pas encore gagné la guerre. La crise sanitaire est certes derrière nous mais nous devons, dès maintenant, mener d’autres combats et relever d’autres défis. Ils sont économiques et sociaux. Ceux d’hier étaient immenses, ceux qui nous attendent ne le sont pas moins. Mes chers compatriotes, je vous le dis avec solennité et gravité, nous sommes toujours en guerre. L’ennemi n’est plus invisible, il n’est plus insidieux mais il n’en est pas moins présent, puissant et menaçant. Cet ennemi, il se nomme récession, régression, faillites en série et reprise possible de la hausse du chômage. Celui que nous venons de terrasser, nous menaçait tous, celui qui se présente maintenant agit de même. Je veux dire par là qu’il peut, lui aussi, bouleverser nos vies en frappant partout et dans toutes les catégories de la population. Nos grandes, moyennes et petites entreprises sont menacées. De même nos admirables artisans qui, partout en France, maintiennent vivantes d’anciennes traditions d’excellence. Je n’oublie pas nos agriculteurs, nos pêcheurs, nos viticulteurs, nos artistes et nos libraires.

      Hier, Françaises, Français, mes chers compatriotes, vous avez consenti de nombreux sacrifices. Je m’adresse à vous tous pour vous en demander de nouveaux car cette situation économique et sociale est elle aussi exceptionnelle. Elle n’est pas sans rappeler celle que nos ainés ont dû affronter au sortir de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ils avaient un pays à reconstruire, nous avons une économie à rebâtir et pour y parvenir au plus vite, il faut être capable de se hisser à la hauteur des tâches multiples et difficiles qui nous attendent. Lorsque je me suis adressé à vous au début de l’épidémie le 16 mars dernier, je vous avais dit qu’après les épreuves traversées, plus rien ne serait comme avant. Ce jour est arrivé et il nous faut maintenant en tirer toutes les conséquences.

      Nous sommes en guerre. Aussi, notre code du travail, conçu dans et pour une autre conjoncture, est-il parfaitement inadapté à celle que nous allons affronter. Il est trop lourd et compliqué. De là d’innombrables lenteurs qui sont autant d’obstacles à la reprise que nous appelons tous de nos vœux. C’est pourquoi je vais demander au gouvernement d’adopter une loi d’urgence économique qui permettra à toutes et à tous de travailler au-delà des 35 heures, de travailler le dimanche si nécessaire et d’étendre le travail de nuit aux secteurs économiques particulièrement fragiles et/ou particulièrement affectés par le confinement auquel notre pays a été soumis. De plus, de nouveaux contrats d’embauche, moins contraignants et plus souples seront mis en place pour permettre de répondre dans les meilleures conditions aux défis multiples et variés que nos entreprises et nos artisans vont devoir relever dans les semaines et les mois à venir. Nous devons travailler plus et plus longtemps, c’est pourquoi la réforme des retraites, suspendue pour les raisons que vous savez, sera enfin adoptée. Et je souhaite qu’elle soit elle aussi assouplie pour permettre à celles et ceux qui veulent continuer à travailler de le faire en toute liberté. Toutes ces mesures s’imposent car il y va de notre place en Europe, de notre place dans le monde, de votre avenir personnel et professionnel, et de celui de vos enfants et de vos petits-enfants.

      Oui, nous sommes en guerre. C’est pourquoi, afin de favoriser au mieux la croissance indispensable aux progrès de notre pays, au relèvement de notre économie et à l’amélioration de vos conditions de vie, je demanderai également au gouvernement de bloquer les salaires pour une durée qui reste à déterminer, de réduire les congés et de permettre aux employeurs de les fixer à leur convenance, après consultation des salariés. Il en sera évidemment de même dans toute la fonction publique à l’exception de la fonction publique hospitalière où des postes seront créés et de nouveaux moyens accordés. En même temps, nous poursuivrons la modernisation indispensable de nos hôpitaux afin d’augmenter là aussi leur compétitivité et donc leur efficacité au service du plus grand nombre. Mes chers compatriotes, je sais votre attachement à notre système de santé qui suscite l’admiration de beaucoup à l’étranger, c’est aussi pour répondre à vos attentes que je vous demande ces efforts. Efforts également dans l’éducation nationale et dans l’enseignement supérieur où, jusqu’à nouvel ordre, aucun recrutement ne sera effectué. Cette situation n’empêchera nullement les écoles, les collèges, les lycées et les universités d’embaucher, de façon temporaire et pour une durée limitée, le personnel enseignant et administratif nécessaire à l’accomplissement de leurs missions. Là aussi, la modernisation doit être impérativement poursuivie car nous pouvons et nous devons faire mieux. Les temps présents comme de nombreux parents l’exigent et personne ne comprendrait, à l’heure où je vous parle, que les fonctionnaires précités désertent cette formidable bataille économique et sociale qu’il nous faut remporter au plus vite.

      C’est parce qu’elle est terrible que nous devons mobiliser toutes les énergies, stimuler tous les talents, libérer toutes les volontés et toutes les ambitions en donnant à chacune et à chacun l’opportunité de s’y associer. A vous Françaises et Français d’abord car, en ces circonstances exceptionnelles il n’est plus acceptable que d’autres, arrivés depuis peu dans notre pays et sans intention d’y faire souche, accèdent rapidement à des emplois qui pourraient être occupés par vous. C’est pourquoi je vais demander au gouvernement de préparer un projet de loi destiné, non à fermer complètement l’immigration, ce serait aussi vain qu’inutile, mais à la limiter au strict nécessaire sur la base de quotas régulièrement révisés, comme cela se fait déjà dans de nombreux Etats développés et démocratiques. De même, il faut rapatrier dans notre pays des activités essentielles à notre indépendance sanitaire, industrielle et économique pour renforcer ainsi notre souveraineté en produisant français avec des travailleuses et des travailleurs français. L’union nationale nous a permis de vaincre l’épidémie hier, elle nous permettra, demain, de renouer avec la prospérité dont vous serez toutes et tous les heureux bénéficiaires.

      Nous sommes en guerre, et cette nouvelle guerre nous ne la gagnerons qu’en étant capables de nous affranchir d’habitudes parfois désuètes et, dans tous les cas, inadaptées aux exigences qui s’imposent désormais à tous. J’ai bien dit à tous, c’est pourquoi, un nouveau gouvernement, plus resserré, sera bientôt formé et les traitements des uns et des autres réduits. De même, le nombre des membres de cabinet. D’ores et déjà, et pour apporter ma contribution à cet effort national sans précédent, je vous annonce que je renonce à mon traitement jusqu’à la fin de ce quinquennat. Mais il faut aller plus loin en poursuivant la réforme de nos institutions ce qui passe, entre autres, par la réduction du nombre de députés et de sénateurs afin que les premiers comme les seconds participent pleinement à cette réduction indispensable, vitale même de nos dépenses publiques. Au cours de ces derniers mois, comme je l’ai dit, l’Etat a payé sans compter pour lutter contre l’épidémie et soutenir les secteurs économiques particulièrement affectés par la crise sanitaire. Ces temps sont désormais révolus et chacun comprendra qu’il n’est pas possible de poursuivre plus longtemps dans cette voie sauf à s’engager de nouveau dans la spirale ruineuse de l’endettement dont les effets retomberont lourdement sur les générations à venir. Cela, je ne le veux pas et je ne le permettrai pas car ce serait trahir les espoirs de notre jeunesse, et je sais que nul, dans ce pays, ne le souhaite.

      Mes chers compatriotes, je vous le dis et je le répète, nous sommes toujours en guerre. Je vous demande donc d’être responsables, de ne céder à aucune surenchère partisane et syndicale, de refuser le repli corporatiste qui a fait tant de mal à notre pays, et de vous élever à la hauteur des tâches exigées par cette situation exceptionnelle. N’écoutez pas celles et ceux qui se complaisent dans la critique mais qui n’ont rien de concret et de sérieux à proposer. Evitons cette démagogie et ces exaltations aussi puériles que mortifères. Unis, chacun fidèle à son poste et à sa place, nous gagnerons. Vive la République ! Vive la France ! »

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/olivier-le-cour-grandmaison/blog/230320/de-la-guerre-sanitaire-la-guerre-economique-et-sociale

      –---

      Lecture de ce texte :
      #Fin_de_l'épidémie : le discours d’Emmanuel #Macron

      Texte : #Olivier_Le_Cour_Grandmaison
      Lecture : Nicolas Mourer
      Réalisation Christiane Passevant

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBd5yLA-c-8&feature=share


      #déconfinement #coronavirus #covid-19

      Message de Olivier Le Cour Grandmaison via Facs et Labos en lutte :

      Texte que j’ai rédigé en imaginant le #discours_de_Jupiter au sortir du confinement

  • La « tournant écologique » du quinquennat de Macron
    http://carfree.fr/index.php/2020/02/21/la-tournant-ecologique-du-quinquennat-de-macron

    Attention, c’est du lourd. Une fois de plus, Macron va sauver la planète, épisode 227… Dans un entretien exclusif au journal DNA le 12 février 2020, le président de la Lire la suite...

    #Alternatives_à_la_voiture #Fin_de_l'automobile #Marche_à_pied #Transports_publics #Vélo #avions #écologie #Emmanuel_Macron #intermodalité #marche #mobilité #politique

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

  • #Climat, etc… 24 Oct 2019 - Michèle Janss - Investigaction
    https://www.investigaction.net/fr/climat-etc

    La pollution et l’exploitation abusive des matières premières sont le résultat de l’activité des grandes entreprises. Celles qui exploitent le gaz, le pétrole et le charbon, bien sûr, mais aussi celles qui mettent l’eau en bouteille, fabriquent des armes, des voitures et des avions, celles qui produisent de l’informatique, des vêtements, de la nourriture industrielle, celles qui profitent de moyens de transport extrêmement bon marché afin de délocaliser leur production…

    

 Les causes

    En gros, c’est surtout notre manière de produire des richesses qui est à l’origine de la prédation de la planète. Une production sans réflexion sur son impact, sans planification, une course en avant vers plus de profit et plus d’emplois comme seul moyen de fonctionner. Notre façon de produire a même inventé le droit de polluer ou de sur-consommer contre paiement. Si on en a les moyens, on peut détruire. Et pourvu qu’il reste suffisamment de pauvres, sinon on étoufferait.
     
    Tant que cela ne sera pas étudié et dénoncé, on restera dans les petites mesures au coup par coup qui ne mèneront pas à grand chose, du genre COP-je-ne sais-quel-numéro. Au mieux, on sauvera des miettes de nature. En espérant que le génie des scientifiques fasse le reste. Mais les scientifiques et les politiques ne pourront rien empêcher si on continue dans un système de compétition effrénée qui creuse les inégalités, qui empêche systématiquement toute redistribution des richesses et qui ne peut pas grand chose contre les activités nuisibles.
     
    Le spectacle
    Dans un tel contexte, les grandes entreprises qui voient monter le mécontentement de la rue, ces mêmes grandes fortunes qui possèdent aussi les médias, doivent certainement être en train de réfléchir. Des équipes spécialisées pour cela sont à l’oeuvre, des think tank. Ces boites à penser, adossées à la presse dominante, sont redoutables. Elles sont capables de vendre une guerre à ceux qui savent qu’ils risquent d’y laisser leur peau.
     
