• Les exportations d’armes russes se tournent vers une nouvelle clientèle
    https://www.franceculture.fr/geopolitique/les-exportations-darmes-russes-se-tournent-vers-une-nouvelle-clientele

    « Par ailleurs, la Russie est connue pour ne pas exiger de conditions, en matière de droits de l’homme par exemple, lorsqu’elle vend », poursuit l’expert.

    Ah les vilains, ben oui parce que c’est bien connu que les autres demandent des garanties sur les droits de l’homme avant de signer leur contrats.

    https://www.rusarmyexpo.com
    https://www.sipri.org
    https://seenthis.net/messages/425094
    #armement #france #usa #urss #marchands_de_canons

  • I documenti segreti della #Cia sul caso #Ilaria_Alpi

    L’Espresso ha ottenuto i rapporti inediti americani sul periodo in cui in Somalia fu uccisa la giornalista. Si parla di un’azienda molto pericolosa e di trafficanti italiani.

    Trentadue pagine, dodici documenti classificati “Secret” e “Top Secret”. Report in grado, dopo ventisei anni, di riportarci nelle strade di Mogadiscio poco prima del 20 marzo 1994, la data dell’agguato mortale contro Ilaria Alpi e #Miran_Hrovatin. Carte oggi declassificate dalla principale agenzia dell’intelligence statunitense, la Cia, dopo una richiesta dell’Espresso in base al Freedom of Information Act (Foia). Un anno e mezzo di istruttoria, una risposta per ora parziale, ma in grado di aggiungere elementi importanti al contesto somalo oggetto dell’ultimo reportage di Ilaria Alpi. Doveva andare in onda la sera di quel 20 marzo, non arrivò mai in Italia, se non per frammenti, filmati incompleti. I report Usa aprono una porta sul mondo che Ilaria seguiva durante il suo ultimo viaggio. Traffici di armi, società della cooperazione italiana, alleanze segrete.

    Mogadiscio, 1994. La sconfitta della missione Onu per riappacificare la Somalia era compiuta. È la storia di un fallimento lo scenario che ha visto l’agguato mortale contro Ilaria Alpi e Miran Hrovatin. Roma, 2020. Le indagini per capire chi ha armato il commando di sei uomini sono ancora aperte. Movente, mandanti, esecutori: un foglio bianco.

    Mogadiscio era il crocevia di tante storie. Traffico di armi, prima di tutto. Razzi Rpg, Kalashnikov, munizioni di ogni tipo, un flusso inarrestabile che alimentava la guerra tra le due principali fazioni. Ali Mahdi, alleato con le forze Onu. Mohammed Farah Hassan, detto Aidid, il “vittorioso”, a capo delle forze islamiste. Quel mondo Ilaria lo conosceva come pochi suoi colleghi; si era laureata in lingua e cultura araba, con una lunga gavetta, prima di approdare alla Rai, raccontando il nord Africa, spesso in maniera rocambolesca. Delicata e profonda, nelle sue cronache. In grado di capire le sfumature, le alleanze che si nascondevano dietro l’apparenza. La giornalista giusta, per raccontare l’inferno. Un target per chi alimentava il caos.

    LA ROTTA DELLE ARMI

    #Mohammed_Aidid era il nemico numero uno della coalizione Onu quando la missione #Unosom inizia, con lo spettacolare sbarco dei Marines a Mogadiscio. Almeno in apparenza. Il 3 ottobre del 1993 i Rangers erano sulle sue tracce. Preparano una missione nel cuore di Mogadiscio, un’incursione che doveva durare pochi minuti, giusto il tempo per permettere a reparti speciali di catturare il signore della guerra. Tutto andò storto, i miliziani colpirono uno dei quattro elicotteri Black Hawk, uccidendo 19 soldati americani. Un’azione divenuta famosa con il film di Ridley Scott (“Black Hawk Down”)del 2001, icona cinematografica della sconfitta in Somalia.

    Da mesi la Cia era sulle tracce di Aidid, monitorando ogni suo spostamento. L’obiettivo fondamentale, per l’Onu e gli Stati Uniti, era individuarlo, ma anche capire chi finanziasse il capo della fazione islamista e da dove provenissero le armi utilizzate dalle sue milizie. In una nota del 18 settembre 1993, declassificata su richiesta dell’Espresso, gli analisti della Cia scrivono: «L’abilità del signore della guerra nel reperire nuove armi ha senza dubbio contribuito alle recenti indicazioni che Aidid si sente sicuro di vincere contro gli Stati Uniti e le Nazioni Unite». Dal mese di agosto del 1993 gli agenti statunitensi segnalavano un aumento di flussi di armi dirette alla fazione islamista. In realtà la Somalia fin dall’inizio della guerra civile era una vera e propria Santabarbara. Per anni il governo di Siad Barre - stretto alleato dell’Italia - aveva acquistato armi, creando magazzini letali nell’intero paese. L’Italia era stato uno dei principali fornitori, fin dai primi anni ’80. L’ex generale del Sismi Giuseppe Santovito - iscritto alla P2 - in un interrogatorio davanti all’allora giudice istruttore di Trento Carlo Palermo aveva raccontato delle ingenti forniture di armamenti al paese da sempre ritenuto come una e propria estensione geopolitica dell’Italia.

