• La #Bulgarie face à la pénurie de professionnels de #santé | Euronews
    https://fr.euronews.com/2020/01/24/la-bulgarie-face-a-la-penurie-de-professionnels-de-sante

    Devant les Urgences du principal #hôpital de la capitale bulgare, Sofia, des ambulances toutes neuves sont prêtes à partir. L’#Union_Européenne a apporté un soutien massif à la Bulgarie pour améliorer ses #infrastructures médicales. Mais la véritable urgence ici, c’est la #main_d'oeuvre, pas les machines.

    [..,]

    Les médecins et les infirmières bulgares quittent massivement le pays à la recherche d’un meilleur #salaire en #Europe occidentale.

  • Post-democracy : there’s plenty familiar about what is happening in Bulgaria | openDemocracy
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/bulgaria-post-communism-post-democracy

    par Anna Krasteva, une vision de l’évolution depuis la chute du mur en Bulgarie. Très intéressant. Ca recoupe pas mal des choses dites par Gorbatchev dans son dernier livre sur le rôle du néo-libéralisme et des médias dans le retour de l’extrême droite.

    Six months, six years, six decades – this is how Ralf Dahrendorf (1990) summed up, in a remarkably succinct way, the post-democratic transition: creating the institutions of parliamentary democracy, laying the foundations of a market economy, building civil society.

    The future looked clear and bright as a single three-dimensional transformation joining the ‘end of history’. I want to offer a different idea of the three transformations taking place over the last three decades: post-communist, (national) populist, post-democratic.

    Democratic transformation

    “And it should be considered that nothing is more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than to put oneself at the head of introducing new orders,” Machiavelli tells us. What is amazing about post-communist democratization is the exact opposite – how easily the democratic discourse became dominant and how quickly its symbolic-ideological hegemony was established and claimed as an “unparalleled success story.” Democratization was an explicitly formulated and designated political project realized with the consensus and contribution both of elites and citizens.

    National-populist transformation

    “In … its frontal attack on the liberal-democratic order and its protagonists, the radical right becomes a transformative force, and can indeed be said to be transforming the transformation” – this is how Мichael Minkenberg diagnosed the reversal of the democratic transformation. National-populism emerged on the Bulgarian political scene in the form of a democratic paradox: in the 1990s, democracy was fragile, but there were no strong radical far right parties; once democracy was consolidated, radical right-wing parties appeared, such as Ataka in 2005, and immediately achieved success. Thereafter we see a multiplication and diversification of far-right political actors, on the one hand, but a single enduring symbolic cartography on the other: identitarianism, post-secularism and statism. The identitarian pole concentrates on the overproduction of Othering (Roma, immigrants, LGBT, etc.) giving rise to a politics of fear.

    Another aspect of this mainstreaming of rightwing populism is the transformation of civil society into an uncivil society through the media’s aesthetic glorification of extremist “bad guys.” Vigilantes who catch refugees along the borders, leaders of football hooligans, and young people attending torch-lit marches commemorating fascist leaders have become the darlings of the Bulgarian media. Here, two opposing processes interfere with and intensify each other: ordinary extremists are turned into media heroes; media celebrities are transformed into attractive bad guys.

    Post-democratic transformation

    This is based on Colin Crouch’s concept of post-democracy as a process in which the democratic institutions continue to exist but increasingly turn into a hollow shell, as the engine of development and change shifts away from them and the democratic agora, and towards narrow private non-transparent economic-political circles.

    One characteristic manifestation of this third transformation, and a key actor, is the post-democratic party: in it, activists are replaced by lobbyists and campaigns by capital. The post-democratic party maintains close contacts less with the inside circle of its activists than with the “ellipse” of its “rings of firms”. The post-democratic party is an ideal type whose manifestations can be found in a number of parties

    An institutional vacuum has been created and it has been filled by non-public (corruption) regulations. The institutions are inactive, except when they are used for resource distribution or private score-settling among rival clientelistic networks (oligarchic circles). These networks, which include criminals, businessmen, politicians, police officers, judges, prosecutors, public figures and religious persons,[1] create a parallel regulatory order. The centre of power in this type of state is outside its institutions. The informal prevails over the public at all levels and in the private lives of people.

    This “absent” state, in which institutions formally exist but have been emptied of the common interest and captured by narrow private interests, and in which the different branches of government do not control each other but are intertwined in informal networks which have appropriated the true centre of power, is the manifestation par excellence of post-democratic transformation.

    High income inequalities expose the existence of social deficits and imbalances. But abstentionism – both as a protest vote and as self-exclusion from a political process which is perceived as excluding people – is a clear political manifestation of the disengagement of citizens. Since 1990, voter turnout in parliamentary elections has declined both in percentage and absolute numbers: from 1990 to 2017 the total population in Bulgaria declined from 8.7 million to 7 million, while the number of people who voted in parliamentary elections decreased from 6.1 million to 3.4 million.

    Post-democracy is the latest wave of post-communist transformation. It is the result of state capture and the alienation of citizens from the democratic project – socially through inequalities and politically through voter abstentionism. Yet the post-democratic transformation is the most invisible because it does not propose a new political project, but leaches away from democracy attractiveness, content, a horizon, a “metaphysic of hope”.

    Could the citizens who have constituted themselves as active and engaged citizens in the post-communist period ever succeed in reversing the tendency of erosion of democratization and in opening up a horizon for a fourth, positive, transformation? This remains to be seen.

    #Post_démocratie #Anna_Krasteva #Post_communisme #Bulgarie #Médias #Extrême_droite

  • L’UE veut sophistiquer la surveillance de ses frontières boisées…

    La Commission Européenne veut améliorer la détection des passages à ses frontières densément boisées, difficiles à surveiller par des patrouilles.
    Le projet de recherche sur la sécurité FOLDOUT (through FOliage Detection in the inner and OUTermost regions of the EU) doit tester une combinaison de différentes technologies avec des caméras, des radars, des détecteurs de mouvement, des capteurs électromagnétiques et des microphones.

    Y participent : Autriche, France (Thales), Bulgarie, Finlande, Lituanie, Pologne. Il coute 8 millions d’euros. Les tests commencent en 2021 (frontières bulgaro-turc, puis greco-turc, finlandaise et guyanaise).

    […]
    Die Grenzabschnitte werden zunächst mit konventionellen Systemen überwacht, darunter Kameras, akustische oder Bewegungsdetektoren. Dabei soll etwa „verdächtiger Autoverkehr“ festgestellt werden. Die verschiedenen Sensoren sind in einem gemeinsamen Gehäuse verbaut. Die Behörden wollen sich außerdem die mitgeführten Handys von Geflüchteten zunutze machen. Wird ein Telefon in einer bestimmten Funkzelle festgestellt, erfolgt eine Ortung des Geräts.
    Geostationäre Beobachtung aus 20 Kilometer Höhe
    Anschließend kann eine Kaskade weiterer Maßnahmen in Gang gesetzt werden, darunter die Beobachtung aus dem All und aus der Luft. Dabei sollen auch Radarsatelliten eingesetzt werden, deren Bilder Laub durchdringen können. Werden Personen geortet, können diese mit Drohnen aufgespürt werden. Auch die unbemannten Luftfahrzeuge befördern kleine Radarsensoren oder Wärmebildkameras. Am Ende erfolgt der Zugriff durch die zuständige Grenzpolizei.
    FOLDOUT könnte auch zur dauerhaften Überwachung einer bestimmten Region genutzt werden. Dabei würde die Überwachungstechnik an „stratosphärische Plattformen“ montiert, wie sie von einigen Rüstungsfirmen derzeit entwickelt werden. Die geostationären Anlagen fliegen in rund 20 Kilometer Höhe und bieten daher eine deutlich höhere Auflösung als die Erdbeobachtung per Satellit. Der an FOLDOUT beteiligte Konzern Thales vermarktet ein solches System unter dem Namen „Stratobus“.
    […]

    https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Grenze-zur-Tuerkei-EU-Kommission-will-Gefluechtete-mit-Laubdurchdringung-aufsp
    https://foldout.eu

    #Union_Européenne #frontière #forteresse #surveillance #FOLDOUT #circulation

  • Après les #milices qui surveillent les #frontières en #Hongrie, #Bulgarie, #République_Tchèque :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/719995

    ... voici le même type de groupes en #Slovénie...
    Vigilantes in Slovenia patrol borders to keep out migrants

    Blaz Zidar has a mission: patrol along a razor-wire fence on Slovenia’s border with Croatia, catch migrants trying to climb over, hand them to police and make sure they are swiftly sent out of the country.

    The 47-year-old former Slovenian army soldier, dressed in camouflage trousers with a long knife hanging from his belt, is one of the vigilantes who call themselves “home guards” — a mushrooming anti-migrant movement that was until recently unthinkable in the traditionally liberal Alpine state. The name of the self-styled group evokes memories of the militia that sided with fascists during World War II.

    “I would prefer to enjoy my retirement peacefully, but security reasons are preventing this,” Zidar said as he embarked on yet another of his daily foot patrols together with his wife near their home village of Radovica nestled idyllically among vineyards and lush green forested hills.

    Zidar complained that he had to act because Slovenian police aren’t doing their job of guarding the borders from the migrant flow which peaked in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, fleeing wars and poverty, crossed from Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Macedonia via Hungary or Croatia and Slovenia toward more prosperous Western European states.

    Zidar said that his six children often join them in the border monitoring mission “because they have to learn how to protect their nation from intruders.”