    Elles sont en train de réfléchir et de faire feu de tout bois. C’est ainsi qu’on débat actuellement de Greta Thunberg plutôt que de l’état de la planète. Je ne sais pas si cette jeune fille est manipulée, mal informée, intelligente, sincère, si sa jeunesse est un handicap ou au contraire un atout… peu importe. Surtout, elle tombe à pic. Aussi bien pour les spécialistes du « greenwashing » que pour les climatosceptiques d’extrême droite. Quand le sage désigne la lune, l’idiot regarde le doigt. Et les médias dominants ont trouvé Greta. De quoi organiser le spectacle à moindre frais et occuper les esprits inquiets. Greta, c’est le doigt et tout le monde regarde le doigt.
     
    Organiser la résistance
    A présent, des activistes, prônant la désobéissance civile mais garantissant zéro violence et zéro dégradation, prennent le relai. Heureusement parce que tôt ou tard, on oubliera Greta. Extinction Rébellion assurera la suite. Les activistes se contentent pour le moment de bloquer la circulation, d’occuper un centre commercial… Leur sincérité ne fait aucun doute et leurs actions ont le mérite de mobiliser les consciences. Mais Extinction-Rébellion ne prend pas de position radicale contre l’organisation de notre production. Il faut changer le système, oui, mais l’analyse est plus que confuse. Invité par Amnesty International, Roger Hallam, co-fondateur d’Extinction-Rébellion prononce un curieux discours[1] où il évoque sa mère (qui était pasteure méthodiste) et prédit la famine et la mort pour la génération prochaine [2]. Pour les formateurs du mouvement, il s’agit aussi de contourner les forces d’extrême gauche pour atteindre et mobiliser les citoyens apolitiques[3]. Si on entend bien une dénonciation du « système », tout cela reste très vague. Le catastrophisme est partout, la fin du monde est proche mais l’analyse des causes reste légère. La non-violence est mise au service du mouvement Extinction-Rébellion qui doit durer pour prodiguer la bonne parole. On se trouve face à un discours presque religieux et millénariste, accompagné d’une liste d’exemples de problèmes environnementaux. Mais sans action politique visant directement les industries à l’origine de ces dégradations. Extinction Rébellion en appelle aux gouvernements, aux scientifiques, à l’arrêt de la destruction, à la réduction immédiate de la consommation, à former des assemblées citoyennes…
     
    Les entendra-t-on appeler au boycott des 100 entreprises les plus polluantes de la planète ? A la redistribution des 100 plus grandes fortunes ? A la disparition de l’actionnariat et de la course au profit qu’il génère ? Lorsqu’on sait que les 26 plus grandes fortunes[4] possèdent autant que la moitié des plus pauvres de la planète, il pourrait être tentant de ne s’en prendre qu’à… 26 fortunés !
     
    Diabolisation
    Il est intéressant de noter que les médias s’empressent de diaboliser toutes les tentatives de boycotts. La sortie du capitalisme n’est pas encore à l’ordre du jour, même si de plus en plus d’experts[5] se prononcent pour cette solution qui semble incontournable. Le communisme est également visé par la diabolisation. On ne sait jamais, si certains proposaient aux peuples de reprendre en main les usines, de mettre fin à l’actionnariat et de nationaliser la production d’énergie…
     
    Les grandes entreprises et surtout leurs actionnaires ont tout intérêt à ce qu’on reste dans l’appel aux politiques plutôt que dans l’analyse des causes. Et surtout dans la non-violence. Les gilets jaunes ont dû réellement faire très peur aux puissants et la casse coûte cher. Y compris quand il est question de la répression et de l’image qu’elle renvoie de nos gouvernements. Alors maintenant qu’il s’agit du climat, il faudra canaliser les rebellions. Tout changer pour que rien ne change, polluer moins pour pouvoir polluer plus longtemps.
     
    Reprendre le contrôle
    C’est d’une autre organisation des moyens de production dont nous avons besoin. Où, démocratiquement, nous pourrions contrôler directement ce qui se fait et comment organiser la vie sur notre planète pour le bien de tous. Il faudra arrêter la course au profit et redistribuer les richesses, mais aussi mieux partager les savoirs et les expertises, éduquer aux changements, bousculer les habitudes…
     
    Comment pourrons-nous arriver à un tel résultat ?

    C’est à cela que nous devrons travailler.
     

     
    Notes :
    [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llNFIuIMPhw


    [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrcBYWC4B9M
     
    [3] http://www.entelekheia.fr/2019/10/11/extinction-rebellion-dispense-une-formation-concue-pour-contourner-les-o
    [4] Rapport Oxfam
    [5] Naomi Klein, Thomas Piketti (pour un socialisme participatif), Hervé Kempf, Olivier Bonfond, Géraldine Thiry…

    #extinction_rebellion #Greta_Thunberg #résistance #climat #xr #catastrophe #gilets_jaunes #changement_climatique #politique #écologie #désobéissance #COP #greenwashing #climatosceptiques #boycott
    #gaz #pétrole #charbon #eau en bouteille #armes #voitures #avions #informatique #vêtements #nourriture industrielle #transports

  • Swiss cloue au sol tous ses #Airbus A220, une centaine de vols annulés - rts.ch - Economie
    https://www.rts.ch/info/economie/10787130-swiss-cloue-au-sol-tous-ses-airbus-a220-une-centaine-de-vols-annules.ht

    Swiss a cloué au sol toute sa flotte d’Airbus A220 mardi après un nouvel incident mettant en cause un moteur de ce modèle. Une centaine de vols ont été annulés, laissant des milliers de passagers à l’arrêt, surtout à Genève et Zurich.

    #avions

  • KLM Has a Surprising Request for Passengers: Don’t Fly

    It sounds noble, but what’s the real motive?

    If your company is in business to make money (as pretty much all companies are), how likely are you to launch a huge marketing campaign begging people not to use your product? Probably not very likely. Unless you’re #KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, in which case you’ve already done it.

    That’s right. KLM, the Netherlands’ national airline, just launched a campaign called “#Fly_Responsibly” in which it makes a surprising request of its customers: Fly less. “Do you always have to meet face-to-face?” the promotional video asks. “Could you take the train instead?”

    Wait, what? An airline is asking its passengers not to fly? Yes. Because, as KLM explains in an accompanying statement, air travel accounts for 2 to 3 percent of manmade CO2 emissions worldwide and that number is growing, as more people in more countries are climbing out of poverty and hankering to see the world. The 100-year-old airline says it’s been doing its part. In an accompanying statement, KLM says it has been replacing its fleet with more fuel-efficient planes, using sustainable fuel, and has even created a sustainable fuel plant in the Netherlands. “We work hard to get things right, but all parties involved need to join forces to create a sustainable future.”

    Some critics say this amounts to nothing more than “greenwashing.” After all, the airline still offers special deals and its website invites people to “Book a flight with KLM and visit the most incredible destinations around the world.” And indeed, in the accompanying statement, the airline explains that it won’t stop promoting air travel—after all it wants to stay in business “for our customers and for our 33,000 employees.”
    No carbon tax, please.

    Interestingly, the airline also notes in its statement that it’s opposed to a national carbon tax in the Netherlands since, it claims, passengers would simply drive to Germany or Belgium and fly from there instead. Therefore, KLM says, a carbon tax on aviation should only be imposed if it can be imposed globally—which is pretty disingenuous, because of course that’ll never happen. It also claims that a tax that isn’t invested back into the aviation industry to make it more sustainable “won’t do anything to combat climate change.” This, again, is untrue because the main point of a carbon tax is to make polluting more expensive, which causes people and companies to do less of it.

    All this talk about a carbon tax can give you a big clue as to KLM’s true motivation here. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade law seems like a non-starter in the U.S.—even in the very blue state of Washington, one was roundly defeated last election. But in Europe, the idea is very much alive. France’s huge “yellow vest” demonstrations began as opposition to a planned carbon tax that working people felt they couldn’t afford. (It was withdrawn.) But in the Netherlands, a carbon tax which would increase the price of airline tickets among many other things is in the works. My guess is that KLM hopes that by getting out ahead on this issue, it can push the government toward letting companies take voluntary action rather than writing new laws.

    KLM also says that as part of its sustainability effort it’s sharing information about sustainability with other airlines, beginning in September with a webinar with its sustainable fuel supplier, SkyNRG. Which sounds good, but since SkyNRG is in the business of selling its fuel, the webinar may amount to a big sales pitch. Perhaps more useful, though, KLM says it’s exploring connections with trains. That’s a great idea, because for a lot of passengers, transferring to a train rather than a connecting flight to go a relatively short distance will be appealing, and environmentalists believe short airplane trips in particular can and should be replaced with other forms of transportation. KLM has also been inviting passengers to pay a small extra fee that the airline will use to offset their flight and make their travel carbon neutral. It will share that system with other airlines as well.

    KLM’s motivations may not be as pure as it claims but the fact remains that the airline is taking some positive steps toward reducing its own environmental impact. For that, we should all applaud. And then do what the airline suggested and fly a little bit less.

    https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/klm-fly-responsibly-sustainability-environment-carbon-tax.html
    #fly_shaming #vol #avions #transport_aérien #honte #honte_de_voler #greenwashing #green_washing #taxe_carbone

    –---------

    KLM Fly Responsibly
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4htp2xxhto&feature=youtu.be

    ping @reka

  • Tourisme. Les vilaines arrière-cuisines de Thomas Cook Stéphane Guérard - 26 Septembre 2019 -L’humanité - Solidaire

    Placé en faillite ce lundi matin, le voyagiste britannique a débuté le retour en catastrophe de ses 600 000 clients, des touristes. Une autre course a dans le même temps commencé : celle du démantèlement de la multinationale financiarisée.

    Il est loin, le temps où Thomas Cook était considéré par le Royaume-Uni comme un joyau de la Couronne et placé sous le giron de l’État lorsqu’il faisait face à la première banqueroute de son histoire. Soixante-dix ans après cette nationalisation et la revente en 1972, le passage sous contrôle public de ce mastodonte du tourisme de masse n’a pas effleuré l’esprit du premier ministre Boris Johnson.

    Tôt ce lundi matin, à l’heure où la compagnie annonçait sa faillite, les services du 10 Downing Street ont prestement annoncé que l’affaire relevait de relations commerciales entre personnes privées et que les contrats de rapatriement couvrant les voyageurs allaient prendre le relais. Les 600 000 personnes immobilisées un peu partout dans le monde ont dû apprécier.

    Le laisser-faire des autorités publiques n’est pas le moindre des ingrédients de ce magistral crash commercial. Cent-soixante-dix-huit ans après sa fondation, la fin de l’auguste compagnie résonne comme celle d’une époque. « Thomas Cook a échoué parce qu’il n’a pas su évoluer avec son temps », explique Neil Wilson, analyste chez Markets.com, en référence au tournant de l’Internet qu’il n’aurait pas su prendre et aux plateformes en ligne qui lui auraient taillé des croupières.