    Pochi mesi prima della morte di Ilaria Alpi e Miran Horvatin c’è una accelerazione. Aidid ha l’obiettivo - che ritiene raggiungibile - di far fallire la missione Onu, rimandando a casa i paesi della coalizione. Acquisire armi aveva un doppio scopo, spiegano le note Cia: essere pronti al combattimento, ma soprattutto convincere gli altri signori della guerra ad allearsi con gli islamisti.

    L’AIUTO SEGRETO ITALIANO

    Il primo ottobre 1993, due giorni prima di Black Hawk Down, a Washington arriva una nota dalla capitale somala: «Le rotte per la fornitura di armamenti, nascondigli e legami operativi delle forze di Aidid». Dal mese di settembre gli Usa avevano iniziato a monitorare le carovane che partivano dal lungo confine con l’Etiopia dirette nell’area di Mogadiscio, dove la situazione era divenuta estremamente critica: «Gli armamenti - che includono mortai e Rpg - sono trasportati lungo le strade che collegano Mogadiscio con Belet Weyne, Tigielo e Afgoi». L’obiettivo era chiaro: «Stanno pianificando di usare i mortai e gli Rpg contro Unosom».

    Nella stessa nota la Cia fornisce, per la prima volta, un’indicazione sulla rete logistica di appoggio alla fazione degli islamisti: «I supporter di Aidid stanno utilizzando la società Sitt, che è situata dall’altra parte della strada rispetto al compound Unosom. La società Sitt appartiene a Ahmed Duale “Hef”. (omissis) Commento: questa presenza è una minaccia per il personale Unosom e per chiunque entri nel compound». Duale e Sitt, due nomi da appuntare.

    Quando mancano quattro mesi all’ultimo viaggio di Ilaria Alpi e Miran Hrovatin la situazione a Mogadiscio diventa ancora più critica: «I compratori pro-Aidid stanno acquistando una inusuale grande quantità di munizioni», segnala la Cia in una nota del 23 novembre 1993. Un secondo report, con la stessa data, aggiunge un altro dettaglio: «C’è una consegna di armi e munizioni in una casa nel distretto Halilua’a di Mogadiscio, trasportata da un unico camion di produzione italiana, con sei casse di Ak-47, fucili di assalto Fal, quattro lanciatori di granata russi. L’origine del carico è ignota».

    IL DOPPIO GIOCO

    Per l’intelligence Usa, dunque, era la società Sitt lo snodo logistico utilizzato dai supporter di Aidid. «Una minaccia per l’Onu», scrivevano. Il nome era ben noto negli ambienti del contingente italiano. Appena due mesi prima della nota della Cia, la Sitt aveva inviato una serie di fatture per migliaia di dollari al comando Italfor relative alla fornitura di materiale di ogni tipo. Prima del conflitto la stessa società aveva operato come supporto logistico per la cooperazione italiana. A capo di quell’impresa, oltre all’imprenditore somalo Ahmed Duale, citato nella nota Usa, c’era Giancarlo Marocchino, trasportatore originario del Piemonte che operava in Somalia da anni. Fu lui ad intervenire per primo sul luogo dell’attentato mortale contro Alpi e Hrovatin. «Marocchino è stato un collaboratore che ho ritenuto affidabile fino a quando ho trovato le armi nel suo compound diffidandolo ufficialmente», racconta all’Espresso il generale Bruno Loi, a capo del contingente italiano fino al settembre 1993. «Ma per quanto riguarda la nota della Cia - prosegue Loi - mi stupisce che abbiano trovato questa minaccia senza fare nulla per eliminarla; c’è qualcosa che non quadra».