    Slovenia’s volunteer guards illustrate strong anti-migrant sentiments not only in the small European Union nation of 2 million people, but also across central and eastern Europe which is a doorway into Western Europe for migrants and where countries such as Hungary have faced criticism for open anti-migrant policies. Similar right-wing guards that frequently attacked migrants crossing the borders previously openly operated in Hungary and Bulgaria.

    Police in Croatia — an EU member state that is still not part of the borderless EU travel zone — routinely face accusations of pushbacks and violence against migrants trying to come in from Bosnia. In Slovenia, the authorities are putting up additional fences on the border with Croatia after Italy’s former hard-line interior minister, Matteo Salvini, threatened “physical barriers” would be built between Slovenia and Italy if the migrant flow wasn’t completely stopped.

    The fiery anti-migrant rhetoric by Salvini and Hungarian President Victor Orban, who was the first to order fences on Hungary’s border with Serbia at the start of the migrant crisis, have resonated among some in Slovenia, an exceptionally calm, nature-loving country.

    Miha Kovac, a Slovenian political analyst who is a professor at the University of Ljubljana, described the anti-migrant guards as “guys with big beer bellies who don’t have much of an education, who didn’t have much of a career, who don’t know what to do with themselves in the contemporary world.

    “They find their meaning in this kind of movement and this kind of hatred toward migrants.”

    Kovac said that in the short run, the right-wing groups represent no real danger to the tiny EU nation. But if the European migrant crisis continues “this kind of movement might become more aggressive.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zte9nDFcACY

    “Slovenia is a country of 2 million and if you would become a kind of immigrant pocket with the population of ... 20, 30, 40, 50,000 immigrants, this could cause quite significant problems,” Kovac said.

    Slovenian authorities don’t seem to mind the self-styled guards patrolling the country’s borders, as long as they don’t do anything against the law.

    “The self-organization of individuals does not in any way imply mistrust of police work,” said France Bozicnik, the head of criminal police at a police station near the border. “It’s just the opposite.”

    “People call us on the phone every day and give us information about suspicious vehicles and suspicious persons, and we sincerely thank them for this information,” he said. “They are welcome to continue with this reporting.”

    Nevertheless, the images of masked men in military uniforms that appeared about a year ago have shocked many in Slovenia, the birthplace of U.S. first lady Melania Trump. The largest volunteer group called the Stajerska Garda was filmed taking an oath to secure public order in the country.

    The group commander, Andrej Sisko, said his goal is “to train people to defend their country and help the military and police at a time of massive migrations from the African and Asian states, mostly Muslims.”


    Sisko, who spent six months in prison for his paramilitary activities, insisted that his guards don’t carry real weapons or do anything illegal.

    “People are mostly supporting us, they are stopping and congratulating us on the streets,” Sisko said in an interview with The Associated Press as four of his men in camouflage uniforms, wearing genuine-looking mock guns, stood watch at his house in the suburb of the northern Slovenian town of #Maribor.

    With the continuing migrant flow in the region, human rights groups have accused authorities in Slovenia, Serbia, Greece, Hungary and particularly Croatia of illegal and forced pushbacks from their borders.

    Witnesses cited by the Border Violence Monitoring Network described Croatian police officers at the border with Bosnia burning clothes, sleeping bags, backpacks and tents in addition to targeting other possessions such as cellphones, cash and personal documents. Croatian officials have repeatedly denied the claims.

    “The police first attacked by shooting up in the air, and then they ordered us to lay down,” said Shabbir Ahmed Mian from Pakistan, adding that after police body searches they “pushed” the group of 15 that included women, children and the elderly into a small van that dumped them back to Bosnia.

    “We couldn’t breathe, there was no oxygen,” he said.

    https://www.apnews.com/57424e6bf60046e594b4c052bac86b6c

    #Stajerska_Garda #Andrey_Sisko
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #xénophobie #racisme #patrouilles #chasse_aux_migrants #anti-réfugiés #milices #milices_privées #extrême_droite #néo-nazis

    ping @reka @isskein @marty

    • Nouvelle reçu via le rapport « Border violence monitoring network - Balkan Region » de septembre 2019 (p. 13 et segg.) :
      https://www.borderviolence.eu/balkan-region-report-september-2019

      Extrait :

      SloveniaVigilante groups patrol the Slovenian border with CroatiaOn September 17th the Associated Press reported (https://www.apnews.com/57424e6bf60046e594b4c052bac86b6c) on the alarming activities of a Slovenian para-military group called “#Stajerska_Varda”, operating along the border with Croatia. Members of the group are reportedly taking part in vigilante activities, apprehending people-in-transit who try to cross the border, and calling the police to push them back. Until now the groups’ members have not been observed carrying out any violent actions, but their rise in numbers and presence on the border is deeply concerning. A video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2KOSTXp4fA

      ) from October 2018 shows a large number of armed people taking an oath nearMaribor, stating their intent to take border security into their own hands.

      Andrey Sisko, the leader of the far-right group, confirmed that at that time the militia had existed for longer than a year. Sisko himself was arrested and detained (https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/3328-militia-leader-jailed-for-trying-to-subvert-the-constituti) for six months with the charge of “trying to subvert the constitutional order”. He was released in March. The open activities of far-right groups at the border are a telling development, not only for pressure on transit conditions, but also the growth in nationalist logic pervading Slovenia today. Stajerska Varda have stepped into the political void opened up by centre and right-wing politicians who have stoked domestic opinion against people-in-transit. While extreme right activists frame their role as a necessary defense, their actual ideology is explicitly aggressive. As shown in a report (https://eeradicalization.com/the-militarization-of-slovenian-far-right-extremism) by European Eye on radicalization, Stajerska Varda has the nationalist ideas of “Greater Slovenjia” (https://eeradicalization.com/the-militarization-of-slovenian-far-right-extremism) as a reference point, and has inserted itself in a context of growing militarization as part of Slovenia’s right.

      Yet media response to this rise in armed groups presented some worrying attitudes towards the issue. Namely the views of Miha Kovac, a political analyst interviewed by AP for their report, is dangerous in two senses. Kovac dismisses radical groups as “guys with big beer bellies [...] who don’t know what to do with themselves”, and even goes on to allege that the root cause of facism is the presence of migrants in Slovenia. Marking out people-in-transit as instigators falls into a traditional cycle of victim blaming, a route which absolves the role of fear mongering party politics in abetting radicalization.
      As shown by right wing leaders around Europe, such as Matteo Salvini and Victor Orban, open praise for and facilitation of radical groups is an explicit tactic used to build a right wing consensus on the ground. The example of vigilantes operating in Hungaryas early as 2015, suggests that the development of state borders and growth of the extra-parliamentary right go hand in hand. These two strands are evidently complicit in Slovenia, seen especially in the silence at the party and state levels in regards to a self publicized military juntaoperating on state soil. September’s revelations again highlight the liminal space between conservative migration politics and paramilitary fascism. The existence of these activities call into direct question the responsibilities of the Slovenian state, and are a concerning augmentation of the current institutional pushback framework.

      https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/September-2019-Report-1.pdf

    • Patriot games: Slovenian paramilitaries face down migrant ’threat’ on border

      Dressed in camouflage and armed with air rifles, Slovenian paramilitaries moves in formation through woods a stone’s throw from Croatia, patrolling a border zone where the group’s leader says illegal migration is rife.

      The more than 50-strong group, some of whom mask their faces with balaclavas and which includes a handful of women, is led by Andrej Sisko, who also heads Gibanje Zedinjena Slovenija, a fringe nationalist party that has so far failed to win seats in parliament.

      He believes authorities are failing in their duty to protect Slovenia against what he views as the migrant threat, and founded Stajerska and Krajnska Varda (Stajerska and Krajnska Guard) to fill that gap.

      Members of both organistions were participating in the patrol when Reuters TV met them.

      “It is a duty of all of us to ensure security in our own country,” he said. “If state bodies who are paid for that cannot or do not want to ensure security we can help ensure it, that is what we do.”

      Anti-migrant sentiment in Slovenia and other ex-Communist states has risen sharply since 2015, when eastern Europe bore the initial brunt of a refugee crisis.

      Much of the region has since then resisted attempts by EU authorities in Brussels to enforce a continent-wide quota system for new arrivals, which Slovenia has however signed up for.

      According to Slovenian police, numbers of migrants crossing illegally from Croatia to Slovenia - where a razor-wire fence has been erected along stretches of the border since 2015 - rose to 11,786 in the first nine months of this year from 6,911 a year earlier.

      Sisko this year served time in jail for forming Stajerska Varda and urging the overthrow of state institutions.

      He says the group, which generally meets in the border zone at weekends, does not intercept migrants - which he emphasises would be against the law - but advertises their presence to security forces.

      Police told Reuters they were monitoring the group’s behaviour and had not detected any recent illegal activities.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-slovenia-paramilitary/patriot-games-slovenian-paramilitaries-face-down-migrant-threat-on-border-i

    • On en parle ici aussi :
      Patrouille de miliciens d’extrême-droite

      « C’est une honte, il y a la police, l’armée, maintenant cette clôture et il y a même une milice ! », fulmine à son tour Katarina Bernad Sterva, directrice de l’association slovène d’aide aux réfugiés, qui se désespère de la situation à la frontière.