    « Une course au gigantisme »
    Mais l’analyse est à courte vue, puisque l’opérateur, présent notamment sur le pourtour méditerranéen, est un des grands fournisseurs de séjours vendus sur ces mêmes plateformes. « Cette fois, c’est cette multinationale qui tombe. Mais l’un de ses concurrents, TUI, en est à son quatrième plan social, après avoir englouti Nouvelles Frontières et Marmara, rappelle Christian Faffache, de la CGT commerce et services. Tous ces groupes se sont lancés dans une course au gigantisme à coups de rachat, pour tenter de tuer l’autre. Quitte à devenir trop grands. Ce modèle stratégique est aujourd’hui clairement déficient. »

    Après avoir absorbé les agences Havas au tournant du siècle, puis le réseau Jet tours, Thomas Cook avait tenté son va-tout en 2007 avec le rachat de My Travel, un spécialiste britannique du voyage organisé traditionnel. « Ces dernières années, la bataille entre les mastodontes européens, et même avec des groupes de taille moyenne, a donné lieu à une bagarre des prix invraisemblable, explique Yves Serdenif, président de Touristra Vacances, opérateur historique du tourisme social. Certains ont fracassé les prix sur certaines destinations pour abattre la concurrence. Seuls les plus grands peuvent tenir. Mais avec des pertes là aussi colossales. » La compagnie britannique y a creusé une dette abyssale : plus de 1,3 milliard d’euros. Depuis hier, les évolutions géopolitiques (printemps arabes, attentats et, dernièrement, le Brexit) et même climatiques (l’été 2019, trop chaud, n’aurait pas incité les Britanniques à voyager) sont appelées à la barre comme les principaux coupables de ces pertes. Mais ces déficits ont aussi été des bénédictions pour les créanciers du groupe, qui l’ont certes maintenu sous perfusion, mais contre 1,35 milliard d’euros en intérêts. Pas bégueules, ces derniers ont gratifié les dirigeants successifs de l’entreprise de 22,6 millions d’euros sur les cinq dernières années.

    Mais la financiarisation a ses raisons que les 22 000 salariés du groupe, les dizaines de milliers de touristes dans la panade (150 000 Britanniques, 140 000 Allemands, 10 000 Français) et les milliers de professionnels du tourisme touchés par ce naufrage à travers le monde ne peuvent comprendre. La fin de vie de Thomas Cook a été sifflée par une partie de ces créanciers qui n’ont pas voulu voir leur pépite passer sous pavillon du chinois Fosun International, nouveau géant mondial du tourisme (Club Med) et du divertissement (Cirque du Soleil). Ce dernier, déjà détenteur de 18 % du capital, proposait de devenir actionnaire majoritaire contre un peu plus d’1 milliard d’euros (500 millions d’euros de cash + 25 % apportés en actions de sa compagnie d’aviation d’affaires). Mais l’opération, diminuant la valorisation du groupe, allait éjecter du tour de table d’autres actionnaires. Ces derniers ont donc pratiqué la politique de la terre brûlée, imposant au groupe de Shanghai d’augmenter de 227 millions d’euros son offre. Espérant sûrement rendre profitable cette fin de partie en monnayant au prix fort le démantèlement mondial de Thomas Cook.

    Source : https://www.humanite.fr/tourisme-les-vilaines-arriere-cuisines-de-thomas-cook-677601
    https://www.solidaire.org/articles/tourisme-les-vilaines-arriere-cuisines-de-thomas-cook

    #Thomas_Cook #banqueroute #faillite #crash #gigantisme #Vacances #avions #pollution #financiarisation #Fosum #Cirque_du_Soleil

  • Migranti, stop agli aerei di Sea Watch. “Ennesimo ostacolo al soccorso”

    Enac ha revocato il permesso per l’aeroporto di Lampedusa. La missione di ricognizione aree dei due velivoli #Moonbird e #Colibrì è per ora ferma. Linardi: “Gli occhi della società civile danno fastidio”. Enac: “Previsto dalle regole”.

    Bloccati gli aerei di ricognizione, Moonbird e Colibrì, dell’ong tedesca #Sea_Watch operati insieme all’organizzazione francese #Pilotes_volontaires. Ai due velivoli è stato negato per la prima volta il parcheggio all’aeroporto dell’isola di Lampedusa. L’Enac ha chiesto un permesso per operazioni speciali, un’autorizzazione che in passato non era mai servita per poter utilizzare la pista dell’aeroporto siciliano. Per ora, dunque, in attesa che la situazione si sblocchi, la missione area resta ferma.

    L’Enac contattata da Redattore sociale fa sapere di “non aver concesso l’autorizzazione ai voli Moonbird e Colibrì perché le norme nazionali, così come quelle in vigore negli altri Paesi europei, per questi aeromobili prevedono l’uso solo per le sole attività ricreative e non professionali. Nello specifico, il Colibrì non è un aeromobile certificato secondo standard di sicurezza noti , è in possesso di un permesso di volo speciale che non gode di un riconoscimento su base di reciprocità per condurre operazioni diverse da quelle sopra menzionate, tanto meno condotte in alto mare - sottolinea l’Ente -. Il velivolo, inoltre, è stato inoltre oggetto di modifiche significative di cui non abbiamo tranciabilità”.

    Per Enac le operazioni di Search And Rescue sono “operazioni professionali che nel nostro sistema richiedono un regime autorizzativo non compatibile, peraltro, con gli aeromobili di costruzione amatoriale. Di tutto ciò abbiamo dato informazioni al proprietario esercente del velivolo e all’autorità francese - precisa ancora Enac, specificando che lo stesso vale anche per Moonbird “un aereo svizzero che presenta comunque caratteristiche molto simili a quelle del Colibrì”. “L’attività Enac è finalizzata all’attuazione e al rispetto delle norme di sicurezza che regolano e disciplinano le operazioni di volo” conclude l’Ente.

    Il progetto di ricognizione civile nasce nell’aprile del 2017, per monitorare il Mediterraneo centrale e offrire supporto alle operazioni di salvataggio in mare. L’iniziativa ha il sostegno della Chiesa evangelica tedesca. Negli ultimi anni gli aeroplani delle ong, oltre a segnalare le imbarcazioni in difficoltà, hanno denunciato anche alcuni casi di naufragio. Come il 23 maggio scorso quando da un video realizzato proprio a bordo di Moonbird si vede un uomo sparire tra le onde vicine a un gommone in distress.

    Per Sea Watch il blocco dei velivoli per “complicazioni burocratiche” è l’ennesimo tentativo di ostacolare l’attività di soccorso in mare delle ong. “Le nostre operazioni aeree sono attenzionate perché gli occhi della società civile danno fastidio, sia in cielo che in mare”, sottolinea la portavoce Giorgia Linardi.

    Intanto, secondo quanto rivelato dal quotidiano britannico The Guardian a inizio agosto, proprio il controllo aereo delle frontiere marittime sta diventando uno dei tasselli fondamentali della presente e futura strategia messa in campo dall’Europa per il controllo dei flussi migratori. L’agenzia europea di sorveglianza delle frontiere esterne Frontex oltre a gestire le politiche di rimpatrio degli stati membri dell’Ue è parte anche di un investimento da 103 miliardi di euro in aeromobili a pilotaggio remoto. Droni, telecamere aeree sul Mediterraneo, per controllare i confini e in teoria anche i naufragi che lì avvengono. Tuttavia alla richiesta di inviare copia delle istruzioni che gli operatori dei droni dovrebbero seguire qualora “intercettassero” un’imbarcazione in stato di pericolo, Frontex ha risposto di non poter inviare quei materiali.

    https://www.redattoresociale.it/article/notiziario/migranti_stop_agli_aerei_di_sea_watch_ennesimo_ostacolo_al_soccorso
    #avions #sauvetage #mer #Méditerranée #ONG #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    Ici plus d’info sur la mission Moonbird initiée par des pilotes suisse et #Colibri initiée par des pilotes français:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/485880

    #the_end #la_fin #fin

  • Militarisation des frontières en #Mer_Egée

    En Mer Egée c’est exactement la même stratégie qui se met en place, et notamment à #Samos, où une #zeppelin (#zeppelin_de_surveillance) de #Frontex surveillera le détroit entre l’île et la côte turque, afin de signaler tout départ de bateaux. L’objectif est d’arrêter « à temps » les embarcations des réfugiés en les signalant aux garde-corps turques. Comme l’a dit le vice-ministre de l’immigration Koumoutsakos « on saura l’heure de départ de l’embarcation, on va en informer les turques, on s’approcher du bateau... »
    S’approcher pourquoi faire, sinon, pour le repousser vers la côte turque ?
    Le fonctionnement de la montgolfière sera confié aux garde-cotes et à la police grecque, l’opération restant sous le contrôle de Frontex.

    –-> reçu via la mailing-list de Migreurop, le 30.07.2017

    #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Turquie #Grèce #migrations #réfugiés #asile #police #gardes-côtes #surveillance

    –-----------

    Commentaire de Martin Clavey sur twitter :

    Cynisme absolu : Frontex utilise des drones pour surveiller les migrants en méditerranée ce qui permet à l’Union européenne de ne pas utiliser de bateau de surveillance et donc ne pas être soumis au #droit_maritime et à avoir à les sauver

    https://twitter.com/mart1oeil/status/1158396604648493058

    • Σε δοκιμαστική λειτουργία το αερόσταστο της FRONTEX

      Σε δοκιμαστική λειτουργία τίθεται από σήμερα για 28 ημέρες το αερόστατο της FRONTEX στη Σάμο, μήκους 35 μέτρων, προσδεμένο στο έδαφος, εξοπλισμένο με ραντάρ, θερμική κάμερα και σύστημα αυτόματης αναγνώρισης, το οποίο θα επιτηρεί αδιάλειπτα και σε πραγματικό χρόνο το θαλάσσιο πεδίο.

      Σύμφωνα με ανακοίνωση του Λιμενικού, στόχος είναι η αστυνόμευση του θαλάσσιου πεδίου και η καταπολέμηση του διασυνοριακού εγκλήματος. Δημιουργείται ωστόσο το ερώτημα αν οι πληροφορίες που θα συλλέγει το αερόστατο θα χρησιμοποιούνται για την αναχαίτιση ή την αποτροπή των πλεούμενων των προσφύγων που ξεκινούν από τα τουρκικά παράλια για να ζητήσουν διεθνή προστασία στην Ευρώπη.

      « Πρώτα απ’ όλα ξέρεις τι ώρα φεύγει από τους διακινητές το σκάφος, ενημερώνεις την τουρκική πλευρά, πηγαίνεις εσύ κοντά, δηλαδή είναι ένα σύνολο ενεργειών » σημείωνε την περασμένη εβδομάδα σε συνέντευξή του στον ΑΝΤ1 ο αναπληρωτής υπουργός Μεταναστευτικής Πολιτικής Γιώργος Κουμουτσάκος, μιλώντας για τα αποτελέσματα που αναμένεται να έχει το αερόστατο στην ενίσχυση της επιτήρησης των συνόρων.

      Το Λιμενικό είναι η πρώτη ακτοφυλακή κράτους-μέλους της Ε.Ε. που χρησιμοποιεί αερόστατο για την επιτήρηση της θάλασσας, δέκα μήνες μετά την πρώτη παρόμοια πανευρωπαϊκή χρήση μη επανδρωμένου αεροσκάφους μεσαίου ύψους μακράς εμβέλειας.

      « Αυτό καταδεικνύει την ισχυρή και ξεκάθαρη βούληση του Λ.Σ.-ΕΛ.ΑΚΤ. να καταβάλει κάθε δυνατή προσπάθεια, χρησιμοποιώντας τη διαθέσιμη τεχνολογία αιχμής, για την αποτελεσματική φύλαξη των εξωτερικών θαλάσσιων συνόρων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενωσης, την πάταξη κάθε μορφής εγκληματικότητας καθώς και την προστασία της ανθρώπινης ζωής στη θάλασσα », σημειώνει το Λιμενικό.

      Η λειτουργία του αερόστατου εντάσσεται στην επιχείρηση « Ποσειδών » που συντονίζουν το Λιμενικό και η ΕΛ.ΑΣ. υπό την επιτήρηση της FRONTEX.