    L’INCHIESTA
    Sull’agguato del 20 marzo 1994 la Cia sostiene di non avere nessun record in archivio. Eppure l’ultima inchiesta di Ilaria Alpi si intreccia strettamente con quel traffico di armi diretto alla fazione di Aidid. Il 14 marzo 1994 i due reporter di Rai 3 arrivano a Bosaso, nel nord della Somalia. C’era un nome appuntato sul quaderno di Ilaria, la compagnia di pesca italo-somala Shifco. Una nave della società era ferma al largo della costa migiurtina, sequestrata dalle milizie locali. In un appunto del Sismi declassificato nel 2014 dall’allora presidente della Camera Laura Boldrini l’intelligence italiana racconta come quella compagnia, diretta da Said Omar Mugne - imprenditore somalo che aveva vissuto a lungo in Italia - proprio in quei mesi stava preparando il trasporto di un carico di armi «acquistato in Ucraina da tale Osman Ato, cittadino somalo naturalizzato statunitense, per conto del generale Aidid». Sulla Shifco e su Osman Ato la Cia ha risposto con la consueta formula: «Non possiamo confermare o smentire l’esistenza o la non esistenza di record». La questione, in questo caso, sembra avere ombre di segreto ancora oggi.

    “CROGIOLO DI MENZOGNE”
    Per il generale Bruno Loi la Somalia è ancora una ferita aperta: «Eravamo pronti a catturare Aidid nel giugno 1993 - racconta - avevamo il consenso del governo italiano, ma Unosom ci bloccò». Il fallimento di quella missione, spiega, va cercata nelle stesse regole di ingaggio delle Nazioni Unite: «L’Onu non ha capito che la democrazia non si esporta, ma si costruisce con anni di supporto», commenta Loi. E forse il caso Alpi rimane una ferita aperta perché è bene non entrare in quel labirinto senza fine della missione nel corno d’Africa: «La Somalia è stata un crogiolo di bugie, menzogne, disinformazione», spiega Loi, ventisei anni dopo. E di segreti che durano ancora oggi.

    https://espresso.repubblica.it/plus/articoli/2020/08/18/news/ilaria-alpi-cia-documenti-1.352110
    #journalisme #assassinat #Somalie #armes #trafic_d'armes #commerce_d'armes

  • Vers des jours heureux... | Le Club de Mediapart

    https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/les-invites-de-mediapart/article/280420/vers-des-jours-heureux

    Un virus inconnu circule autour de la planète depuis le début de l’année. Péril mortel et invisible, nous obligeant à nous écarter les uns des autres comme si nous étions dangereux les uns pour les autres, il a retourné les tréfonds des sociétés comme on retourne un gant et il a mis au grand jour ce que l’on tentait jusqu’ici de masquer. Sans doute provoque-t-il un nombre important de morts et met-il sous une lumière crue les limites des systèmes de santé des pays développés, y compris les plus riches d’entre eux. Sans doute, ailleurs, expose-t-il les populations de pays plus pauvres à un extrême danger, les contraignant pour se protéger à accomplir une obligation impossible, le confinement. Mais ceci n’est que la surface des choses.

    Le gant retourné donne à voir la voie périlleuse dans laquelle le monde se trouve engagé depuis des décennies. En mettant les services hospitaliers sous contrainte budgétaire, là où ils étaient développés, et en les négligeant là où ils sont insuffisants, les responsables politiques affolés se sont trouvés pris de court devant l’arrivée de la pandémie. En France, l’impréparation criante à ce type d’évènements, la liquidation coupable de la réserve de masques, la délocalisation de l’industrie pharmaceutique avec pour seule raison la recherche de profits plus grands, la faiblesse des moyens de la recherche scientifique, mettent le gouvernement en situation d’improvisation. En prenant le chemin du confinement dont il ne sait comment sortir, il s’est engagé dans la voie d’une mise en cause radicale des libertés publiques. S’étant privé des autres moyens de protection de la population, il bénéficie d’un acquiescement forcé de cette dernière. Pour le cas où cet acquiescement manquerait, un discours moralisateur et culpabilisant se déploie. Et pourtant, partout, d’innombrables initiatives contredisent l’individualisme entretenu par le modèle économique et social et témoignent de la permanence de la fraternité entre les humains.

    Mais le gant retourné fait apparaître aussi, au moins aux yeux les plus lucides, que la réponse aux enjeux auxquels l’humanité dans son ensemble est en ce moment confrontée, ne saurait être une addition de politiques nationales, encore moins si ces politiques tentent de se mener en vase clos. Il y manquera toujours une part, celle de la communauté des humains qui ne peut refuser plus longtemps de se voir pour ce qu’elle est : une communauté de destin, ce qu’Hannah Arendt nommait une association politique d’hommes libres.

    Ainsi, derrière la crise sanitaire qui est au premier plan, avec la crise économique qui s’amorce et la catastrophe écologique en cours, c’est une crise de civilisation qui émerge enfin. Le monde entièrement dominé par le système capitaliste qui ne cesse de creuser les inégalités et de détruire la nature, est aujourd’hui un bateau ivre qui n’a d’autre horizon que son naufrage à travers des violences insoupçonnées.