      Depuis quelques jours en effet, des #milices en treillis militaires, visages cachés derrière des cagoules noires, patrouillent aussi le long de la rivière #Kolpa. Dirigée par le leader d’extrême-droite, #Andrej_Sisko,cette #milice se veut un « renfort » à l’armée régulière pour « défendre la frontière » et intercepter les migrants. « Nous sommes le point d’entrée de l’espace Schengen », se justifie Andrej Sisko. « Nous voulons faire passer un message. Nous voulons dire aux étrangers de rester chez eux. La clôture est fragile, elle ne permet pas de stopper les migrants alors nous venons contrôler les abords de la rivière nous-mêmes ».

      La milice d’Andrej Sisko n’a aucun mandat légal. Et visiblement, les villageois s’expliquent mal leur présence.

      Si certains rient à leur passage - « C’est le carnaval quand ils sont là », entend-t-on ici et là dans les villages frontaliers – d’autres comme Katarina Bernad Sterva regarde cette armée parallèle avec une inquiétude grandissante. « Ce qui m’effraie, c’est qu’ils existent. Publiquement, le gouvernement a condamné leurs actions, mais, dans les faits, les autorités ne font rien. Ces hommes sont fous, nous nous attendions à une réaction forte du gouvernement, comme par exemple l’annonce de la dissolution de ces patrouilles ».

      Interrogée par InfoMigrants, la police reste muette sur le sujet. « Je n’ai rien à dire sur ces hommes. Ils n’ont pas le soutien de la police », déclare simplement Vicjem Toskan, l’un des commandants en chef de la police de Koper, à l’ouest du pays.

      Ce soir-là, à Kostel, les amis du café s’interrogent surtout sur le sort réservé aux migrants interceptés par cette milice d’extrême-droite. « On a déjà la police et l’armée pour intercepter les migrants. On a une clôture pour les empêcher de continuer leur route. Eux, qu’est-ce qui vont leur faire, la nuit, dans la montagne ? », s’inquiète Rudy. « Ils portent des masques, ils marchent dans la forêt. J’ai plus peur d’eux que des immigrés qui traversent la rivière », chuchote à son tour, une jeune fille en bout de table. « Si j’étais migrante, je n’aimerais vraiment pas tomber sur eux ».

      https://seenthis.net/messages/791703#message811227

  • ‘Everybody hates us’: on Sofia’s streets, Roma face racism every day

    After racism marred the football, Romany people tell of the abuse they suffer and of anti-Gypsy campaigns at the highest levels

    A wry smile crept across Steffan Stefanov’s face as he scanned the internet, digesting news of England’s now notorious football match against Bulgaria. It wasn’t that he was belittling the racist abuse that was directed against the black English players, but rather the use of two words littering media reports about it.

    “Bulgaria and racism,” he proclaimed. “The two go hand-in-hand. It’s our reality, we live it every day. I’m sorry for the England players who were targeted but, in truth, this was pretty minor for us.”

    Twenty four hours after the England team and their fans departed Sofia, it felt disturbing to stroll around the Bulgarian capital in bright autumnal sunshine speaking with Stefanov and other members of the Roma community. There was unanimous agreement among them that the racial abuse on display in the stadium last Monday night was just a snapshot of the vilification they face every day, which blights their lives. Such is their fear that none of them wanted to be photographed.

    A taxi driver by profession, Stefanov, 43, pinches his cheek to indicate his dark complexion as he explains what it is like navigating the streets of the city in which he was born in his bright yellow cab looking for customers.

    “They don’t like this,” he said, pinching my cheek, this time to indicate our shared skin colour. “People stop me, look inside and then shout tsiganin [a pejorative term for Gypsy which is also a synonym for lazy or criminal] or blackie. Go away, we don’t want to get inside your stinking cab. I’ve been attacked, spat at and abused,” he said. “This behaviour against the Roma has become part of our society.”

    Stefanov’s friend, Miroslav Angelo, lived in Plumstead, south-east London, for five years, where he worked in construction. “Being in London was like heaven for me,” he said. “So many people of different races and nobody was bothered about me being Roma.

    “I felt as if a weight had been lifted off me but Bulgaria feels like prison. We’re blamed for everything because everybody hates us.”

    Angelo, 37, revealed that he returned to Bulgaria to look after his elderly parents but dreams of returning to London where he wants to raise his seven-year-old son. Uncertainty over whether he will be able to do this post-Brexit means that his plans are in the balance.

    “There is no future for the Roma in Bulgaria and things are only going to get worse,” he said. “The England players are lucky because they were able to leave. I want to join them because I don’t want my son to be treated like a third-class citizen.”

    The perpetrators of the abuse directed against England players have been identified as members of a group calling itself the Lauta Army, a neo-Nazi hooligan gang that follows Lokomotiv Plovdiv, a team from the country’s second-biggest city. It plays in Bulgaria’s top division in a stadium called Lauta Park. Dressed in black hoodies, the gang gave Nazi salutes and made monkey noises, which prompted Monday’s game to be halted twice, with England players threatening to walk off the pitch at the Vasil Levski Stadium.

    The hooligan gang is well organised and has its own website and runs boxing classes and a gymnasium. It also enjoys connections with other neo-Nazis within European football. Two years ago, it celebrated its 25th anniversary by taking over a Black Sea resort for three days with far-right groups from Italian club Napoli, Spartak Moscow and Bulgarian club Levski Sofia.

    The Lauta Army is just one of many neo-Nazi groups within Bulgarian football who have emerged as the ugly, public face of what the Roma community maintains is visceral intolerance and racism in a country underpinned by elected extreme rightwing politicians.

    While racist abuse of players inside stadiums attracts attention outside Bulgaria, within the country it is the Roma who are the principal targets of thugs in black and men in suits. The Roma community makes up just under 5% of the country’s population of almost 7 million and is its biggest minority group.

    The government of prime minister Boyko Borissov is propped up by a grouping of three small rightwing populist parties known collectively as the “United Patriots”. They are made up of the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria (NFSB), the Bulgarian National Movement and the Attack party.

    Krasimir Karakachanov, head of the Bulgarian National Movement, holds three portfolios – deputy prime minister, minister for defence and minister for public order and security. His “Roma integration strategy,” or “concept for the integration of the unsocialised Gypsy (Roma) ethnicity” to give it its formal name, is due to be presented to the Bulgarian parliament and could soon become law.

    It defines Roma as “asocial Gypsies,” a term used by the Nazis, and calls for limits on the number of children some Roma women can have; the introduction of compulsory “labour education schools” for Roma children and forced work programmes for sections of the community. It also depicts the Roma as “non-native Europeans” left over from the Ottoman empire.

    His party’s manifesto also calls for the creation of “reservations” for Roma based on the model used for Native Americans or Indigenous Australians, claiming that they could become “tourist attractions”.

    Earlier this year, following violence between Bulgarian Roma and non-Roma, Karakachanov declared: “The truth is that we need to undertake a complete programme for a solution to the Gypsy problem.”

    His predecessor as deputy prime minister Valeri Simeonov described the Roma as “arrogant, presumptuous and ferocious humanoids”. He was also chair of Bulgaria’s National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration Issues at the time.

    Following elections in 2017, which saw the trio of far-right parties emerge as key players in Bulgaria’s government, campaigners claim that hate crimes and rhetoric against the Roma have intensified.

    Incidents include anti-Roma riots; demolition of Roma homes deemed “illegal”; police raids and deaths in custody; and members of the community in rural areas killed while out collecting firewood.

    Zvezdomir Andronov, leader of the Bulgarian National Union, an ultra-right party which is not represented in parliament, was recently a guest on one of the country’s most popular political talk shows, where he said: “Gypsies, Turks, Armenians and Jews are guests in Bulgaria and if they are good guests, they can live peacefully here.”

    Jonathan Lee, spokesman for the European Roma Rights Centre, said: “Unfortunately, racist chanting and offensive gestures from the terraces is not even close to as bad as it gets in Bulgaria. Last Monday night, Europe was confronted with what for most Roma in the country is the everyday. Rising anti-Gypsyism, decline of the rule of law, and increasingly fascist political rhetoric is nothing new – it just rarely gets such a public stage.”

    Lee added: “This is an EU member state where violent race mobs are the norm, police violence is sudden and unpredictable, punitive demolitions of people’s homes are the appropriate government response, random murders of Romany citizens only a fleeting headline, and the rights and dignity of Romany citizens are routinely denied on a daily basis.”

    The events of Monday night have also exposed the deep fault lines within Bulgarian society, with some of its white citizens viewing things very differently from their Roma counterparts. One local journalist shouted “exaggerated, exaggerated,” as the chairman of England’s Football Association revealed details of the racist abuse during a post-match press conference.

    Another blamed England manager Gareth Southgate for initially raising fears about racism, which he insisted, incited some Bulgarians to respond.

    Sitting in a cafe in Sofia, football fan Robert Cvetanov added: “You cannot say the whole of Bulgaria is racist just because of what a small group of people did in the stadium. There is good and bad in every country.” When asked about the situation of the Roma he replied: “That’s not a race problem, it’s a law and order one.”

    The repercussions of Bulgaria’s encounter with England continue to be felt. Police have so far identified 16 suspects and made 12 arrests for their part in the racial abuse that took place. Uefa, European football’s governing body, has initiated an inquiry and charged Bulgaria with racist behaviour by its fans.