      Παράλληλα, στο νησί θα τεθεί σε λειτουργία φορτηγό εξοπλισμένο με παρόμοια συστήματα, προκειμένου να μπορούν να συγκριθούν τα αποτελέσματα και η λειτουργία του επίγειου και του εναέριου συστήματος.

      https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/koinonia/205553_se-dokimastiki-leitoyrgia-aerostasto-tis-frontex

    • Zeppelin over the island of Samos to monitor migrants trafficking

      Greek authorities and the Frontex will release a huge surveillance Zeppelin above the island of Samos to monitor migrants who illegally try to reach Greece and Europe. The installation of the ominous balloon will be certainly a grotesque attraction for the tourists who visit the island in the East Aegean Sea.

      Deputy Minister of Migration Policy Giorgos Koumoutsakos told private ANT1 TV that the Zeppelin will go in operation next week.

      “In Samos, at some point, I think it’s a matter of days or a week, a Zeppelin balloon will be installed in cooperation with FRONTEX, which will take a picture of a huge area. What does that mean? First of all, you know what time the ship moves away from the traffickers, inform the Turkish side, you go near, that is a set of actions,” Koumoutsakos said.

      The Zeppelin will be monitored by the GNR radar unit of the Frontext located at the port of Karlovasi, samiakienimerosi notes adding “It will give a picture of movements between the Turkish coast to Samos for the more effective guarding of our maritime borders.”

      The Deputy Minister did not elaborate on what exactly can the Greek Port Authority do when it comes “near” to the refugee and migrants boats.

      According to daily efimerida ton syntakton, the Norwegian NGO, Aegean Boat Report, revealed a video shot on July 17. The video shows how a Greek Coast Guard vessel approaches a boat with 34 people on board and leaves them at the open sea to be “collected” by Turkish authorities, while the passengers, among them 14 children, desperately are shouting “Not to Turkey!”

      It is not clear, whether the Greek Coast Guard vessel is in international waters as such vessels do not enter Turkish territorial waters. According to international law, the passengers ought to be rescued. The Greek Coast Guard has so far not taken position on the issue, saying it will need to evaluate the video first, efsyn notes.

      “There is no push backs. Everything will be done in accordance with the international law. Greece will do nothing beyond the international law,” Koumoutsakos stressed.

      PS I suppose, tourists will be cheered to have their vacation activities monitored by a plastic Big Brother. Not?

      https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2019/07/26/zeppelin-samos-migrants-refugees

    • Once migrants on Mediterranean were saved by naval patrols. Now they have to watch as #drones fly over
      https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8a92adecf247b04c801a67a612766ee753738437/0_109_4332_2599/master/4332.jpg?width=605&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=c0051d5e4fff6aff063c70

      Amid the panicked shouting from the water and the smell of petrol from the sinking dinghy, the noise of an approaching engine briefly raises hope. Dozens of people fighting for their lives in the Mediterranean use their remaining energy to wave frantically for help. Nearly 2,000 miles away in the Polish capital, Warsaw, a drone operator watches their final moments via a live transmission. There is no ship to answer the SOS, just an unmanned aerial vehicle operated by the European border and coast guard agency, Frontex.

      This is not a scene from some nightmarish future on Europe’s maritime borders but a present-day probability. Frontex, which is based in Warsaw, is part of a £95m investment by the EU in unmanned aerial vehicles, the Observer has learned.

      This spending has come as the EU pulls back its naval missions in the Mediterranean and harasses almost all search-and-rescue charity boats out of the water. Frontex’s surveillance drones are flying over waters off Libya where not a single rescue has been carried out by the main EU naval mission since last August, in what is the deadliest stretch of water in the world.

      The replacement of naval vessels, which can conduct rescues, with drones, which cannot, is being condemned as a cynical abrogation of any European role in saving lives.

      “There is no obligation for drones to be equipped with life-saving appliances and to conduct rescue operations,” said a German Green party MEP, Erik Marquardt. “You need ships for that, and ships are exactly what there is a lack of at the moment.” This year the death rate for people attempting the Mediterranean crossing has risen from a historical average of 2% to as high as 14% last month. In total, 567 of the estimated 8,362 people who have attempted it so far this year have died.

      Gabriele Iacovino, director of one of Italy’s leading thinktanks, the Centre for International Studies, said the move into drones was “a way to spend money without having the responsibility to save lives”. Aerial surveillance without ships in the water amounted to a “naval mission without a naval force”, and was about avoiding embarrassing political rows in Europe over what to do with rescued migrants.

      Since March the EU’s main naval mission in the area, Operation Sophia, has withdrawn its ships from waters where the majority of migrant boats have sunk. While Sophia was not primarily a search-and-rescue mission, it was obliged under international and EU law to assist vessels in distress. The switch to drones is part of an apparent effort to monitor the Mediterranean without being pulled into rescue missions that deliver migrants to European shores.

      Marta Foresti, director of the Human Mobility Initiative at the Overseas Development Institute, an influential UK thinktank, said Europe had replaced migration policy with panic, with potentially lethal consequences. “We panicked in 2015 and that panic has turned into security budgets,” she said. “Frontex’s budget has doubled with very little oversight or design. It’s a knee-jerk reaction.”

      The strategy has seen Frontex, based in Warsaw, and its sister agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency, based in Lisbon, invest in pilotless aerial vehicles. The Observer has found three contracts – two under EMSA and one under Frontex – totalling £95m for drones that can supply intelligence to Frontex.

      The models include the Hermes, made by Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest privately owned arms manufacturer, and the Heron, produced by Israel Aerospace Industries, a state-owned company. Both models were developed for use in combat missions in the occupied Palestinian territory of Gaza. Frontex said its drone suppliers met all “EU procurement rules and guidelines”.

      There is mounting concern both over how Frontex is spending EU taxpayers’ money and how it can be held accountable. The migration panic roiling Europe’s politics has been a boon for a once unfashionable EU outpost that coordinated national coastal and border guards. Ten years ago Frontex’s budget was £79m. In the latest budget cycle it has been awarded £10.4bn.

      Demand from member states for its services have largely been driven by its role in coordinating and carrying out deportations. The expansion of the deportation machine has caused concern among institutions tasked with monitoring the forced returns missions: a group of national ombudsmen, independent watchdogs appointed in all EU member states to safeguard human rights, has announced plans to begin its own independent monitoring group. The move follows frustration with the way their reports on past missions have been handled by Frontex.

      Andreas Pottakis, Greece’s ombudsman, is among those calling for an end to the agency policing itself: “Internal monitoring of Frontex by Frontex cannot substitute for the need for external monitoring by independent bodies. This is the only way the demand for transparency can be met and that the EU administration can effectively be held into account.”
      Acting to extradite helpless civilians to the hands of Libyan militias may amount to criminal liability

      The Frontex Consultative Forum, a body offering strategic advice to Frontex’s management board on how the agency can improve respect for fundamental rights, has also severely criticised it for a sloppy approach to accountability. An online archive of all Frontex operations, which was used by independent researchers, was recently removed.

      The switch to drones in the Mediterranean has also led to Frontex being accused of feeding intelligence on the position of migrant boats to Libya’s coast guards so they can intercept and return them to Libya. Although it receives EU funds, the Libyan coast guard remains a loosely defined outfit that often overlaps with smuggling gangs and detention centre owners.

      “The Libyan coast guard never patrols the sea,” said Tamino Böhm of the German rescue charity Sea-Watch. “They never leave port unless there is a boat to head to for a pullback. This means the information they have comes from the surveillance flights of Italy, Frontex and the EU.”

      A Frontex spokesperson said that incidents related to boats in distress were passed to the “responsible rescue coordination centre and to the neighbouring ones for situational awareness and potential coordination”. Thus the maritime rescue coordination centre in Rome has begun to share information with its Libyan counterpart in Tripoli, under the instructions of Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini.

      The EU is already accused of crimes against humanity in a submission before the International Criminal Court for “orchestrating a policy of forced transfer to concentration camp-like detention facilities [in Libya] where atrocious crimes are committed”.

      The case, brought by lawyers based in Paris, seeks to demonstrate that many of the people intercepted have faced human rights abuses ranging from slavery to torture and murder after being returned to Libya.

      Omer Shatz, an Israeli who teaches at Sciences Po university in Paris, and one of the two lawyers who brought the ICC case, said Frontex drone operators could be criminally liable for aiding pullbacks. “A drone operator that is aware of a migrant boat in distress is obliged to secure fundamental rights to life, body integrity, liberty and dignity. This means she has to take actions intended to search, rescue and disembark those rescued at safe port. Acting to extradite helpless vulnerable civilians to the hands of Libyan militias may amount to criminal liability.”

      Under international law, migrants rescued at sea by European vessels cannot be returned to Libya, where conflict and human rights abuses mean the UN has stated there is no safe port. Under the UN convention on the law of the sea (Unclos) all ships are obliged to report an encounter with a vessel in distress and offer assistance. This is partly why EU naval missions that were not mandated to conduct rescue missions found themselves pitched into them regardless.

      Drones, however, operate in a legal grey zone not covered by Unclos. The situation for private contractors to EU agencies, as in some of the current drone operations, is even less clear.

      Frontex told the Observer that all drone operators, staff or private contractors are subject to EU laws that mandate the protection of human life. The agency said it was unable to share a copy of the mission instructions given to drone operators that would tell them what to do in the event of encountering a boat in distress, asking the Observer to submit a freedom of information request. The agency said drones had encountered boats in distress on only four occasions – all in June this year – in the central Mediterranean, and that none had led to a “serious incident report” – Frontex jargon for a red flag. When EU naval vessels were deployed in similar areas in previous years, multiple serious incidents were reported every month, according to documents seen by the Observer.

      https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/04/drones-replace-patrol-ships-mediterranean-fears-more-migrant-deaths

      #Méditerranée #mer_Méditerranée #Libye

    • L’uso dei droni per guardare i migranti che affogano mette a nudo tutta la disumanità delle pratiche di controllo sui confini

      In troppi crediamo al mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la realtà macchiata di sangue.

      “Se avessi ignorato quelle grida di aiuto, non avrei mai più trovato il coraggio di affrontare il mare”.

      Con queste parole il pescatore siciliano Carlo Giarratano ha commentato la sua decisione di sfidare il “decreto sicurezza” del Governo italiano, che prevede sanzioni o l’arresto nei confronti di chiunque trasporti in Italia migranti soccorsi in mare.

      La sua storia è un esempio della preoccupante tensione che si è creata ai confini della “Fortezza Europa” in materia di leggi e regolamenti. Secondo il diritto internazionale, il capitano di un’imbarcazione in mare è tenuto a fornire assistenza alle persone in difficoltà, “a prescindere dalla nazionalità o dalla cittadinanza delle persone stesse”. Al contempo, molti paesi europei, e la stessa UE, stanno cercando di limitare questo principio e queste attività, malgrado il tragico bilancio di morti nel Mediterraneo, in continua crescita.

      L’Agenzia di Confine e Guardia Costiera Europea, Frontex, sembra aver escogitato una soluzione ingegnosa: i droni. L’obbligo legale di aiutare un’imbarcazione in difficoltà non si applica a un veicolo aereo senza pilota (UAV, unmanned aerial vehicle). Si può aggirare la questione, politicamente calda, su chi sia responsabile di accogliere i migranti soccorsi, se questi semplicemente non vengono proprio soccorsi. Questo principio fa parte di una consolidata tendenza a mettere in atto politiche finalizzate a impedire che i migranti attraversino il Mediterraneo. Visto l’obbligo di soccorrere le persone che ci chiedono aiuto, la soluzione sembra essere questa: fare in modo di non sentire le loro richieste.

      Jean-Claude Juncker sostiene che le politiche europee di presidio ai confini sono concepite per “stroncare il business dei trafficanti”, perché nella moralità egocentrica che ispira la politica di frontiera europea, se non ci fossero trafficanti non ci sarebbero migranti.