    S’il est encore temps de reprendre les commandes, alors ce séisme inédit est l’occasion que le monde doit saisir pour rompre enfin avec sa destruction largement amorcée et inventer une société entièrement différente. Ainsi, ayant conjuré la terreur de l’inconnu, les peuples danseront de joie sur les décombres du vieux monde qui menaçait de les emporter.

    Pour cela, il faut :

    – ne pas tricher avec les constats qu’il y a lieu de faire ;
    – mesurer les risques d’une sortie de crise orientée à un retour à la situation antérieure ou à d’autres dérives ;
    – saisir cette opportunité pour poser les fondements radicalement différents d’une société mondiale juste et viable.

    #covid-19 #le_monde_d_après

  • Assets in Flight: Libya’s Flying Armories

    On December 26, 2019, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced provisional plans to deploy Turkish troops to Libya in defense of the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA). Since April 2019, the GNA has faced a months-long offensive led by rival leader, General Khalifa Haftar and the Libyan National Army (LNA). Days later, social media outlets, including Twitter, erupted in multiple posts alleging the deployment of Syrian rebels in and around Tripoli. Open-source plane spotters elsewhere identified aircraft transiting between Turkey and Libya, including one operated by Aerotranscargo, a Moldova-based company that in 2017, appeared in a UN Panel of Experts report as one of several Eastern European air freight providers that have operated suspicious flights into Libya, some of which are linked to potentially illicit weapons transfers.

    The aerial re-supply of weapons, materiel, and personnel into conflict zones is not new. However, recent advancements in open source research tools and techniques – especially in publicly accessible flight data – have opened a new frontier in conflict reporting. Using these tools, researchers and investigators can connect conflict events with the underlying logistics that enable the commission of violence and mass atrocities.

    In Libya, the sprawling corporate and logistics networks that connect Europe, Turkey, Sudan, the UAE, Qatar and other regional neighbors have their origins in decades of instability and state collapse on multiple continents. Far from relics of a past era, companies in these jurisdictions have serviced rival factions in the ongoing Libyan civil war now entering its 6th year of sustained conflict.

    Using flight data and corporate records, the Conflict Finance and Irregular Threats (CFIT) team at C4ADS takes a deeper look at these aerial supply operations, revealing potential ownership and management ties between Libya’s flying armories and air freight providers in Libya, Eastern Europe, Turkey, and the UAE. This series specifically exposes the logistical architecture that has for years channeled weapons, materiel, and personnel in and out of Libya, often using commercial businesses and aircraft that are identifiable through open source research.
    Libya’s TransNational Weapons Air Bridge

    On September 27, 2006 an Ilyushin IL-76TD cargo aircraft (Registration number: 5A-DQA) touched down in Baidoa, Somalia carrying two armored vehicles and an unspecified number of senior Ugandan military officers. The plane, which traveled from Kufra, Libya on its way to Baidoa, was reportedly operated by Global Aviation and Services Group (GASG), a chartered air freight service provider based in Tripoli, Libya. Seven years later, GASG appeared on an air waybill issued for the unofficial transfer of several thousand Caracel F Pistols, which the UN report stated were purchased by a US-based company and exported by UAE-based Caracel International LLC to Libyan forces then-organized under the Ministry of Interior in Mitiga, Libya.

    UN investigators found that the transfer to Libya was one of several potential embargo violations reportedly aided by air freight companies such as GASG. UN investigators specifically found operational ties between air freight companies operating between Libya, Eastern Europe, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), though the relationship between these operators was not fully explored.

    Tracing Global Aviation and Services Group (GASG) Ownership and Management

    Despite the lack of publicly available commercial registries in Libya, C4ADS used open data sources – including social media – to identify and verify GASG’s ownership and management as well as the company’s aerial operations.

    Global Aviation and Services Group (GASG) was founded in 2003 and headquartered in Tripoli, Libya with offices in Benghazi and Istanbul, Turkey. A 2006 version of the company’s website identified a “Captain Abdussalam I. Aradi” as the company Chairman and Managing Director alongside several other company officials. GASG’s chairman separately appeared as “Abdussalam Aradi” according to a Linkedin Profile that seems to be registered to the company’s managing director. An open-source review of Facebook accounts registered under the name: “Abdussalam Aradi” elsewhere revealed an account with several profile photos that seemingly resemble Captain A. Aradi’s likeness.