    But for the Roma community there is a far bigger game at play that requires more than just the attention of footballing and legal authorities if they are to take their rightful place within Bulgarian society. “The eyes of the world have been opened,” said Stefanov. “It’s just that most of Bulgaria does not see it and until that happens, nothing will change for the Roma.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/20/bulgaria-sofia-racism-roma-everybody-hates-us-anti-gypsy-abuse
    #Bulgarie #football #racisme #xénophobie #Roms #Sofia #néo-nazis #extrême_droite

    • Dansé, c’est tout aussi bizarre.
      (description de la danse et du rythme dans le (très) court billet plus vidéos)

      Sandansko Horo - Санданско Хоро (Bulgaria) | Folk Dance Musings
      http://folkdancemusings.blogspot.com/2014/07/sandansko-horo-bulgaria.html

      The dance is from Sandanski in Pirin Macedonia.

      Dans l’extrait visible sur la page de recherche gg, je trouve cette phrase que je ne trouve pas dans le billet :

      The dance is also known as Bosarka and the Bulgarian variant is known as Nišavsko Horo.

    • Quant à Bulgarie ou Macédoine, ex-FYROM et depuis peu (12/02/2019) officiellement Macédoine du Nord, des régions appelées Macédoine se trouvent dans trois pays : Macédoine of course, Bulgarie (Macédoine du Pirin) et Grèce…

      Et, pour faire court, la #Macédoine_du_Pirin est la partie de Macédoine en Bulgarie…

      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9bat_autour_du_nom_de_la_Mac%C3%A9doine#Accord_de_Prespa


      Macédoine physique et politique.

      L’aire géographique macédonienne est aujourd’hui divisée entre la Grèce (52,4 %), la république de Macédoine du Nord (35,8 %), la Bulgarie (10,1 %) et, selon les cartes, l’Albanie (1,4 %) et de la Serbie (0,3 %).

      • Macédoine grecque ou Macédoine égéenne (l’une des 9 régions traditionnelles de Grèce), partagée en 3 périphéries (régions administratives) ː
      – Macédoine-Centrale ;
      – Macédoine-Orientale-et-Thrace, qui comprend également la Thrace occidentale ;
      – Macédoine-Occidentale.
      • Macédoine du Vardar : appellation de la partie de la Macédoine qui forme aujourd’hui la Macédoine du Nord.
      • Macédoine du Pirin : partie de la Macédoine située à l’ouest de la ligne de crête de la chaîne de montagne du Pirin et à l’est de la montagne de Vlahina, de part et d’autre de la rivière Strouma. Elle se situe aujourd’hui en Bulgarie.

    • Merci @simplicissimus pour le lien vers les pas de danse. Effectivement faut s’accrocher ! (mais ça donne de bons renseignements sur la façon de faire groover le morceau).

      Effectivement, au vu de tes remarques géographiques, il ne serait pas surprenant que ça vienne du Pirin. Maintenant que tu m’as rappelé ça j’ai été fureter dans mes archives, j’ai d’autres morceaux qui viennent du Pirin et il y a comme qui dirait un parfum commun (sur les fin de phrases en particulier).

      Merci pour tous ces compléments en tout cas.

  • Is NSO Group’s infamous Pegasus spyware being traded through the EU ?
    https://www.accessnow.org/is-nso-groups-infamous-pegasus-spyware-being-traded-through-the-eu

    When sophisticated surveillance systems are sold and used effectively without constraint, it puts civil society, free expression, and our democracies in the crosshairs. The brutal murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi remains a grim reminder of the vulnerability of those speaking out for human rights. In the European Union, there are export controls designed to prevent sales of these kinds of systems to certain countries with troubling human rights records. The question is, how well (...)

    #NSO #Pegasus #spyware #exportation #activisme #sécuritaire #hacking #surveillance #journalisme #web (...)

    ##NovalpinaCapital

  • NCCR | Transferts Dublin : évolution de la #jurisprudence

    Margarite Helena Zoeteweij publie sur le blog du NCCR un article d’analyse juridique portant sur la mise en œuvre des #transferts selon le règlement Dublin III et sur la responsabilité des États ordonnant les renvois. Il y a quelques années, la #Cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l’homme (#CourEDH) avait suspendu les renvois vers la #Grèce (M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece), reconnaissant des défaillances “systémiques” dans l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile et dans les procédures de détermination du besoin de protection. Aujourd’hui, la jurisprudence récente de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne #Jawo v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland élargit et considère que les #défaillances “généralisées” en matière de respect des droits de l’homme dans l’État Dublin engage des obligations pour l’État souhaitant y transférer un demandeur d’asile. L’auteur questionne la pratique suisse de transferts vers la #Bulgarie et l’#Italie qui sont dénoncés par plusieurs ONG en relation avec des violations de droits fondamentaux et d’atteinte à la dignité des personnes.

    https://asile.ch/2019/05/09/nccr-reglement-dublin-les-transferts-ne-peuvent-pas-reposer-sur-une-confiance-

    #Dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #règlement_dublin #renvois #expulsions #CEDH #défaillances_généralisées #Suisse
    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • La #Roumanie et la #Bulgarie ont les routes les plus dangereuses d’Europe

    La Roumanie et la Bulgarie ont les taux de #mortalité sur la route les plus élevés de l’Union européenne. Ce triste record appelle à une modernisation des infrastructures routières et au changement du comportement des conducteurs.


    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/La-Roumanie-et-la-Bulgarie-ont-les-routes-les-plus-dangereuses-d-
    #sécurité_routière #accidents_routiers
    ping @reka

  • Crossing a Red Line: How EU Countries Undermine the Right to Liberty by Expanding the Use of Detention of Asylum Seekers upon Entry

    This week the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, in conjunction with ECRE and a number of European project partners, launched their report “Crossing a Red Line: How EU Countries Undermine the Right to Liberty by Expanding the Use of Detention of Asylum Seekers upon Entry.” By examining four case studies; Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Italy, this research explores how asylum seekers’ rights to liberty are undermined upon entry, with a specific focus on de facto detention.

    “Crossing a Red Line” explains that while there has been a significant decrease in asylum applications in Bulgaria, Hungary and Italy, the use of detention upon entry has been increasing since 2015 and continues to do so. Practises of de facto detention- which indicates the deprivation of an individual’s liberty without the requirement of a detention order- are widespread and specific to country context. Hot spots, transit zones, pre- removal centres, border zones at which migrants have been ‘pushed- back’ and boats- including search and rescue vessels- have all become spaces in which people can be detained. In other cases “protective detention” results in unaccompanied children having their freedom of movement restricted.

    With no procedural guarantees and no opportunity to seek judicial review, the only possibility for release from de facto detention is to leave to another country.

    The Hungarian Helsinki Committee argue that the increasing trend of using of detention measures for asylum seekers upon entry “is motivated by a range of different practical, political, and legal considerations”. In some cases it has been advocated as a mechanism to deal with unprecedented pressure on processing systems, in others it has become an important means to gain political support for governments that frames migration as a security issue. In the case of Greece and Italy, the increased rate of detention of asylum seekers at the border has also been the product of EU- level policy, namely the need to meet the requirements of the EU-Turkey statement and Dublin system.

    The report further questions these motivations; “Why do Member States prefer to use de facto detention despite the existence of a dedicated legal framework? Is it for the purpose of administrative convenience? In order to avoid procedural safeguards? In order to satisfy public appeal and communication needs?

    The report states that there is no evidence that the use of detention reduces the rate of arrivals to the countries in question, rather it serves as a deterrent only so far as pressure is moved from one entry point to the next. In the example of Hungary, the traumatic experience of being detained in ‘transit zones’ contributes to the fact that beneficiaries of international protection frequently leave the country within a few days of their release, to apply for asylum again in another EU country. The use of de facto detention therefore contributes to secondary movements across Europe and is inevitably is counter- productive to refugee integration.

    As ECRE’s previous policy note, “Taking liberties: detention and asylum law reform” found; “The damage caused by detention adds to an already heavy process of adjustment and takes significant time and effort to remedy” (https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Policy-Note-14.pdf).

    Le rapport en pdf:
    https://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/crossing_a_red_line.pdf

    #frontières_extérieures #UE #EU #asile #migrations #détention #rétention #camps #Bulgarie #Grèce #Italie #Hongrie #Fylakio #Evros #base_de_données #database #statistiques #chiffres

  • UK sending Syrians back to countries where they were beaten and abused

    Refugees tell of being held in cages and even tortured in European countries including Hungary and Romania

    Britain is using EU rules to send asylum seekers from Syria and other countries back to eastern European states where they were beaten, incarcerated and abused, the Guardian has learned.

    Migrant rights groups and lawyers say the Home Office is using the rules to send people back to “police brutality, detention and beatings” in several European countries.

    The Guardian has spoken to refugees who were subjected to assaults as they travelled through Europe. The men tell of being held in “cages” in Hungary, waterboarded and handcuffed to beds by detention centre guards in Romania and beaten in Bulgaria.
    Britain is one of worst places in western Europe for asylum seekers
    Read more

    They now face being returned to those countries as, under the so-called Dublin law, asylum seekers are supposed to apply in their first EU country of entry.

    In 2015 more than 80,000 requests were made by EU countries for another government to take back an asylum seeker. The UK made 3,500 of these requests to countries around Europe, including Bulgaria, Romania, Italy and Hungary.

    The Home Office claims it should be entitled to assume that any EU country will treat asylum seekers properly.

    The charity Migrant Voice has collected testimony from several refugees who are fighting removal from the UK to other European countries. Nazek Ramadan, the director of the charity, said the men had been left traumatised by their journey and their subsequent treatment in the UK.