      Ma non ci sono trafficanti che si fabbricano migranti in officina. Se le rotte ufficiali sono bloccate, le persone vanno a cercare quelle non ufficiali. Rendere la migrazione più difficile, ha fatto aumentare la richiesta di trafficanti e scafisti, certamente non l’ha fermata. Invece che stroncare il loro business, queste politiche lo hanno creato.

      Secondo la logica della foglia di fico, l’UE sostiene di non limitarsi a lasciare affogare i migranti, ma di fornire supporto alla guardia costiera libica perché intercetti le imbarcazioni che tentano la traversata e riporti le persone nei campi di detenzione in Libia.

      Ma il rapporto del Global Detention Project, a proposito delle condizioni in questi campi, riferisce: “I detenuti sono spesso sottoposti a gravi abusi e violenze, compresi stupri e torture, estorsioni, lavori forzati, schiavitù, condizioni di vita insopportabili, esecuzioni sommarie.” Human Rights Watch, in un rapporto intitolato Senza via di fuga dall’Inferno, descrive situazioni di sovraffollamento e malnutrizione e riporta testimonianze di bambini picchiati dalle guardie.

      L’Irish Times ha riportato accuse secondo cui le milizie associate con il GNA (Governo Libico di Alleanza Nazionale, riconosciuto dall’ONU), starebbero immagazzinando munizioni in questi campi e userebbero i rifugiati come “scudi umani”. Sembra quasi inevitabile, quindi, la notizia che il 3 luglio almeno 53 rifugiati sono stati uccisi durante un attacco dei ribelli appartenenti all’Esercito Nazionale Libico, nel campo di detenzione di Tajura, vicino a Tripoli.

      Secondo una testimonianza riportata dall’Associated Press, a Tajura i migranti erano costretti a pulire le armi delle milizie fedeli al GNA, armi che erano immagazzinate nel campo. Secondo i racconti di testimoni oculari dell’attacco, riportati dalle forze ONU, le guardie del campo avrebbero aperto il fuoco su chi tentava di scappare.

      Nel mondo occidentale, quando parliamo di immigrazione, tendiamo a focalizzarci sul cosiddetto “impatto sulle comunità” causato dai flussi di nuovi arrivati che si muovono da un posto all’altro.

      Nelle nostre discussioni, ci chiediamo se i migranti portino un guadagno per l’economia oppure intacchino risorse già scarse. Raramente ci fermiamo a guardare nella sua cruda e tecnica realtà la concreta applicazione del controllo alle frontiere, quando si traduce davvero in fucili e filo spinato.

      Ci ripetiamo che i costi vanno tutti in un’unica direzione: secondo la nostra narrazione preferita, i controlli di confine sono tutti gratis, è lasciare entrare i migranti la cosa che costa. Ma i costi da pagare ci sono sempre: non solo il tributo di morti che continua a crescere o i budget multimilionari e sempre in aumento delle nostre agenzie di frontiera, ma anche i costi morali e sociali che finiamo con l’estorcere a noi stessi.

      L’ossessione per la sicurezza dei confini deve fare i conti con alcune delle più antiche e radicate convinzioni etiche proprie delle società occidentali. Prendersi cura del più debole, fare agli altri quello che vogliamo sia fatto a noi, aiutare chi possiamo. Molti uomini e donne che lavorano in mare, quando soccorrono dei naufraghi non sono spinti solo da una legge che li obbliga a prestare aiuto, ma anche da un imperativo morale più essenziale. “Lo facciamo perché siamo gente di mare”, ha detto Giarratano al Guardian, “in mare, se ci sono persone in pericolo, le salviamo”.

      Ma i nostri governi hanno deciso che questo non vale per gli europei. Come se fosse una perversa sfida lanciata a istinti morali vecchi di migliaia di anni, nell’Europa moderna un marinaio che salva un migrante mentre sta per affogare, deve essere punito.

      Infrangere queste reti di reciproche responsabilità fra gli esseri umani, ha dei costi: divisioni e tensioni sociali. Ed è un amaro paradosso, perché proprio argomenti di questo genere sono in testa alle nostre preoccupazioni percepite quando si parla di migrazioni. E mentre l’UE fa di tutto per respingere un fronte del confine verso i deserti del Nord Africa, cercando di tenere i corpi dei rifugiati abbastanza lontani da non farceli vedere da vicino, intanto l’altro fronte continua a spingere verso di noi. L’Europa diventa un “ambiente ostile” e quindi noi diventiamo un popolo ostile.

      Ci auto-ingaggiamo come guardie di confine al nostro interno. Padroni di casa, infermiere, insegnanti, manager – ogni relazione sociale deve essere controllata. Il nostro regime di “frontiera quotidiana” crea “comunità sospette” all’interno della nostra società: sono persone sospette per il solo fatto di esistere e, nei loro confronti, si possono chiamare le forze dell’ordine in ogni momento, “giusto per dare un’occhiata”.

      Il confine non è solo un sistema per tenere gli estranei fuori dalla nostra società, ma per marchiare per sempre le persone come estranee, anche all’interno e per legittimare ufficialmente il pregiudizio, per garantire che “l’integrazione” – il Sacro Graal della narrazione progressista sull’immigrazione – resti illusoria e irrealizzabile, uno scherzo crudele giocato sulla pelle di persone destinate a rimanere etichettate come straniere e sospette. La nostra società nel suo insieme si mette al servizio di questo insaziabile confine, fino a definire la sua vera e propria identità nella capacità di respingere le persone.

      Malgrado arrivino continuamente immagini e notizie di tragedie e di morti, i media evitano di collegarle con le campagne di opinione che amplificano le cosiddette “legittime preoccupazioni” della gente e le trasformano in un inattaccabile “comune buon senso”.

      I compromessi che reggono le politiche di controllo dei confini non vengono messi in luce. Questo ci permette di guardare da un’altra parte, non perché siamo crudeli ma perché non possiamo sopportare di vedere quello che stiamo facendo. Ci sono persone e gruppi che, come denuncia Adam Serwer in un articolo su The Atlantic, sono proprio “Focalizzati sulla Crudeltà”. E anche se noi non siamo così, viviamo comunque nel loro stesso mondo, un mondo in cui degli esseri umani annegano e noi li guardiamo dall’alto dei nostri droni senza pilota, mentre lo stato punisce chi cerca di salvarli.

      In troppi crediamo nel mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la tragica e insanguinata realtà del concreto controllo quotidiano sui confini. E comunque, se fosse possibile, non avremmo ormai risolto questa contraddizione? Il fatto che non lo abbiamo fatto dovrebbe portarci a pensare che non ne siamo capaci e che ci si prospetta una cruda e desolante scelta morale per il futuro.

      D’ora in poi, il numero dei migranti non può che aumentare. I cambiamenti climatici saranno determinanti. La scelta di non respingerli non sarà certamente gratis: non c’è modo di condividere le nostre risorse con altri senza sostenere dei costi. Ma se non lo facciamo, scegliamo consapevolmente i naufragi, gli annegamenti, i campi di detenzione, scegliamo di destinare queste persone ad una vita da schiavi in zone di guerra. Scegliamo l’ambiente ostile. Scegliamo di “difendere il nostro stile di vita” semplicemente accettando di vivere a fianco di una popolazione sempre in aumento fatta di rifugiati senza patria, ammassati in baracche di lamiera e depositi soffocanti, sfiniti fino alla disperazione.

      Ma c’è un costo che, alla fine, giudicheremo troppo alto da pagare? Per il momento, sembra di no: ma, … cosa siamo diventati?

      https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/luso-dei-droni-per-guardare-i-migranti-che-affogano-m

    • Et aussi... l’utilisation de moins en moins de #bateaux et de plus en plus de #avions a le même effet...

      Sophia : The EU naval mission without any ships

      Launched in 2015 to combat human smuggling in the Mediterranean, the operation has been all but dismantled, symbolizing European division on immigration policy.


      The Italian air base of Sigonella extends its wire fencing across the green and yellow fields of Sicily, 25 kilometers inland from the island’s coastline. Only the enormous cone of Mount Etna, visible in the distance, stands out over this flat land. Posters depicting a sniper taking aim indicate that this is a restricted-access military zone with armed surveillance.

      Inside, there is an enormous city with deserted avenues, runways and hangars. This is the departure point for aircraft patrolling the Central Mediterranean as part of EU Naval Force Mediterranean Operation Sophia, Europe’s military response to the human smuggling rings, launched in 2015. But since March of this year, the planes have been a reflection of a mutilated mission: Sophia is now a naval operation without any ships.

      The Spanish detachment in #Sigonella has just rotated some of its personnel. A group of newly arrived soldiers are being trained in a small room inside one of the makeshift containers where the group of 39 military members work. The aircraft that they use is standing just a few meters away, on a sun-drenched esplanade that smells of fuel. The plane has been designed for round-the-clock maritime surveillance, and it has a spherical infrared camera fitted on its nose that allows it to locate and identify seagoing vessels, as well as to detect illegal trafficking of people, arms and oil.

      If the EU had systematically shown more solidarity with Italy [...] Italian voters would not have made a dramatic swing to the far right

      Juan Fernando López Aguilar, EU Civil Liberties Committee

      This aircraft was also made to assist in sea rescues. But this activity is no longer taking place, now that there are no ships in the mission. Six aircraft are all that remain of Operation Sophia, which has been all but dismantled. Nobody would venture to say whether its mandate will be extended beyond the current deadline of September 30.

      The planes at Sigonella continue to patrol the Central Mediterranean and collect information to meet the ambitious if vague goal that triggered the mission back at the height of the refugee crisis: “To disrupt the business of human and weapons smuggling.” The operation’s most controversial task is still being carried out as well: training Libya’s Coast Guard so they will do the job of intercepting vessels filled with people fleeing Libyan war and chaos, and return them to the point of departure. Even official sources of Europe’s diplomatic service admitted, in a written reply, that the temporary suspension of naval assets “is not optimal,” and that the mission’s ability to fulfill its mandate “is more limited.”

      In these four years, the mission has had some tangible achievements: the arrest of 151 individuals suspected of human trafficking and smuggling, and the destruction of 551 boats used by criminal networks. Operation Sophia has also inspected three ships and seized banned goods; it has made radio contact with 2,462 vessels to check their identity, and made 161 friendly approaches. For European diplomats, the mission has been mainly useful in “significantly reducing smugglers’ ability to operate in high seas” and has generally contributed to “improving maritime safety and stability in the Central Mediterranean.”

      Sophia’s main mission was never to rescue people at sea, yet in these last years it has saved 45,000 lives, following the maritime obligation to aid people in distress. The reason why it has been stripped of its ships – a move that has been strongly criticized by non-profit groups – can be found 800 kilometers north of Sicily, in Rome, and also in the offices of European politicians. Last summer, Italy’s far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini began to apply a closed-port policy for ships carrying rescued migrants unless a previous relocation agreement existed with other countries. Salvini first targeted the non-profit groups performing sea rescues, and then he warned his European colleagues that Italy, which is leading the EU mission, would refuse to take in all the rescued migrants without first seeing a change in EU policy. A year later, no European deal has emerged, and every time a rescue is made, the issue of who takes in the migrants is negotiated on an ad hoc basis.

      Operation Sophia has saved 45,000 lives

      Although arrivals through this route have plummeted, Salvini insists that “Italy is not willing to accept all the migrants who arrive in Europe.” Political division among member states has had an effect on the European military mission. “Sophia has not been conducting rescues since August 2018,” says Matteo Villa, a migration expert at Italy’s Institute for International Policy Studies (ISPI). “Nobody in the EU wanted to see a mission ship with migrants on board being refused port entry, so the ‘solution’ was to suspend Sophia’s naval tasks.”