    On January 21 2014, an image from a business article identified a “Capt. A. Aradi” as Chairman of GASG during a meeting with officials from Skylink Aviation, an air cargo company which operates in several conflict areas including in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan, among others. The article included an image that depicted “Capt. A. Aradi” shaking hands with an individual identified as the President of Skylink Aviation with a Libyan flag and GASG logo set in the background. A separate image of what appears to be the same scene appeared on GASG’s Facebook page on March 3, 2014, this time exposing the company’s three letter ICAO designator – GAK – within the company’s banner as displayed below.

    GASG seemingly re-branded to Global Air in 2006, according to the date listed on the GASG Facebook account (now re-branded to Global Air). Despite the alleged name change, the company is still identified as “Global Aviation and Service Group (GASG)” in the mission and vision sections of the new Global Air Facebook Account as displayed below.

    Additionally, the contact information listed on the new Global Air Facebook account matches the physical address and contact phone number listed on both the GASG and Global Air websites.

    Separately, at least one flyer posted on the GASG Facebook account displayed both the “Global Air” logo and the GASG web address www.global-aviationgroup.com within the same image. This flyer also included the same contact phone number that appeared on the GASG and Global Air websites, suggesting that the two companies are potentially linked despite the change in name and logo.

    Additional images posted on the GASG Facebook account suggest that the change in company logo coincided with the migration from GASG to Global Air. A thorough survey of these images revealed multiple photos bearing both the GASG and Global Air logos as displayed below. In some cases, some of the images retained the full mention of “Global Aviation & Services Group” with a “Global Air” logo appearing at the borders.

    The Mitiga-Baidoa Connection

    C4ADS investigators reviewed additional images posted on the GASG/Global Air Facebook account and the account registered to “Abdussalam Aradi” and found an image of an Ilyushin-76 which matched the aircraft identified by UN investigators in 2006, and again 2013, as the transport aircraft for military equipment sent to Somalia and Libya in potential violation of existing UN restrictions.

    The Facebook account registered to “Abdussalam Aradi” contained an image of an Ilyushin IL-76TD cargo aircraft (Registration Number: 5A-DQA) bearing the Arabic inscription for Global Air (العالمية للطيران) on the front left side of the aircraft as displayed below.

    The same aircraft appeared on an August 23, 2013 post on GASG’s Facebook account, this time photographed with the English “Global Air” visible on the front side of the aircraft as displayed below. While both images lacked Exif data, aircraft spotters have elsewhere attributed the aircraft to GASG in public sightings in both Mitiga and Benghazi in 2007 and 2008 respectively. These sightings seemingly confirm the aircraft’s link to GASG as well its operations in Mitiga specifically, and in Libya at large.

    Global Aviation and Services Group (GASG) Links to Turkey

    Further open source review of GASG’s global operations revealed corporate ties to Turkey as well flight operations elsewhere in Libya, Turkey, and the UAE. According to the company’s website, GASG operated direct cargo flights from Istanbul to Tripoli and Benghazi as well as from Dubai to various other African destinations, specifically Njdamena (Chad). GASG’s website also included several flight schedules for international flights between Sabiha International Airport (Turkey) to Mitiga (Libya). Flights between Benghazi and Dubai operated three days a week while those between Sabiha (Turkey) and Mitiga (Libya) operated twice a week.

    A March 23, 2007 filing in the Turkish Gazette confirmed the registration of “Global Aviation and Services Group” (listed as Merkezi Libya ’Da Bulunan Global Aviation and Services Group Türkiye İstanbul Şubesi) under registration number: 619595. The gazette filling also identifies a “Kaptain Abdusalam Ibrahim Aradi” as the company’s general manager, confirming GASG’s corporate presence in Turkey.

    The Moldovan Connection

    In 2017, UN investigators reported that Global Aviation and Services Group (GASG) had previously chartered aircraft owned and/or operated by Moldovan company AerotransCargo. The company was registered on August 12, 2011 (Registration Number: 1011600028436) at MD-2026, bd. Dacia 60/5, ap.(of.) 115, sec.Botanica, mun. Chişinău, RM according to the Moldovan company gazette. This address is shared with another Moldova-based company, Air Stork (Registration Number: 1015600032031). Air Stork was established on September 30, 2015 and according to corporate documentation shares some directors and personnel with Aerotransport.

    AerotransCargo and Air Stork also share the same address: MD-2026, bd. Dacia 60/5, ap.(of.) 115, sec.Botanica, mun. Chişinău, RM with five additional companies: Tiramavia Air Transport Company SRL, Tehnoaer LLC, Gelfex-M LLC, Alanar Grup LLC, and Valan Voiaj LLC. Four of the five companies operate in the air transport sector and provide passenger and freight transport services, warehousing, and the supply and repair of flight equipment. C4ADS investigators found similar co-location in other air freight service providers located in Moldova, which like GASG, Aerotranscargo, and Air Stork connect Libya to Eastern Europe.