    “We know there are hundreds of Syrians in the UK who have fingerprints in other European countries,” said Ramadan. “Many no longer report to the Home Office because they are afraid of being detained and deported away from their family in the UK. Those who have been forcibly removed often end up destitute.

    “These are people who were abused in their home country, sometimes jailed by the regime there. Then they were imprisoned again in Europe. They feel that they are still living in a war zone, moving from one arrest and detention to another.”

    The law firm Duncan Lewis recently won a key case preventing forced removals back to Hungary because of the risk that people might be forced from there back to their country of origin.

    The firm is also challenging removals to Bulgaria because of what the UN refugee agency has described as “substandard” conditions there. A test case on whether Bulgaria is a safe country to send people back to is due to be heard by the court of appeal in November.

    The situation could get even more complex as an EU ban on sending asylum seekers back to Greece is due to be lifted on Wednesday after a six-year moratorium.

    Krisha Prathepan, of Duncan Lewis, said: “We intend to challenge any resumption of returns to Greece, as that country’s asylum system remains dysfunctional and the risk of refugees being returned from Greece to the very countries in which they faced persecution remains as high as ever.”

    The Home Office says it has no immediate plans to send refugees back to Greece, but is following European guidelines.

    “We have no current plans to resume Dublin returns to Greece,” a spokesperson said, citing among other reasons “the reception conditions in the country”.

    She added: “In April 2016, the high court ruled that transfer to Bulgaria under the Dublin regulation would not breach the European Convention on Human Rights. If there is evidence that Bulgaria is responsible for an asylum application, we will seek to transfer the application.”

    Mohammad Nadi Ismail, 32, Syrian

    Mohammad Nadi Ismail, a former Syrian navy captain, entered Europe via Bulgaria and Hungary, hoping to join his uncle and brother in Britain.

    In Bulgaria he was detained, beaten and humiliated. “They stripped us and made us stand in a row all naked. We had to bend over in a long line. Then they hit us on our private parts with truncheons.

    “They would wake us at night after they had been playing cards and drinking. Then they would come and hit us or kick us with their boots or truncheons.”

    One day he was released and took his chance to leave, walking for days to reach Hungary.

    But in Hungary he was locked up again. “They took us to a courtyard of a big building where there were five or six cages, about 8ft [2.4 metres] square. Most of the people were African. Some of them had been in there for four or five days. Luckily we Syrians were allowed out after one night and I headed for the UK.”

    In the UK Ismail met up with the family he hadn’t seen for three years and applied for asylum immediately.

    Then a letter came, saying his fingerprints had been found in Bulgaria and he would be returned. After a month in detention he now reports every two weeks, waiting and hoping that the UK will let him stay.

    “I will not go back to Bulgaria. I still have hope that I can stay here legally and rebuild my life with my family who have always supported me,” he said.

    ‘Dawoud’, 34, Iranian

    Dawoud (not his real name) was 28 when he fled Iran after his political activities had made him an enemy of the government. His brother and parents made it to the UK and were given refugee status.

    When he was told by border guards that he was in Romania he had no idea what that meant. “I had never even heard of this country,” he said. He was put in a camp where “water dripped through the electrics – we were electrocuted often. Children and families screamed. We lived in fear of the wild dogs who circled the camp, attacking and biting us. We were given no food; we had to go through bins in the town nearby for scraps.”

    He escaped once, to the Netherlands, but was sent back.

    “I experienced several beatings, on all parts of the body. There were people covered in blood and they were refused medical help. They even waterboarded me. I thought I would die.”

    Finally he managed to reach his mother, father and brother in the UK. For two years he has lived in hiding, too scared to apply for asylum for fear of being sent back to Romania. But a few months ago he finally reported to the Home Office. A letter informed him that a request had been made to Romania to take him back.

    Dawoud shakes as he talks about his fear of removal, saying: “When I hear people speak Romanian in the street it brings back my trauma. I once fell to the ground shaking just hearing someone speak. I will kill myself rather than go back.”

    Wael al-Awadi, 36, Syrian

    Wael travelled by sea to Italy and was detained on arrival in Sicily. “They hit us with their fists and sticks in order to make us give our fingerprints. Then they let us go. They gave us nothing, no accommodation, just told us: ‘Go where you like.’ So many Syrians were sleeping in the streets.”

    When he reached the UK he was detained for two months before friends helped him get bail. A year and a half later, when reporting at the Home Office, he was detained again and booked on to a plane to Italy.

    He refused to go and a solicitor got him out on bail. His appeal is due to be heard later this year. “I left Syria to avoid jail and detention and here I have been locked up twice,” he said. “I can’t understand it. Why can’t they look at me with some humanity? I am mentally so tired. My children call me from Syria but I can’t speak to them any more. It is too painful.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/12/the-refugees-uk-wants-to-send-back-to-countries-where-they-were-abused?
    #réfugiés_syriens #UK #Angleterre #Dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Bulgarie #Roumanie #Hongrie #Italie #renvois #expulsions #renvois_Dublin

  • Gli ostacoli al contrasto della violenza sulle donne

    In Europa gli stereotipi sessisti ostacolano la diffusione di efficaci strumenti di contrasto alla violenza di genere. Nel 2018 la ratifica della Convenzione di Istanbul è stata respinta da Bulgaria e Slovacchia. Ma anche dove la ratifica c’è stata, l’applicazione spesso procede a rilento.

    n Lituania una donna vittima di violenza maschile non saprebbe dove andare a stare, nel caso non avesse modo di sottrarsi autonomamente agli abusi subiti per esempio in famiglia. In questo paese non esistono infatti rifugi per l’accoglienza di donne vittime di violenza ed eventuali figli. Questo vuol dire che non vi è nessuno dei posti letto che sarebbero stabiliti dalla Convenzione di Istanbul, che il paese ha firmato nel 2013 ma mai ratificato.

    Nei paesi dell’Unione europea la Lituania è l’unico dove si registra la totale assenza di uno dei servizi considerati basilari per il contrasto alla violenza di genere: la disponibilità di luoghi protetti e accessibili gratuitamente, dove una donna che ha subito violenza può trovare riparo, protezione e assistenza per uscire dalla condizione di vittima. Tuttavia numerosi paesi sono ancora troppo vicini a questo vuoto: in Polonia manca il 99% dei posti letto attesi, nella Repubblica Ceca ne manca il 91%, in Bulgaria il 90%, mentre l’Italia è ferma all’89%.

    È un momento, quello attuale, in cui le politiche di parità e antidiscriminazione, comprese le azioni per il contrasto alla violenza contro le donne, registrano attacchi anche notevoli e azioni organizzate di contrasto. Come quello che comincia a essere noto come “Agenda Europe ”, un piano transnazionale per la restaurazione di una visione conservatrice e religiosa della società, e per il contrasto di politiche antidiscriminatorie, tra cui viene inclusa la tanto paventata “ideologia gender”.
    La situazione nell’est Europa

    La parola “gender” è oggetto del contendere anche in molti paesi dell’Est Europa in cui si sta dibattendo la ratifica o meno della Convenzione di Istanbul. È proprio su questo termine che in Slovacchia la ratifica è stata rigettata e in Bulgaria la Convenzione è stata dichiarata incostituzionale. Anche in Lituania la ratifica risulta impantanata per il rifiuto di accettare l’articolo 3.c della Convenzione, in cui il genere viene definito come un insieme di regole, comportamenti, attività e attributi che una società considera accettabili per uomini e donne. Un passaggio centrale nella Convenzione, indispensabile per mostrare che alla base della violenza spesso agiscono lo squilibrio di potere e i rapporti di forza e sottomissione tra uomini e donne radicati nella società. In altre parole, per indicare che la violenza di genere è perpetrata contro le donne proprio in quanto tali (art. 3.d).

    In totale i paesi che hanno ratificato la Convenzione di Istanbul sono 33, con Croazia, Grecia, Islanda, Lussemburgo e Macedonia che si sono uniti nel 2018. Ma nonostante le ratifiche sottoscritte da molti paesi est europei, in quest’area dell’Unione ci sono stati anche molti contrasti. Campagne di opposizione alla Convenzione sono state organizzate in diversi paesi: in Croazia ci sono state manifestazioni in piazza, in Bulgaria e Slovacchia si è arrivati al rifiuto della ratifica, mentre in Lituania non si riesce a portare avanti la discussione parlamentare.

    In generale nel paesi dell’est Europa si registra una scarsa conoscenza dei servizi rivolti alle donne vittime di violenza, come riporta un sondaggio 2016 di Eurobarometro sulla violenza di genere. Nel sondaggio tra le altre cose emerge che, considerando tutta l’Europa, un intervistato su cinque condivide punti di vista che tendono a colpevolizzare le vittime stesse - “se la sono cercata” è una narrazione che si sente spesso, persino in sede processuale - o ancora l’idea che quella sulla violenza maschile è una ricostruzione spesso esagerata se non inventata. Punti di vista largamente diffusi nell’Est Europa, sottolinea lo stesso sondaggio, così come è diffusa una certa ritrosia a denunciare gli episodi di violenza: nell’Europa orientale le persone sono generalmente propense a considerare la violenza domestica una questione privata che va gestita all’interno della famiglia; ad esempio si trova d’accordo con questa affermazione il 34% dei bulgari che hanno risposto al sondaggio e il 32% dei romeni.