      The decision to maintain the operation without any ships was made at the last minute in March, in a move that prevented the dismantling of the mission just ahead of the European elections. “Operation Sophia has helped save lives, although that was not its main objective. It was a mistake for [the EU] to leave it with nothing but airplanes, without the ships that were able to save lives,” says Matteo de Bellis, a migration and refugee expert at Amnesty International. “What they are doing now, training the Libyans, only serves to empower the forces that intercept refugees and migrants and return them to Libya, where they face arbitrary detention in centers where there is torture, exploitation and rape.”

      Ever since the great maritime rescue operation developed by Italy in 2013, the Mare Nostrum, which saved 150,000 people, its European successors have been less ambitious in scope and their goals more focused on security and border patrolling. This is the case with Sophia, which by training the Libyan Coast Guard is contributing to the increasingly clear strategy of outsourcing EU migratory control, even to a country mired in chaos and war. “If Europe reduces search-and-rescue operations and encourages Libya to conduct them in its place, then it is being an accomplice to the violations taking place in Libya,” says Catherine Wollard, secretary general of the non-profit network integrated in the European Council of Refugees and Exiles (ECRE).

      Training the Libyans only serves to empower the forces that intercept refugees and migrants and return them to Libya, where they face torture, exploitation and rape

      Matteo de Bellis, Amnesty International

      The vision offered by official European sources regarding the training of the Libyan Coast Guard, and about Operation Sophia in general, is very different when it comes to reducing mortality on the Mediterranean’s most deadly migration route. “Operation Sophia was launched to fight criminal human smuggling networks that put lives at risk in the Central Mediterranean,” they say in a written response. European officials are aware of what is going on in Libya, but their response to the accusations of abuse perpetrated by the Libyan Coast Guard and the situation of migrants confined in detention centers in terrible conditions, is the following: “Everything that happens in Libyan territorial waters is Libya’s responsibility, not Europe’s, yet we are not looking the other way. […] Through Operation Sophia we have saved lives, fought traffickers and trained the Libyan Coast Guard […]. We are performing this last task because substantial loss of life at sea is taking place within Libyan territorial waters. That is why it is very important for Libya’s Coast Guard and Navy to know how to assist distressed migrants in line with international law and humanitarian standards. Also, because the contribution of Libya’s Coast Guard in the fight against traffickers operating in their waters is indispensable.”

      Criticism of Operation Sophia is also coming from the European Parliament, which funded the trip that made this feature story possible. Juan Fernando López Aguilar, president of the parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, attacks the decision to strip Sophia of its naval resources. The Socialist Party (PSOE) politician says that this decision was made “in the absolute absence of a global approach to the migration phenomenon that would include cooperative coordination of all the resources at member states’ disposal, such as development aid in Africa, cooperation with origin and transit countries, hirings in countries of origin and the creation of legal ways to access the EU. Now that would dismantle [the mafias’] business model,” he says.

      López Aguilar says that the EU is aware of Italy’s weariness of the situation, considering that “for years it dealt with a migratory pressure that exceeded its response capacity.” Between 2014 and 2017, around 624,000 people landed on Italy’s coasts. “If they EU had systematically shown more solidarity with Italy, if relocation programs for people in hotspots had been observed, very likely Italian voters would not have made a dramatic swing giving victory to the far right, nor would we have reached a point where a xenophobic closed-port narrative is claimed to represent the salvation of Italian interests.”

      Miguel Urbán, a European Member of Parliament for the Spanish leftist party Unidas Podemos, is highly critical of the way the EU has been managing immigration. He talks about a “militarization of the Mediterranean” and describes European policy as bowing to “the far right’s strategy.” He blames Italy’s attitude for turning Sophia into “an operation in the Mediterranean without a naval fleet. What the Italian government gets out of this is to rid itself of its humanitarian responsibility to disembark migrants on its coasts.”

      For now, no progress has been made on the underlying political problem of disembarkation and, by extension, on the long-delayed reform of the Dublin Regulation to balance out frontline states’ responsibility in taking in refugees with solidarity from other countries. Sophia will continue to hobble along until September after being all but given up for dead in March. After that, everything is still up in the air.

      https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/08/29/inenglish/1567088519_215547.html
      #Sophie #Opération_Sophia #Sicile

    • L’uso dei droni per guardare i migranti che affogano mette a nudo tutta la disumanità delle pratiche di controllo sui confini

      In troppi crediamo al mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la realtà macchiata di sangue.

      “Se avessi ignorato quelle grida di aiuto, non avrei mai più trovato il coraggio di affrontare il mare”.

      Con queste parole il pescatore siciliano Carlo Giarratano ha commentato la sua decisione di sfidare il “decreto sicurezza” del Governo italiano, che prevede sanzioni o l’arresto nei confronti di chiunque trasporti in Italia migranti soccorsi in mare.

      La sua storia è un esempio della preoccupante tensione che si è creata ai confini della “Fortezza Europa” in materia di leggi e regolamenti. Secondo il diritto internazionale, il capitano di un’imbarcazione in mare è tenuto a fornire assistenza alle persone in difficoltà, “a prescindere dalla nazionalità o dalla cittadinanza delle persone stesse”. Al contempo, molti paesi europei, e la stessa UE, stanno cercando di limitare questo principio e queste attività, malgrado il tragico bilancio di morti nel Mediterraneo, in continua crescita.

      L’Agenzia di Confine e Guardia Costiera Europea, Frontex, sembra aver escogitato una soluzione ingegnosa: i droni. L’obbligo legale di aiutare un’imbarcazione in difficoltà non si applica a un veicolo aereo senza pilota (UAV, unmanned aerial vehicle). Si può aggirare la questione, politicamente calda, su chi sia responsabile di accogliere i migranti soccorsi, se questi semplicemente non vengono proprio soccorsi. Questo principio fa parte di una consolidata tendenza a mettere in atto politiche finalizzate a impedire che i migranti attraversino il Mediterraneo. Visto l’obbligo di soccorrere le persone che ci chiedono aiuto, la soluzione sembra essere questa: fare in modo di non sentire le loro richieste.

      Jean-Claude Juncker sostiene che le politiche europee di presidio ai confini sono concepite per “stroncare il business dei trafficanti”, perché nella moralità egocentrica che ispira la politica di frontiera europea, se non ci fossero trafficanti non ci sarebbero migranti.

      Ma non ci sono trafficanti che si fabbricano migranti in officina. Se le rotte ufficiali sono bloccate, le persone vanno a cercare quelle non ufficiali. Rendere la migrazione più difficile, ha fatto aumentare la richiesta di trafficanti e scafisti, certamente non l’ha fermata. Invece che stroncare il loro business, queste politiche lo hanno creato.

      Secondo la logica della foglia di fico, l’UE sostiene di non limitarsi a lasciare affogare i migranti, ma di fornire supporto alla guardia costiera libica perché intercetti le imbarcazioni che tentano la traversata e riporti le persone nei campi di detenzione in Libia.

      Ma il rapporto del Global Detention Project, a proposito delle condizioni in questi campi, riferisce: “I detenuti sono spesso sottoposti a gravi abusi e violenze, compresi stupri e torture, estorsioni, lavori forzati, schiavitù, condizioni di vita insopportabili, esecuzioni sommarie.” Human Rights Watch, in un rapporto intitolato Senza via di fuga dall’Inferno, descrive situazioni di sovraffollamento e malnutrizione e riporta testimonianze di bambini picchiati dalle guardie.

      L’Irish Times ha riportato accuse secondo cui le milizie associate con il GNA (Governo Libico di Alleanza Nazionale, riconosciuto dall’ONU), starebbero immagazzinando munizioni in questi campi e userebbero i rifugiati come “scudi umani”. Sembra quasi inevitabile, quindi, la notizia che il 3 luglio almeno 53 rifugiati sono stati uccisi durante un attacco dei ribelli appartenenti all’Esercito Nazionale Libico, nel campo di detenzione di Tajura, vicino a Tripoli.

      Secondo una testimonianza riportata dall’Associated Press, a Tajura i migranti erano costretti a pulire le armi delle milizie fedeli al GNA, armi che erano immagazzinate nel campo. Secondo i racconti di testimoni oculari dell’attacco, riportati dalle forze ONU, le guardie del campo avrebbero aperto il fuoco su chi tentava di scappare.

      Nel mondo occidentale, quando parliamo di immigrazione, tendiamo a focalizzarci sul cosiddetto “impatto sulle comunità” causato dai flussi di nuovi arrivati che si muovono da un posto all’altro.

      Nelle nostre discussioni, ci chiediamo se i migranti portino un guadagno per l’economia oppure intacchino risorse già scarse. Raramente ci fermiamo a guardare nella sua cruda e tecnica realtà la concreta applicazione del controllo alle frontiere, quando si traduce davvero in fucili e filo spinato.

      Ci ripetiamo che i costi vanno tutti in un’unica direzione: secondo la nostra narrazione preferita, i controlli di confine sono tutti gratis, è lasciare entrare i migranti la cosa che costa. Ma i costi da pagare ci sono sempre: non solo il tributo di morti che continua a crescere o i budget multimilionari e sempre in aumento delle nostre agenzie di frontiera, ma anche i costi morali e sociali che finiamo con l’estorcere a noi stessi.

      L’ossessione per la sicurezza dei confini deve fare i conti con alcune delle più antiche e radicate convinzioni etiche proprie delle società occidentali. Prendersi cura del più debole, fare agli altri quello che vogliamo sia fatto a noi, aiutare chi possiamo. Molti uomini e donne che lavorano in mare, quando soccorrono dei naufraghi non sono spinti solo da una legge che li obbliga a prestare aiuto, ma anche da un imperativo morale più essenziale. “Lo facciamo perché siamo gente di mare”, ha detto Giarratano al Guardian, “in mare, se ci sono persone in pericolo, le salviamo”.

      Ma i nostri governi hanno deciso che questo non vale per gli europei. Come se fosse una perversa sfida lanciata a istinti morali vecchi di migliaia di anni, nell’Europa moderna un marinaio che salva un migrante mentre sta per affogare, deve essere punito.

      Infrangere queste reti di reciproche responsabilità fra gli esseri umani, ha dei costi: divisioni e tensioni sociali. Ed è un amaro paradosso, perché proprio argomenti di questo genere sono in testa alle nostre preoccupazioni percepite quando si parla di migrazioni. E mentre l’UE fa di tutto per respingere un fronte del confine verso i deserti del Nord Africa, cercando di tenere i corpi dei rifugiati abbastanza lontani da non farceli vedere da vicino, intanto l’altro fronte continua a spingere verso di noi. L’Europa diventa un “ambiente ostile” e quindi noi diventiamo un popolo ostile.

      Ci auto-ingaggiamo come guardie di confine al nostro interno. Padroni di casa, infermiere, insegnanti, manager – ogni relazione sociale deve essere controllata. Il nostro regime di “frontiera quotidiana” crea “comunità sospette” all’interno della nostra società: sono persone sospette per il solo fatto di esistere e, nei loro confronti, si possono chiamare le forze dell’ordine in ogni momento, “giusto per dare un’occhiata”.