    On April 15, 2019, the European Union banned Air Stork from operating within EU airspace. This restriction, however, did not include AerotransCargo, potentially allowing Air Stork aircraft to fly under AerotransCargo’s operator code. As noted above, both companies are also co-located and share some of the same owners. In 2017, UN investigators found that at least two Air Stock aircraft ­– Registration Numbers: ER-IBI and ER-IBU – had been transferred from another Moldovan company – Sky Prim Air – whose aircraft was sighted transporting officers and armed groups allied to General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army in 2016.

    Additionally, at least one other Air Stork freight aircraft–Registration Number: ER-ABE–was leased to Global Aviation and Services Group on September 19, 2017. A rendered model of this aircraft appears on GASG’s new “Global Air” webpage. An aircraft with tail code ER-ABE was also spotted on April 4, 2018 traveling between Istanbul Sabiha Goken Airport and Misrata International airport by Plane Finder, an open source flight data aggregator.

    GASG and AerotransCargo’s Forays into Libya

    According to the Moldovan aircraft registry, AerotransCargo operates four Boeing 747-412 cargo aircraft with the following registration and ICAO numbers: ER-BAM (ICAO: 504E27), ER-BBJ (ICAO: 504E43), ER-JAI (ICAO: 504E36), and ER-BAJ.

    According to the Moldovan civilian aircraft registry, the AerotransCargo fleet operates under the following ICAO designator: ATG, which allows for the identification of individual flights operated by the airline. In 2017, UN investigators reported that GASG had previously chartered AerotransCargo aircraft on an undisclosed number of trips to Libya. These trips would have likely occurred under GASG’s ICAO designator: GAK making the relationship between GASG and AerotransCargo potentially visible in open flight data. Using flight data from ADS-B Exchange, C4ADS investigators found multiple flights by all four AerotransCargo aircraft flying under the GAK designator, including some that involved flights between Turkey and Libya.

    This flight data also revealed that between April 19, 2017 and May 5, 2019, three of the four AerotransCargo aircraft – Registration Numbers: ER-JAI, ER-BBJ, and ER-BAM –used GASG call signs – GAK3011 and GAK3012 – during trips between Turkey and Mitiga International Airport in Tripoli, Libya.

    While the available ADSB data is incomplete, each aircraft transmitted low altitude readings (between 25 and 50 feet) while near Mitiga airport, suggesting potential landing at the airport. Each of these aircraft also appeared on the Aerotranscargo webpage and were linked to the airline by the Moldovan civilian aircraft register though they operated under the GASG operator code during this time period. These findings seemingly confirm GASG’s use of Aerotranscargo aircraft as originally reported by the UN Panel of Experts.

    Whereas public reporting on weapons flows into Libya has dominantly relied on traditional reporting methods, ADS-B data provides an additional mode of verification and attribution not extensively used in conflict reporting. When combined with satellite imagery, ADS-B data opens up a new frontier in open source investigations, especially in data scarce environments.

    Over the next weeks and months, C4ADS will delve deeper into the airborne re-supply of Libyan armed groups with a principal focus on the role of commercial airliners in this pipeline movement of weapons, materiel, and personnel. This reporting will focus on the combined use of ADS-B flight data and satellite imagery, and highlight the innovative use of new technologies in open source reporting in conflict zones. This approach emphasizes the use of open data to expose the illicit logistic architectures that fuel and sustain conflict as a core thematic prerogative of the Conflict Finance and Irregular Threats initiative at C4ADS.

    https://c4ads.org/blogposts/2019/7/30/assets-in-flight-libyas-flying-armories
    #armes #commerce_d'armes #Turquie #armement #Libye

    ping @fil @reka @simplicissimus

  • #Avis sur la légalité internationale des transferts d’armes vers l’#Arabie_saoudite, les #Émirats_arabes_unis et les membres de la coalition militairement impliqués au #Yémen

    Le présent avis traite de la #légalité, au regard du #droit_international, des transferts d’armes vers l’Arabie saoudite, les Émirats arabes unis et les membres de la Coalition militairement impliqués au Yémen. L’avis n’évalue pas la légalité de tels transferts à la lumière du droit interne de chaque État fournisseur, pas plus qu’il n’examine en détail les obligations des groupes armés non étatiques ou des entreprises dans leurs rôles de fournisseurs et d’utilisateurs d’armes.

    L’accent est mis ici sur les #obligations_juridiques_internationales des parties au #conflit au Yémen et des États tiers qui leur fournissent leurs armes. Seront examinées ci-après les principales #normes_internationales applicables aux décisions de #transfert_d’armes qui visent à assurer la #protection_de_la_population_civile au Yémen et de l’#infrastructure_civile indispensable à sa survie.