    E ancora in un recente sondaggio nella Repubblica Ceca emerge che il 58% degli intervistat i pensa che lo stupro possa essere in qualche modo giustificabile da atteggiamenti della vittima stessa, come per esempio camminare da sole di notte o vestire in un modo piuttosto che in un altro. Una mentalità che tende a scoraggiare le denunce: secondo le stime, sempre nella Repubblica Ceca solo tra il 5 e l’8% dei casi di violenza finisce per essere riportato alla polizia, e ancora meno sono poi le storie che da lì finiscono in tribunale.
    Le dimensioni del problema

    In realtà però non si conosce ancora la reale dimensione del problema, le statistiche ufficiali sulle donne vittime di violenza sono ancora molto lacunose, e se si guarda a ciò che arriva nei tribunali si entra nel vivo di una mancanza di informazioni che comprende molti aspetti, dalla grande disomogeneità nel modo in cui sono raccolti i dati - per esempio nel conteggio delle violenze stesse o dei femminicidi - fino all’assenza di statistiche complete su esposti, denunce, cause intentate ed effettive condanne. La notevole varietà dei dati esistenti lascia ipotizzare sia differenze metodologiche di raccolta ed elaborazione, sia marcate differenze di mentalità tra i vari paesi per quanto riguarda la concezione stessa di violenza di genere.

    In generale in Europa sul fronte della fiducia delle donne vittime verso le istituzioni non va molto bene, se si pensa che solo una donna su 3 (il 33%) vittima di violenza grave da parte del partner si rivolge alla polizia o a strutture e organizzazioni dedicate. Percentuale che scende al 26% quando l’aggressore non è il proprio partner.

    Anche nei paesi dove l’emancipazione femminile è generalmente considerata più avanzata, la violenza non è affatto scomparsa, anzi. Spesso ha solo cambiato modalità o situazioni in cui si presenta. Un rapporto europeo pubblicato nel 2007 su violenza di genere e indipendenza economica rileva una situazione molto articolata quando si mettono in relazione emancipazione femminile e violenza. L’avere un lavoro fa registrare una lieve diminuzione della violenza subita in casa, ma solo se non ci sono di mezzo dei figli. E se da un lato le donne con livelli avanzati di istruzione risultano un po’ più al riparo da violenza sessuale e violenza da parte del partner, questa condizione espone maggiormente a molestie sessuali. Da notare inoltre che anche il livello di indipendenza economica conta: quando le donne guadagnano di più del partner, si segnala un consistente aumento della violenza da parte del partner; all’opposto quando la donna guadagna meno, risulta più esposta ad abusi psicologici.

    Molto resta ancora da fare, dunque. Non solo per agevolare firme e ratifiche della Convenzione di Istanbul, ma anche per garantire l’effettiva applicazione dei suoi contenuti. Non a caso la Convenzione stessa prevede un’attività di monitoraggio e valutazione ex post, che proprio quest’anno è stata condotta in Italia. Nel rapporto da poco pubblicato dall’associazione “Dire” si legge di numerosi ostacoli che le donne incontrano sia con le forze dell’ordine sia in ambito sanitario “dovuti ancora a scarsa preparazione e formazione sul fenomeno della violenza, ma soprattutto al substrato culturale italiano, caratterizzato da profondi stereotipi sessisti e diseguaglianze tra i generi, oltre che pregiudizi nei confronti delle donne che denunciano situazioni di violenza, cui ancora si tende a non credere”.

    Il rapporto definisce irrisori i fondi stanziati per contrastare la violenza sulle donne: secondo un dato ripreso dalla Corte dei Conti italiana ai centri antiviolenza e alle case rifugio arriverebbero circa 6.000 € annui, una cifra largamente insufficiente per ottenere gli standard di protezione da garantire alle vittime, e tanto più per pianificare azioni di prevenzione e contrasto di più ampio respiro. Risorse di cui il rapporto segnala anche una costante diminuzione negli anni e una distribuzione “a macchia di leopardo”, che si traduce nella presenza di strutture quasi solo al centro nord e una grave carenza strutturale nel sud e nelle isole.

    https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Europa/Gli-ostacoli-al-contrasto-della-violenza-sulle-donne-191542
    #violence_domestique #femmes #genre #violence #protection #convention_d'Istanbul #Bulgarie #Slovaquie #refuge #Europe

  • Russia Wants Bulgarians to Stop Painting Soviet Monuments To Look Like American Superheroes | Earthly Mission
    https://www.earthlymission.com/russia-wants-bulgarians-to-stop-painting-soviet-monuments-to-look-li

    Russia is demanding that Bulgaria try harder to prevent vandalism of Soviet monuments, after yet another monument to Soviet troops in Sofia was spray-painted, ITAR-Tass reported.

    The Russian Embassy in Bulgaria has issued a note demanding that its former Soviet-era ally clean up the monument in Sofia’s Lozenets district, identify and punish those responsible, and take “exhaustive measures” to prevent similar attacks in the future, the news agency reported Monday.

    #russie #bulgarie #mémoire #monuments #marrant

  • En Bulgarie aussi, des manifestants protestent contre la hausse du prix des carburants Ouest France

    À Sofia la capitale, plusieurs dizaines de manifestants ont perturbé la circulation sur les principaux boulevards en scandant « mafia ! » et « démission ! » Dimitar Dilkoff - Crédit AFP

    Des milliers de Bulgares ont bloqué dimanche les principaux axes routiers et les postes frontière entre la Bulgarie et la Turquie et entre la Bulgarie et la Grèce pour protester contre la flambée du prix des carburants dans un contexte de mécontentement dû au faible niveau de vie dans le pays le plus pauvre de l’Union européenne.

    Il n’y a pas qu’en France qu’on se mobilise contre la hausse du prix du carburant. En Bulgarie, des milliers de conducteurs ont bloqué dimanche les principaux axes routiers et les postes frontière entre la Bulgarie et la Turquie et entre la Bulgarie et la Grèce pour protester contre la flambée du prix des carburants.

    Blocage des postes frontière
    Les protestataires ont bloqué pendant plusieurs heures la circulation dans différents endroits sur les autoroutes Trakia et Hemus qui traversent le pays avant d’être dispersés par la gendarmerie, a rapporté la radio publique BNR. Des manifestants ont également bloqué l’autoroute Maritsa qui mène vers les postes frontière de Kapitan Andreevo et Lesovo à la frontière avec la Turquie, et l’accès au poste frontière de Kulata (sud-ouest) avec la Grèce. Des moments de tension ont eu lieu lorsque des manifestants ont réussi à rompre le cordon des gendarmes qui tentaient d’empêcher le blocus.

    Quelque 2 000 gendarmes et policiers avaient été déployés pour maintenir l’ordre.

    Pour le deuxième jour dimanche, des rassemblements ont également eu lieu dans les grandes villes tandis que d’autres sont prévus lundi.

    « Mafia » et « démission »
    À Sofia la capitale, plusieurs dizaines de manifestants ont perturbé la circulation sur les principaux boulevards en scandant « mafia ! » et « démission ! ».

    Les manifestations du week-end contre la hausse du prix des carburants et l’augmentation prévue de la taxe sur les vieux véhicules avaient débuté il y a trois semaines, mais elles ont pris de l’ampleur, les protestataires dénonçant également le faible niveau de vie en Bulgarie, où le pouvoir d’achat atteint à peine la moitié de la moyenne de l’UE.

    #GiletsJaunes #Bulgarie effet #manu

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

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

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

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

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

    COSA PREVEDE L’ACCORDO

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

    LE RAGIONI DI VIENNA

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

    “SEGUIAMO IL LORO ESEMPIO”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Arbour said such concerns were unfounded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Amnesty International criticized Vienna’s stance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

      Ambassadeur actif et décrié

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Un débat particulièrement agressif

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

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

      Ignorance ou mauvaise foi ?

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

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

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

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

      Pas le fruit de bureaucrates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Dispute over UN migration pact fractures Belgian government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #Belgique

    • Le pacte migratoire de l’ONU sème la discorde

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

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

      #Libre_circulation_mondiale

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

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

      Un pacte épouvantail de la #globalisation

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

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

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

      Souveraineté intacte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

      #dessin_de_presse #caricature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Analyse du #cyber_activisme de groupuscules d’extrême droite

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

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

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

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

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

      Que votera le parlement suisse ?

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

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

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

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

  • Gebrauchte Diesel werden zum Exportschlager : Halb Europa kauft Selbstzünder aus Deutschland - WELT
    https://www.welt.de/motor/news/article179688046/Gebrauchte-Diesel-werden-zum-Exportschlager-Halb-Europa-kauft-Selbstzuender-aus


    Pendant la dernière année passée l’Allemagne a exportée 240.000 voitures d’occasion diesel dans les autres pays de l’UE.

    Wie aus einer Auswertung des „Export-/Import-Seismografen“ (ESD/ISD) auf Grundlage von Daten des Statistischen Bundesamtes hervorgeht, sind Exporte gebrauchter Diesel-Pkw innerhalb eines Jahres um rund 20 Prozent auf fast 240.000 Fahrzeuge gestiegen. „Neben den EU-Ländern Kroatien, Slowenien, Bulgarien und Rumänien gehen ältere Dieselfahrzeuge auch in die Ukraine“, sagt Christian Kille vom Institut für Angewandte Logistik der Hochschule Würzburg-Schweinfurt, das den ESD/ISD gemeinsam mit dem Softwarehaus AEB herausgibt. „Offenbar wegen der lockeren Einfuhrbestimmungen und des relativ niedrigen Zollsatzes von 7,3 Prozent für Gebrauchtwagen aus der EU.“ Den größten Boom erlebten die Exporte in die Ukraine, die sich mehr als verdoppelten, gefolgt von Kroatien mit einem Plus von gut 89 Prozent. Die anspruchsvolleren Märkte West-, Mittel und Südeuropas bevorzugen neuere Diesel-Gebrauchtwagen. Starkes Wachstum zeigen hier Spanien (+31%), Österreich (+41%) und Frankreich (+34%). „Für Schnäppchenjäger im Ausland gibt es aktuell eine gute Möglichkeit, günstig an einen Diesel zu kommen“, sagt Kille.