      Il confine non è solo un sistema per tenere gli estranei fuori dalla nostra società, ma per marchiare per sempre le persone come estranee, anche all’interno e per legittimare ufficialmente il pregiudizio, per garantire che “l’integrazione” – il Sacro Graal della narrazione progressista sull’immigrazione – resti illusoria e irrealizzabile, uno scherzo crudele giocato sulla pelle di persone destinate a rimanere etichettate come straniere e sospette. La nostra società nel suo insieme si mette al servizio di questo insaziabile confine, fino a definire la sua vera e propria identità nella capacità di respingere le persone.

      Malgrado arrivino continuamente immagini e notizie di tragedie e di morti, i media evitano di collegarle con le campagne di opinione che amplificano le cosiddette “legittime preoccupazioni” della gente e le trasformano in un inattaccabile “comune buon senso”.

      I compromessi che reggono le politiche di controllo dei confini non vengono messi in luce. Questo ci permette di guardare da un’altra parte, non perché siamo crudeli ma perché non possiamo sopportare di vedere quello che stiamo facendo. Ci sono persone e gruppi che, come denuncia Adam Serwer in un articolo su The Atlantic, sono proprio “Focalizzati sulla Crudeltà”. E anche se noi non siamo così, viviamo comunque nel loro stesso mondo, un mondo in cui degli esseri umani annegano e noi li guardiamo dall’alto dei nostri droni senza pilota, mentre lo stato punisce chi cerca di salvarli.

      In troppi crediamo nel mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la tragica e insanguinata realtà del concreto controllo quotidiano sui confini. E comunque, se fosse possibile, non avremmo ormai risolto questa contraddizione? Il fatto che non lo abbiamo fatto dovrebbe portarci a pensare che non ne siamo capaci e che ci si prospetta una cruda e desolante scelta morale per il futuro.

      D’ora in poi, il numero dei migranti non può che aumentare. I cambiamenti climatici saranno determinanti. La scelta di non respingerli non sarà certamente gratis: non c’è modo di condividere le nostre risorse con altri senza sostenere dei costi. Ma se non lo facciamo, scegliamo consapevolmente i naufragi, gli annegamenti, i campi di detenzione, scegliamo di destinare queste persone ad una vita da schiavi in zone di guerra. Scegliamo l’ambiente ostile. Scegliamo di “difendere il nostro stile di vita” semplicemente accettando di vivere a fianco di una popolazione sempre in aumento fatta di rifugiati senza patria, ammassati in baracche di lamiera e depositi soffocanti, sfiniti fino alla disperazione.

      Ma c’è un costo che, alla fine, giudicheremo troppo alto da pagare? Per il momento, sembra di no: ma, … cosa siamo diventati?

      https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/luso-dei-droni-per-guardare-i-migranti-che-affogano-m

    • Grèce : le gouvernement durcit nettement sa position et implique l’armée à la gestion de flux migratoire en Mer Egée

      Après deux conférences intergouvernementales ce we., le gouvernement Mitsotakis a décidé la participation active de l’Armée et des Forces Navales dans des opérations de dissuasion en Mer Egée. En même temps il a décidé de poursuivre les opérations de ’désengorgement’ des îlses, de renfoncer les forces de garde-côte en effectifs et en navires, et de pousser plus loin la coopération avec Frontex et les forces de l’Otan qui opèrent déjà dans la région.

      Le durcissement net de la politique gouvernementale se traduit aussi par le retour en force d’un discours ouvertement xénophobe. Le vice-président du gouvernement grec, Adonis Géorgiadis, connu pour ses positions à l’’extrême-droite de l’échiquier politique, a déclaré que parmi les nouveaux arrivants, il y aurait très peu de réfugiés, la plupart seraient des ‘clandestins’ et il n’a pas manqué de qualifier les flux d’ ‘invasion’.

      source – en grec - Efimerida tôn Syntaktôn : https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/kybernisi/211786_kybernisi-sklirainei-ti-stasi-tis-sto-prosfygiko

      Il va de soi que cette militarisation de la gestion migratoire laisse craindre le pire dans la mesure où le but évident de l’implication de l’armée ne saurait être que la systématisation des opérations de push-back en pleine mer, ce qui est non seulement illégal mais ouvertement criminel.

      Reçu de Vicky Skoumbi via la mailing-list Migreurop, 23.09.2019

  • Aerei da pattugliamento e #radar. Ecco il piano segreto anti-sbarchi

    Si delinea la strategia del governo per dare supporto alle Guardie costiere di Libia e Tunisia.
    La Marina militare da sola non riesce a tenere sotto controllo il Mediterraneo e perciò si ricorrerà anche all’Aeronautica. Oltre le navi che già presidiano il mare a sud della Sicilia, saranno schierati aerei-radar, droni e aerei da pattugliamento. L’obiettivo sono i soliti barconi e barchini che partono da Libia e Tunisia. Questo il piano segreto di Matteo Salvini, condiviso dall’intero governo, per frenare le partenze dei clandestini e aiutare in maniera sostanziale le due Guardie costiere, quella libica e quella tunisina, le sole che possono operare nelle rispettive acque territoriali, ma non hanno una tecnologia all’altezza, occorre un salto di qualità. E a questo ci penseranno gli italiani con una rete di osservazione dal mare e dal cielo.

    https://www.lastampa.it/topnews/primo-piano/2019/07/09/news/aerei-da-pattugliamento-e-radar-nbsp-ecco-il-piano-segreto-anti-sbarchi-1.3
    #externalisation #asile #migrations #frontières #réfugiés #avions #miltiarisation_des_frontières #Méditerranée #Italie #Libye #gardes-côtes_libyens #gardes-côtes_tunisiens #Tunisie

    –----

    Ajouté à ces métalistes :
    1. Externalisation des contrôles frontaliers en #Libye :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/765324
    2. L’externalisation en #Tunisie (accords avec l’Italie notamment) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765330

    • Commentaire de Sara Prestianni, reçu par email via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      A completer la proposition des 10 motovedette à offrir à la Libye, circulent aujourd’hui autre propositions qui ont été présenté par la presse comme “le secret contre les débarquements” : remplir le ciel de la Méditerranée avec des avion-radar, drones et avions de patrouilles pour aider les Gardes Cotes Libyens Tunisiens pour que ils puissent rejoindre les migrants en mer avant des ong afin que les migrants soient ramenés en Tunisie et Libye et pas en Italie. L’objectif déclaré est que tout bateau soit bloqué avant que il ne rentre en eaux internationales et encore moins nationales italiens.

      Puisque la Marine ne suffirait pas à “garder sous contrôle la mer Méditerranée” le Gouvernement fait appelle donc appelle aussi à l’aéronautique militaire. Seront mis à disposition les avions Atr42 pour le patrouilles maritimes, les drones Predator, les avions radar G550 CAEW. L’ensemble des moyens aériens devront communiquer aux MRCC de compétence (qui dans la tete du Gouvernement sont celui libyen et tunisien”) pour que ils puissent intervenir.
      Selon le Ministre de l’Interieur Italien, Tunisie et Libye ne sont pas suffisamment équipées, elles n’ont pas de technologie à l’hauteur. Technologie qui sera donc fourni par l’Italie.

      Cela explique la grande satisfaction exprimée par Salvini à l’annonce de l’opération de interception mené par les Gardes Cotes Tunisiennes au large de Kerkennah. Mais dans son discours ne manque pas de les accuser “En Tunisie il y a des institutions libres, je ne comprends pas pourquoi ils ne contrôlent par leur frontières” déclare Salvini, ou encore “Puisque en Tunisie il y a un parlement et un Gouvernement qui reçoivent des milliers de euro par l’Europe, il faut que chacun faisse sa part”

      La Ministre de la Defense, Trenta, a donné son feu vert à ce qui a été définis “augmentation de la capacité de surveillance, repérage et intelligence”

      https://www.lastampa.it/topnews/primo-piano/2019/07/09/news/aerei-da-pattugliamento-e-radar-nbsp-ecco-il-piano-segreto-anti-sbarchi-1.3

      Face à un nombre très faible de arrivé (3000 en 6 mois), le constat du contexte libyen qui ne peut être considéré un port sure, la Tunisie non plus, la seule préoccupation du Gouvernement italien semble être celle de “sécher dans le temps” les ong, qui respectent le droit maritime ramèneraient les migrants dans un port sure (donc européen).

      Semblent bien loin le temps que l’Italie utilisait des forces militaires pour une mission de sauvetage, comme a été le cas pour Mare Nostrum en 2014 ….

    • Libia, festa della Marina: l’Italia consegna dieci nuove #motovedette

      Sabato scorso a Tripoli, nella base di #Sitta. Promesse dall’ex ministro Salvini a luglio scorso, i libici ne prendono possesso proprio nel giorno della scadenza del Memorandum

      La Marina libica ha festeggiato il 57esimo anniversario della sua fondazione prendendo possesso delle dieci nuove piccole motovedette fornite dall’Italia. La cerimonia e’ avvenuta nella base di Abu Sitta a Tripoli sabato scorso, il 2 novembre, proprio il giorno in cui scadeva il contestato Memorandum Italia-Libia che il governo italiano ha scelto di rinnovare per j prossimi tre anni chiedendo delle modifiche a garanzia del rispetto dei diritti umani delle migliaia di migranti intercettati dalla guardia costiera libica e riportati nei centri di detenzione in cui vengono tenuti in condizioni disumane e sottoposti ad ogni tipo di violenze.

      La consegna delle motovedette che va cosi’ ad arricchire la flotta della Guardia costiera fornita e addestrata dall’Italia era stata promessa e annunciata per la fine dell’estate dall’ex ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini in uno degli ultimi comitati nazionale ordine e sicurezza da lui presieduto. Negli ultimi due anni sono stati quasi 40.000 i migranti intercettati e riportati indietro dai libici con interventi nella zona Sar sotto il controllo di Tripoli ma che, dalle indagini dei pm di Agrigento, risulta di fatto gestita dalla Marina italiana. Le foto delle dieci nuove motovedette consegnate durante la cerimonia sono state diffuse dalla Lybian navy e rilanciate dal sito di osservazione Migrant Rescue watch

      Ieri il ministro degli Esteri libico Mohamed Taher Siala ha ricevuto l’ambasciatore italiano Giuseppe Buccino Grimaldi, latore della nota verbale con cui l’Italia ha chiesto l’insediamento del Comitato italo-libico presieduto dai ministri di Interno ed Esteri di entrambi i Paesi, e ha confermato che la Libia esaminera’ gli emendamenti proposti dall’Italia e «decidera’ se approvarli o meno in linea con gli interessi supremi del governo e del popolo libico». Sulle modifiche al Memorandum il ministro dell’Interno Luciana Lamorgese riferira’ alla Camera mercoledi pomeriggio.

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/11/04/news/libia_festa_della_marina_l_italia_consegna_dieci_nuove_motovedette-240197

  • La Chine choisit les voitures à hydrogène Etienne Henri - 18 juin 2019 - opportunites-technos
    https://opportunites-technos.com/la-chine-choisit-les-voitures-a-hydrogene

    Nous avons vu hier que Pékin a porté un coup dur à l’industrie automobile, constructeurs chinois en tête, en réduisant drastiquement (jusqu’à 67 %) les subventions accordées aux particuliers pour l’achat d’un véhicule électrique à batterie.

    Le timing de cette annonce peut rendre perplexe alors que les constructeurs locaux ont fait état pour la première fois d’un recul des ventes en 2018 – une première depuis 1990. La surprise a été totale pour les analystes occidentaux habitués aux politiques de relance contracycliques.

    Pourquoi Pékin met-elle ainsi les bâtons dans les roues de sa propre industrie à un moment où la croissance de la demande intérieure marque le pas ? Tout simplement pour obliger les acteurs de la filière à rationaliser leurs pratiques et se préparer à l’après lithium.