    Les États qui transfèrent des armes à d’autres pays sont soumis aux normes du droit de la responsabilité internationale de l’État. Ils ont l’obligation de retenir ces transferts d’armes lorsqu’il est raisonnablement prévisible que les destinataires les utiliseront pour commettre des violations graves du droit international ou de les détourneront vers d’autres utilisateurs. Tel qu’expliqué ci-après, les États qui fournissent des armes aux parties au conflit au Yémen portent une énorme #responsabilité en regard du grand nombre de personnes civiles qui ont subi de graves blessures et des pertes, y compris à leur domicile, entraînant des déplacements internes et externes massifs de population. Les infrastructures civiles essentielles à la survie de la population ont été détruites ou gravement endommagées lors d’attaques armées, et l’accès à l’aide humanitaire reste entravé par les forces armées et les milices. Selon les Nations Unies, des millions de personnes souffrent de ce qui a été qualifié de la “pire crise humanitaire du monde”.


    https://ipisresearch.be/publication/avis-sur-la-legalite-internationale-des-transferts-darmes-vers-larabie-
    #armes #armement #commerce_d'armes #Emirats_arabes_unis #protection_civile #guerre

    ping @reka

  • Israel’s dirty arms deals with Myanmar - Haaretz Editorial - Israel News | Haaretz.com
    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/israel-s-dirty-arms-deals-with-myanmar-1.6429524

    Official Israel does not allow the publication of reports on the arming of Myanmar. In a hearing on petitions to the High Court of Justice filed in the last year and a half by human rights activists and attorney Eitay Mack against Israel’s weapons sales to Myanmar, the Defense Ministry argued that the court had no authority to rule on defense exports. Israeli spokesmen justified the supplying of weapons with the claim that “both sides committed war crimes,” claims that were rejected in the UN report. The court’s ruling on the petition is classified, but according to testimony from Myanmar the weapons sales are continuing, even in the midst of the crimes.

    Israel has a long history of arming dark regimes, from Latin America through the Balkans and Africa, to Asia. The findings of the UN panel’s report require an examination of this method, whose economic benefits cannot serve as a counterweight to the atrocities. Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit must order an investigation to determine whether the individuals who approved the arms sales to Myanmar were complicit in genocide in accordance with Israel’s 1950 Law for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In addition, he must see to it that the findings are made public.

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

  • Les exportations d’armes suisses explosent

    Au 30 septembre, l’industrie militaire helvétique affiche des chiffres record. Parmi les destinataires : l’#Arabie_saoudite, la #Turquie ou le #Koweït.

    Depuis le premier janvier, les entreprises suisses du secteur de l’armement ont exporté pour près d’un demi-milliard de francs (496 millions). Discrètement annoncé dans de nouvelles statistiques publiées ce mardi par le Secrétariat d’Etat à l’économie (Seco), le montant révèle la santé éclatante de la branche, dont les ventes ont grimpé de 60% par rapport aux trois premiers trimestres de l’année dernière (299 millions). La présence de plusieurs dictatures parmi les destinataires n’a pas manqué de susciter l’ire des opposants au commerce d’armes.

    https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/exportations-darmes-suisses-explosent

    #exportation #armes #commerce_d'armes #Suisse #armement

    ping @visionscarto

  • Les secrets des ventes d’armes de la Serbie à l’Arabie saoudite

    Non seulement l’usine #Krušik de Valjevo vend-elle des armes à l’Arabie saoudite, mais elle accorderait des tarifs préférentiels et illégaux à un intermédiaire, qui n’est autre que #Branko_Stefanović, le père de l’actuel ministre de l’Intérieur de Serbie. Le lanceur d’alerte, un employé de l’usine de 35 ans, a été emprisonné il y a un mois dans le plus grand secret.

    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/ventes-d-armes-de-la-serbie-a-l-arabie-saoudite
    #armes #commerce_d'armes #Serbie #Arabie_Saoudite #Branko_Stefanovic ##Krusik

  • Les armes françaises tuent des civils aux quatre coins du monde
    Par Christophe-Cécil Garnier | StreetPress
    https://www.streetpress.com/sujet/1571047701-armes-francaises-tuent-civils-quatre-coins-monde-disclose-fr

    Depuis moins d’un an, Disclose publie des révélations sur les armes françaises utilisées dans des conflits internationaux contre des civils. Ses fondateurs, Mathias Destal et Geoffrey Livolsi, reviennent pour StreetPress sur leur travail.