  • #métaliste (qui va être un grand chantier, car il y a plein d’information sur seenthis, qu’il faudrait réorganiser) sur :
    #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #migrations #réfugiés

    Des liens vers des articles généraux sur l’externalisation des frontières de la part de l’ #UE (#EU) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/569305
    https://seenthis.net/messages/390549
    https://seenthis.net/messages/320101

    Ici une tentative (très mal réussie, car évidement, la divergence entre pratiques et les discours à un moment donné, ça se voit !) de l’UE de faire une brochure pour déconstruire les mythes autour de la migration...
    La question de l’externalisation y est abordée dans différentes parties de la brochure :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/765967

    Petit chapitre/encadré sur l’externalisation des frontières dans l’ouvrage « (Dé)passer la frontière » :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/769367

    Les origines de l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers (maritimes) : accord #USA-#Haïti de #1981 :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/768694

    L’externalisation des politiques européennes en matière de migration
    https://seenthis.net/messages/787450

    "#Sous-traitance" de la #politique_migratoire en Afrique : l’Europe a-t-elle les mains propres ?
    https://seenthis.net/messages/789048

    Partners in crime ? The impacts of Europe’s outsourced migration controls on peace, stability and rights :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/794636
    #paix #stabilité #droits #Libye #Niger #Turquie

  • Ardennes : Peste porcine africaine : la filière française s’inquiète

    Le ministère français de l’Agriculture a reçu les différents acteurs de la filière porcine pour faire le point sur la situation, ce vendredi après-midi. Alors que deux cas de peste porcine africaine ont été détectés en Province de Luxembourg ce jeudi, les autorités françaises prennent des mesures pour contrer une menace économique importante dans l’Hexagone.


    Au lendemain de la détection de deux cas de Peste porcine africaine en Belgique, les acteurs français de la filière porcine ont été reçus par la Direction générale de l’Alimentation, qui dépend du ministère de l’Agriculture. Éleveurs, abatteurs, vétérinaires et chasseurs ont participé à cette réunion. L’objectif principal était qu’ils présentent leur stratégie pour contrer l’entrée de la maladie des suidés sur le territoire français.

    Mesures de prévention
    Si les éleveurs porcins sont très engagés dans la prévention, c’est notamment parce que la menace de peste les inquiète depuis plusieurs mois, sachant que la maladie existe depuis quatre ou cinq ans dans les pays de l’Est de l’Europe. C’est donc bien préparés que les acteurs de la filière ont interpellé les autorités. Des mesures ont ainsi été prises, notamment auprès des chasseurs de France. Il leur est d’abord demandé de restreindre la chasse dans les communes qui longent la frontière belge, de manière à éviter au maximum les déplacements d’animaux. Mais aussi d’organiser des actions de surveillance de l’état sanitaire des sangliers. Du côté des élevages, les autorités rappellent les règles de biosécurité, demandent d’isoler les bâtiments contre les animaux sauvages, et de porter « une attention particulière au développement frontalier avec la Belgique. »

    Tout un secteur en danger
    C’est la Bretagne qui est particulièrement concernée par le risque économique que représente la maladie, puisque 60% de la production porcine de France viennent de cette région du pays. Si le virus devait passer la frontière, c’est toute une filière pérenne qui serait en danger. Concrètement, si un cas est détecté dans un élevage de l’Hexagone, il sera directement question d’un abattage total. Mais également d’une désinfection complète des lieux, de l’instauration d’un périmètre de sécurité, d’une maîtrise du mouvement des animaux et d’un contrôle de tout ce qui entrera et sortira de l’exploitation victime. Bref, une éradication immédiate qui représenterait une perte colossale pour tout éleveur concerné.

    #agriculture #élevage #productivisme #mondialisation #porcs #cochons #sangliers #ue #union_européenne #Bretagne #transports #camions #sanglier

    • La peste porcine s’étend rapidement dans l’est de l’Europe, plus particulièrement en #Estonie, en #Lettonie, en #Lituanie, en #Pologne, en #Tchéquie, en #Hongrie, en #Roumanie et en #Bulgarie. Sur les huit premiers mois de l’année, quelque 4800 cas ont été recensés dans l’Union européenne, 3800 sur des sangliers et 1000 foyers dans de petits élevages porcins ou des structures plus professionnelles. Le nombre de cas dépasse déjà celui de l’ensemble de l’année 2017 lorsque 4100 foyers avaient été comptabilisés. La situation en Bulgarie est particulièrement préoccupante alors que l’épidémie a aussi vu le jour en #Chine.

      https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_le-boerenbond-appelle-a-la-vigilance-face-a-la-peste-porcine-africaine?i


      Peste porcine africaine : l’inquiétude des chasseurs
      https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_peste-porcine-africaine-l-inquietude-des-chasseurs?id=10019284

      Jeudi soir, l’Afsca annonçait la découverte dans le sud du pays de plusieurs cas de peste porcine africaine. La maladie a été détectée sur des sangliers localisés sur la commune d’Etalle. Aujourd’hui, les chasseurs s’inquiètent. Dans 3 semaines, la saison de la chasse en battue démarre et ils se demandent franchement s’ils pourront chasser.
      . . . . . .
      Des sangliers contaminés exportés par des chasseurs ?

      D’après les premiers éléments de l’Afsca, l’épidémie serait arrivée chez nous (en Belgique) par le biais d’un morceau de porc venant d’un pays touché par cette peste porcine, un pays de l’est probablement. Si l’hypothèse du déchet alimentaire est privilégiée, une autre piste est avancée. Certains pensent que des sangliers infectés pourraient avoir été importés de ces pays.

    • Des sangliers d’élevage français régulièrement abattus lors de chasses belges, affirme un chasseur Christine Borowiak - 20 Septembre 2018 - RTBF
      https://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/detail_des-sangliers-d-elevage-francais-regulierement-abattus-lors-de-chasses-b


      Ce témoignage interpellant : celui d’un chasseur belge, d’un grand chasseur, habitué autant à chasser en Afrique ou dans les pays de l’Est, que dans nos contrées. Il a choisi de nous expliquer, sous le couvert de l’anonymat par crainte de représailles, le pourquoi de la pratique d’importation de sangliers d’élevage venant de pays étrangers, alors que la peste porcine africaine est présente parmi les sangliers wallons, et que l’importation de sangliers venant de pays de l’Est est une des hypothèses de l’arrivée de la maladie.

      Les sangliers d’élevage, ce chasseur les connaît bien : « J’en ai déjà tiré plusieurs, dans les Ardennes et du côté de Chimay. Souvent, ils ont une médaille à l’oreille. Ils sont numérotés, et la médaille a une couleur différente selon le pays. Ceux que j’ai tués venaient de France. Parfois aussi, je tombe sur des sangliers non identifiables, mais on voit tout de suite de quoi il s’agit, on n’est pas fou : un sanglier qui a le poil luisant comme celui d’un chien, on ne va pas me dire qu’il s’est roulé dans les boues hein ! » Il évoque aussi ce camion, qui avait amené des sangliers du côté de Janhay, dans les Ardennes : « Les bêtes avaient encore de la paille dans les onglets ! »

      Encore un cochon de ferme !
      Des rencontres qui ne semblent pas déranger grand monde : « On rigole entre nous, on se dit : c’est encore un cochon de ferme ! ». Et quand on lui demande ce que deviennent ces médailles, la réponse fuse : « On coupe l’oreille, ainsi ça ne se voit pas ! On en fait pas de la publicité avec un sanglier qui a de la garniture aux oreilles ! ».

      Pourquoi de telles pratiques ? Pour ce chasseur, c’est clair, c’est une question d’argent et de prestige. "Ce sont des chasses d’affaire. Des endroits où on va faire passer un bon moment aux invités, des gens de « la haute », des notables. Il faut leur faire plaisir, parce qu’après la chasse, on va parler affaires avec eux. J’ai connu des chasses où, le matin même ou la veille au soir, on remettait dans le bois quelques belles bêtes, bourrées de calmants. On les envoient vers les invités, et ceux-ci tirent un gros cochon,un deuxième gros cochon, et ils se disent : fantastique, c’est une belle chasse ici ! Et alors, ils prennent des actions."

      1000 euros par jour de #chasse
      Des actions, c’est-à-dire des parts de droit de chasse, payer pour avoir le droit de chasser du gibier. « Ça démarre à 1000 euros par jour, et ça peut aller jusqu’à 3000 euros, quand il y a des cervidés. Vous ajoutez à cela la location. Une grosse chasse, ça peut valoir 100.000 euros par an ! Donc, il faut trouver des actionnaires qui ont des gros moyens ! ».