    Vers une vraie concurrence
    Des années de subventions massives ont, certes, permis de faire de la Chine le premier marché mondial pour les véhicules électriques, mais elles ont également empêché l’émergence d’une saine concurrence.

    En coupant le robinet des subventions, Pékin force les constructeurs à se battre sur les prix et à différencier leurs offres. Il ne fait nul doute que, parmi les 486 constructeurs de voitures électriques homologués au dernier recensement en Chine, nombre d’entre eux seront rachetés ou disparaîtront à court terme.

    Avec la fin programmée des subventions dès l’année prochaine (selon le South China Morning Post), les constructeurs n’ont plus que quelques mois pour rendre la commercialisation de leurs modèles au lithium rentable.

    L’hydrogène en ligne de mire
    Ne pensez pas que la Chine abandonne pour autant son habituel dirigisme pour convertir son économie au libéralisme débridé. Les subventions existent encore, elles iront toutefois vers un mode de stockage d’énergie censé remplacer les batteries au lithium : l’hydrogène.

    Selon les autorités, ce basculement des subventions aurait été décidé l’année dernière par le premier ministre Li Keqiang lors d’une visite de Toyota au Japon, durant laquelle il aurait vu un démonstrateur de véhicule à hydrogène capable de parcourir 650 km entre deux recharges.

    Mi-avril, le journal d’Etat China Daily apportait plus d’informations sur les objectifs du gouvernement : 5 000 véhicules à hydrogène en circulation l’année prochaine, 50 000 en 2025, et un million en 2030.

    Un pari à prendre au sérieux
    Les politiques volontaristes peuvent faire sourire sur le Vieux Continent, où les objectifs industriels (que ce soit à l’échelle de l’Hexagone ou de l’Europe) sont systématiquement manqués.

    Il suffit cependant de regarder l’évolution des ventes chinoises de véhicules électriques à batterie (de 200 000 en 2015 à plus d’un million en 2018) pour constater à quel point le marché intérieur répond aux subventions étatiques.

    Aujourd’hui, les spécialistes s’accordent à dire que l’essor des véhicules à hydrogène est gêné, en Occident, par les questions de sécurité et par l’absence d’un réseau de distribution efficace. Ces deux sujets pouvant facilement être écartés dans le cadre d’une politique volontariste, il est tout à fait possible que Pékin parvienne à ses fins et fasse rouler son million de véhicules d’ici une grosse dizaine d’années.

    L’hydrogène sera-t-elle la 5G de l’automobile ?
    Un déploiement massif de véhicules à hydrogène dans l’empire du Milieu pourrait s’avérer très dangereux pour les constructeurs occidentaux. Si la démocratisation des véhicules au lithium s’est avérée relativement indolore, c’est parce que la Chine partait avec un retard technologique conséquent dans la course aux NEV. En finançant massivement la R&D sur la voiture à hydrogène alors que l’Europe et les Etats-Unis se gargarisent encore de la lente adoption des véhicules au lithium,

    Pékin donne à ses champions une longueur d’avance.
    Il est donc tout à fait possible que nous assistions dans quelques années à l’arrivée inattendue de véhicules à hydrogène estampillés BYD ou BAIC chez nos concessionnaires. Rappelons-nous à quel point la Prius de Toyota avait ridiculisé les modèles électriques français lors de sa commercialisation en France !

    Plus que l’automobile particulière, c’est toute l’industrie du transport qui pourrait être bouleversée par le développement d’une filière hydrogène rentable. Le transport par camion pourrait enfin adopter une motorisation propre sans devoir sacrifier à l’autonomie (batterie). Plus ambitieux encore : le transport aérien, aujourd’hui impossible à convertir à la propulsion électrique du fait de la trop faible densité énergétique des batteries au lithium, pourrait grâce à l’hydrogène tourner définitivement le dos au kérosène et régler ainsi enfin la question de son empreinte carbone.

    #Chine #subventions #voiture_à_hydrogène #énergie #batteries #environnement #automobiles #camions #avions #Toyota

  • Le trafic aérien émet 10% des gaz à effets de serre en Suisse Pierre-Etienne Joye/pym - 17 Juin 2019 - RTS
    https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10511640-le-trafic-aerien-emet-10-des-gaz-a-effets-de-serre-en-suisse.html

    Ce lundi s’ouvre le 53e salon aéronautique du Bourget, en France, sur fond de croissance du trafic aérien et de questions sur l’urgence écologique liée à l’impact de l’aviation civile sur l’environnement. Le problème concerne bien sûr aussi la Suisse.
    Si le trafic des avions est à l’origine de 2 à 3% des émissions des gaz à effet de serre dans l’Union européenne, la proportion grimpe jusqu’à 10% pour la Suisse.

    Les incitations actuelles tendent vers l’abandon de l’avion pour d’autres moyens de transport comme le train, mais pour le spécialiste de l’aéronautique Michel Polacco, le problème n’est pas résolu : « S’il y a moins de passagers dans l’avion, quelque part la pollution par passager devient plus importante et par conséquent ça n’est pas un moyen réel de réduire les effets polluants de l’aviation. Il faut une vision beaucoup plus large et beaucoup plus globale ».

    Taxer les billets ?
    En Suisse, la proposition de taxer les billets d’avion est toujours pendante aux Chambres fédérales. Isabelle Chevalley, conseillère nationale vert’libérale vaudoise, commente : « Aujourd’hui, on fait croire aux gens qu’on fera de l’écologie avec des taxes, mais ça n’est pas le cas. Je suis favorable aux trains de nuit, mais pour l’instant il n’y en a pas assez pour proposer des alternatives. L’avion est moins cher parce qu’il ne se voit pas imposer les mêmes règles du jeu que les autres moyens de transport. Et c’est là qu’il est important de mettre des taxes qui soient les mêmes qu’on a sur l’essence et sur les autres modes de transport ».

    Quoi qu’il en soit, l’aéronautique n’échappe plus aux critiques sur son empreinte carbone. Et en Suisse, les habitants prennent toujours l’avion deux fois plus souvent en moyenne qu’en France, en Allemagne, en Autriche ou en Italie.

    #avion #avions #transport_aérien #pollution #environnement #santé #climat #pollutions

  • Allemagne : des pilotes empêchent les vols de renvoi de migrant·es
    5295 personnes ont été expulsées l’année dernière via les aéroports de la La Rhénanie-du-Nord–Westphalie. 240 expulsions ont échoué parce que les compagnies aériennes ou les pilotes ont refusé de le faire.

    Widerstand gegen Abschiebungen in NRW.
    Piloten verhindern Abschiebeflüge

    2018 sind an nordrhein-westfälischen Flughäfen rund 240 Abschiebungen verhindert worden. Meistens durch den Widerstand von Piloten oder Fluggesellschaften.
    DÜSSELDORF dpa/lnw | Über Flughäfen in Nordrhein-Westfalen wurden im vergangenen Jahr 5295 Menschen abgeschoben. Rund 240 geplante Rückführungen auf dem Luftweg scheiterten in NRW – meistens wegen Widerstands durch Fluggesellschaften oder die jeweiligen Piloten. Das geht aus der Antwort der Bundesregierung auf eine Kleine Anfrage der Linke-Fraktion im Bundestag hervor.

    Bundesweit wurden demnach 2018 deutschlandweit 21.059 Menschen über den Luftweg abgeschoben. 5.008 davon vom Flughafen Düsseldorf aus, 285 über Köln/Bonn, zwei Personen wurden über Dortmund ausgeflogen.

    169 Mal scheiterten Abschiebungen am Flughafen Düsseldorf, weil sich Fluggesellschaft oder der Pilot weigerten, die Personen mitzunehmen. In Köln passierte das sechsmal. Dort wiederum leisteten 30 Menschen so heftigen Widerstand, dass sie nicht abgeschoben werden konnten.

    In Düsseldorf scheiterten acht Abschiebungen an „Widerstandshandlungen“, so die Bundesregierung. In 28 Fällen mussten in Düsseldorf Abschiebungen wegen medizinischer Gründe“ abgebrochen werden, zweimal in Köln.

    Insgesamt hat das Land NRW im vergangenen Jahr 6.603 Menschen abgeschoben. Laut einem Bericht des Flüchtlingsministeriums waren das 5 Prozent mehr als im Jahr zuvor.

    http://www.taz.de/Widerstand-gegen-Abschiebungen-in-NRW/!5577565

    #politiques_migratoires #reconduction #désobéissance #pilotes #Allemagne

  • Indignés par les conditions d’expulsion de sans-papiers, des passagers d’Air France devant la justice - Bondy Blog
    https://www.bondyblog.fr/reportages/bobigny-des-passagers-juges-pour-avoir-proteste-contre-lexpulsion-de-sans-

    Les procès s’enchaînent. Celui de Caroline est directement suivi par le procès de Jean-Luc* et Armand* qui s’avancent à leur tour à la barre. Ils ne se connaissaient pas avant d’embarquer dans le même avion Air France à destination de Dakar, le 31 décembre 2017. Pour leur avocat, Maître Teffo, ces affaires sont liées, il décrit un « mécanisme » : « La personne reconduite à la frontière apparaît, un tissu dans la bouche, un casque sur la tête, les pieds et mains liés, elle est bâillonnée, hurle et se débat, les gens vont réagir et l’administration va choisir des personnes au hasard dans le but de frapper les esprits, et de leur dire : vous ne pouvez plus vous indigner dans ce pays. ».

    Les similitudes entre les deux affaires sont effectivement déroutantes. Tous les trois ont été expulsés de leur vol à cause de leurs protestations. A bord du Paris-Erevan, Caroline interroge les policiers sur l’homme, bâillonné et casqué, qui se débat dans l’avion, un policier affirme qu’il a violé une mineure. Cette affirmation sera par la suite contredite par le dossier de l’homme en question, auquel Me Marcus a eu accès. Comme Caroline l’imaginait dès lors, il est reconduit en Arménie pour sa « situation irrégulière » mais n’a jamais été condamné.

    De la même façon, dans le vol Paris-Dakar, l’homme, maintenu de force sur son siège, est présenté comme « un dangereux criminel » aux passagers, qui ont pour consigne de rester silencieux. La consigne n’a visiblement pas été respectée. Un témoin, qui s’avère être la compagne de Jean-Luc, est appelée à la barre : « Les gens n’ont pas trouvé ça normal, tous les passagers de la cabine se sont levés. » Jean-Luc s’indigne, la tension monte. Sa compagne affirme avoir ensuite été violemment giflée par une policière. Elle perd connaissance et ne peut pas assister à la suite de la scène.

    Ému, Armand se lance face à la juge dans un récit poignant : « Il y avait un homme derrière moi, en chemise molletonnée à carreaux avec un casque, il se débattait, il criait et quand, parfois, il ne faisait plus aucun bruit, il fallait deux neurones pour comprendre qu’il était en train d’être étouffé ! ». En colère, il s’indigne contre un « traitement inhumain », se plaint d’Air France et refuse de prendre cet avion. La même policière de l’escorte lui rétorque : « Eh bien pourquoi vous n’avez pas pris la compagnie de votre pays ? ». C’est la voix chargée d’émotions qu’Armand reprend son récit. « Ça fait mal, affirme-t-il. Est-ce qu’elle savait ce qu’était mon pays ? » Me Teffo, son avocat, souligne devant le tribunal que le dossier comporte également un rapport d’Air France dans lequel une cheffe de cabine dit avoir l’habitude de ce type de vols et conseille aux hôtesses de « ne pas se laisser impressionner par des Sénégalais qui ont la manie de parler fort. »