      Et pour les appâter, il faut du gibier en nombre. "Les invités, ils vont brûler des cartouches, ils vont tirer, tirer, tirer, il faut s’amuser. Avant, lors d’une journée de chasse, on tuait 3, 4, 5 sangliers, et on était satisfait. Maintenant, on aime en tirer 40, 50 sur la journée s’il y a moyen. Les gens ne sont plus contents avec 2 bêtes. Et avec le prix qu’ils mettent par jour, il leur faut du gibier, ils paient pour avoir quelque chose. Et s’il n’y a pas assez de gibier, on va le chercher ailleurs et on le ramène ici.

  • Des migrants portent plainte contre la #Bulgarie pour #traitements_inhumains

    Quatorze demandeurs d’asile afghans aujourd’hui en France ont porté plainte contre l’État bulgare, le 27 juin, auprès de la #Commission_européenne et de la #commission_des_pétitions du Parlement européen pour #traitements_inhumains_et_dégradants. Selon le règlement de #Dublin, ils risquent tous de se voir renvoyer en Bulgarie.

    « Lorsque l’on se promenait en ville, si la police nous voyait, elle nous arrêtait, nous demandait nos documents, nous fouillait, volait nos affaires. Les policiers nous donnaient des claques et nous disaient de rentrer immédiatement au camp. Comme on avait peur qu’ils nous prennent nos documents, on les payait tout le temps. Je ne peux pas dire que les mauvais traitements soient systématiques, je peux seulement vous parler de mon expérience personnelle, mais moi tous les policiers que j’ai vus étaient très violents. »

    Nasser est l’un des quatorze Afghans qui a déposé plainte. Son témoignage, comme les autres, est la légère variation d’une même histoire où l’on retrouve systématiquement des violences, des vols et des traitements dégradants commis par les policiers bulgares sur les migrants.

    « Ils étaient dans un état d’anxiété que les groupes d’aide n’avaient jamais vu auparavant », raconte Chloé Gerbert Cahuzac, l’avocate française représentant Nasser et ses compagnons d’infortune, qui sont tous demandeurs d’asile en France. Elle rapporte une phrase qui revient cesse dans leur bouche : « On préfère rentrer à Kaboul que revenir à Sofia. En Afghanistan, les gens vous tuent directement avec une balle, en Bulgarie, on vous laisse mourir doucement ». « L’un d’eux a vu sa famille entière tuée en Afghanistan », continue-t-elle, « mais c’est de la Bulgarie qu’il fait des cauchemars ».

    Ces quatorze Afghans, et tant d’autres demandeurs d’asile dans leur position, ont de bonnes raisons de s’inquiéter : selon le règlement de Dublin, ils risquent tous de se faire renvoyer en Bulgarie, le premier pays de l’UE où ils ont été enregistrés comme réfugiés. Le système de Dublin fait supporter la plus grande pression sur les pays en première ligne de la route migratoire vers l’Europe : en particulier l’Italie, la Grèce et la Bulgarie. Le sommet européen du 28 juin devait réformer ce système, mais aucun consensus n’a pu être trouvé.

    Ces derniers mois, plusieurs tribunaux administratifs français ont pris la décision de ne pas renvoyer les demandeurs d’asile en Bulgarie, reconnaissant ainsi les déficiences du système bulgare et prenant en compte les rapports de mauvais traitements des demandeurs d’asile. Mais ces décisions ne constituent en aucun cas un précédent juridique les rendant systématiques à l’échelle française et européenne, et d’autres tribunaux valident encore ces transferts. La Commission européenne et la Cour européenne de Justice sont en effet les seules institutions qui peuvent juger les déficiences systémiques dans la politique bulgare vis-à-vis des demandeurs d’asile. La plainte déposée par les quatorze demandeurs d’asile afghans pourrait néanmoins forcer l’UE à statuer sur ce problème.

    “Sofia viole les principes de la loi internationale de non-criminalisation des passages frontaliers illégaux.”

    Clément Père est avocat au barreau de Paris et l’un des auteurs du rapport de 20 pages exposant les mauvais traitements que les autorités bulgares auraient commis vis-à-vis des migrants. Selon lui, ce rapport concerne d’abord la Commission européenne qui doit « enquêter sur les violations graves des standards européens par l’État bulgare ».

    Il explique également que la Bulgarie considère les passages illégaux de ses frontières comme un crime, ce qui « viole les principes de la loi internationale de non-criminalisation des passages frontaliers illégaux ». En d’autres termes, si le passage frontalier illégal est une infraction, les migrants demandeurs d’asile ne sont pas des criminels et ne doivent pas être traités comme tels.

    Ces migrants doivent d’abord voir leur demande d’asile jugée. Pendant ce temps-là, ils sont considérés comme des réfugiés. Or, explique Clément Père, l’État bulgare ne respecte pas le principe d’examen individuel des demandes d’asile. Ce manquement a d’ailleurs été dénoncé par la Direction générale de la migration et des affaires intérieures, un service de la Commission européenne, dans une lettre à l’Agence bulgare pour les réfugiés du 6 juillet 2017, par le secrétariat général des migrations et réfugiés du Conseil de l’Europe et le haut-commissaire des Nation unies pour les droits humains. À titre de comparaison, en 2017, la Bulgarie a octroyé l’asile, c’est-à-dire la protection internationale, à 1,5% des demandeurs afghans (pour 1287 demandes), contre 90% en France. Un écart flagrant entre les systèmes de deux pays faisant pourtant tous les deux partie de l’UE.

    En fait, le mode opératoire bulgare est d’envoyer les demandeurs d’asile directement dans des centres de détention après qu’ils ont passés la frontière. « Dans le camp d’Ovcha Kupel, ils ont pris nos empreintes. Ils ne nous ont pas expliqué que c’était pour la demande d’asile. Ils nous ont juste donné l’ordre en nous poussant. […] Ils prennent les empreintes sans que tu racontes ton histoire, sans entretien. Juste, ils prennent les empreintes et t’expliquent que tu peux sortir et entrer dans le camp », raconte Jahangir, un autre des quatorze Afghans ayant porté plainte.

    La seule chose qui m’importe, ce sont les droits du peuple bulgare. Les citoyens bulgares ont le droit de dormir dans le calme.

    Le « traitement inhumain » des demandeurs d’asile en Bulgarie n’est pas le seul fait de la police. Certains citoyens bulgares ont pris le rôle de miliciens chasseurs de migrants et d’autres s’en prennent à eux sans raison dans la rue, sans que les autorités n’y fassent quelque chose. « Un jour, j’ai marché 6h dans une direction à la recherche d’un camp que je n’ai pas trouvé, j’étais seul. Sur le retour, des civils m’ont attaqué et battu », raconte Moncef. « Je ne pouvais plus marcher. Deux femmes m’ont emmené en taxi, j’étais au bord du malaise, j’avais du sang sur moi. J’ai retrouvé des Afghans sous un pont. Les Bulgares détestent les migrants. Dans les transports en commun, j’ai très souvent été harcelé et humilié. Les Bulgares ne veulent pas être près de nous, ils disent que nous sentons mauvais. » Dans son dernier rapport, le comité des Nations unies contre la torture a exhorté Sofia à tout faire pour prévenir les mauvais traitements des demandeurs d’asile.

    L’avocate française Olfa Ouled est une autre des auteurs du rapport. Selon elle, les dirigeants européens sont parfaitement conscients de ce qui se passe en Bulgarie, mais redoute de prendre une quelconque décision. « Nous n’hésiterons pas à porter ce problème devant le comité des Nations unies contre la torture si nous voyons que [les autres options] ne marchent pas », prévient-elle. La porte-parole de la Commission, Natasha Bertaud, assure quant à elle que les dirigeants européens ne sont pas conscients des mauvais traitements systématique subits par les demandeurs d’asile.

    Pendant ce temps-là, Boïko Borissov, le Premier ministre bulgare, a d’abord fait la sourde oreille. « Honnêtement, je n’ai jamais entendu pareille critique. La seule chose qui m’importe, ce sont les droits du peuple bulgare. Les citoyens bulgares ont le droit de dormir dans le calme », estime-t-il. Il s’est aussi vanté, pendant le sommet européen du 28-29 juin, qu’en tant qu’ancien policier et pompier, il comprenait la problématique migratoire mieux que ses pairs. Il a assuré que la Bulgarie continuerait à recevoir les réfugiés qui ont besoin de protection pour un certain laps de temps avant qu’ils ne retournent d’où ils viennent, mais que les migrants économiques devaient être reçus par les pays qui ont besoin d’eux. Or, la Bulgarie, pays d’émigration, souffre d’une pénurie de main-d’œuvre et doit faire venir des travailleurs de l’étranger.

    Ensuite, le Premier ministre bulgare s’est lavé les mains. Il a déclaré que la phase cruciale de maîtrise des « mouvements secondaires » de réfugiés se faisaient « sur la base du volontariat », laissant entendre qu’il ne fallait pas attendre plus d’efforts de la Bulgarie dans l’accueil des réfugiés.

    Enfin, il a joué les victimes, frisant le hors-sujet : « Peut-être que les avocats français réputés devraient plutôt s’intéresser à Donald Trump et sa nouvelle loi de repousser quiconque arrive aux frontières américaines. Ils devraient s’occuper de lui avant de s’occuper de moi. Ou peut-être est-il trop gros pour eux, alors pressons la Bulgarie pour la remplir de migrants et dire que c’est le bon comportant à avoir ».

    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Des-migrants-portent-plaintes-contre-la-Bulgarie-pour-traitement-
    #Bulgarie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #France #mauvais_traitements #justice #violence #condamnation #renvois_Dublin #renvoi