    #marchand_de_canons #armement #Disclose

  • Libye : quand les Rafale vendus à l’Egypte aidaient le seigneur de guerre Haftar
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/200919/libye-quand-les-rafale-vendus-l-egypte-aidaient-le-seigneur-de-guerre-haft

    Le « maréchal » Khalifa Haftar, qui a lancé en avril son offensive contre le régime de Tripoli reconnu par la communauté internationale, a bénéficié pour conquérir l’est du pays de l’aide discrète de précieux alliés, dont la France. Et du soutien des Rafale vendus par Paris à l’Égypte.

    #Armement #Dassault,_Conseil_de_la_choura_des_moudjahidines,_France,_Houn,_Ventes_d’armes,_Egypte,_ALN,_Khalifa_Haftar,_Derna,_FrenchArms,_Abdel_Fattah_al-Sissi,_GNA,_libye,_Rafale

  • #Serco slammed over profits drive at arms trade show while trying to evict asylum seekers fleeing war

    The firm evicting hundreds of asylum seekers from their homes has been condemned over plans to exhibit at a controversial arms trade show.

    Serco, which holds the Home Office contract to house about 300 people in Glasgow, has dozens of defence contracts around the world.

    The private multinational will be touting for business at DSEI 2019 next month in London’s ExCeL arena.

    Serco sparked controversy over plans to change locks on the homes of unsuccessful asylum seekers, with hundreds facing homelessness in the coming weeks.

    Many tenants fled conflict to seek sanctuary in Scotland. But despite protests and live legal challenges, Serco has started evictions.

    DSEI is a bi-annual event that brings together hundreds of firms with military delegations.

    Serco is a major partner of the Ministry of Defence and provides services for Tornado and Typhoon fighter jets, among other contracts.

    Both aircraft have been used by a Saudi-led coalition accused of scores of war crimes in the civil war by proxy in Yemen.

    Serco’s website says the firm has 70 defence contracts in the UK and Europe alone, including with the Belgian armed forces.

    It also has contracts with the Australian navy and Australian defence force, and last year won an £18million training contract with the US army.

    The website claims Serco has “breadth and depth of expertise across all military environments, including space, maritime, land, and air”.

    Last year its operating profit rose 40 per cent to £80.5million.

    The Scottish Human Rights Commission was last month given leave to intervene in a legal challenge against evicting asylum seekers denied the right to stay in the United Kingdom.

    The case – Ali v Serco and the Home Secretary – opposes Serco’s Glasgow lock change programme and argues that eviction would be unlawful without a court order.

    It was dismissed in April but is now being appealed.

    Graham O’Neill of the Scottish Refugee Council said: “In Glasgow, Serco are contracted to provide housing to thousands of highly vulnerable people who have fled war and terror across the world, in countries such as Syria, Iran and Eritrea.

    “That they are attending the arms fair while actively evicting this marginalised group, despite live legal proceedings, indicates that they value defence and immigration contracts and profit over people.”

    Labour MP Paul Sweeney said: “That Serco seeks to profit from conflict while earning income from the refugees displaced by those very conflicts throws into sharp focus the mercenary exploitation of unscrupulous capitalism.

    “It’s a crass move that will stick in the throats of the thousands of Glaswegians who stand shoulder to shoulder with the asylum seekers Serco is throwing out on the street.”

    Campaign Against the Arms Trade in Scotland added: “This exposes the ruthless business model of Serco. We will be at DSEI protesting this gross hypocrisy.”

    At least 38 companies with bases in Scotland are also attending DSEI 2019.

    They include arms firms Chemring, Leonardo MW and Raytheon, whose smart bombs made in Fife have been linked to alleged war crimes in Yemen.

    A Serco spokesman said it would have “a small stand” at the event, to promote its “civil space business”.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/asylum-seeker-eviction-firm-serco-18955574
    #privatisation #asile #migrations #armes #armement #commerce_d'armes #DSEI #salon_de_l'armement #Londres

    ping @visionscarto @daphne @albertocampiphoto @marty

  • Les #femmes de #pouvoir

    En ce début de XXIe siècle, les voix féminines se font de mieux en mieux entendre. Démonstration avec les parcours de femmes de conviction : Hillary Clinton, Michelle Bachelet, Inna Shevchenko. Une révolution tranquille est en marche. Petit à petit, le combat pour l’égalité des sexes progresse, dans les coulisses du pouvoir comme dans certains villages du tiers-monde. Aux quatre coins de la planète, à travers leurs trajectoires mêmes, des femmes contribuent à inspirer cette volonté de changement. Ce documentaire passe en revue leurs réussites et leurs combats : les militantes indiennes et nigériennes luttant pour leurs droits, mais aussi des personnalités telles que Christine Lagarde, Michelle Bachelet ou la Femen Inna Shevchenko. D’autres femmes engagées, comme Hillary Clinton, la théologienne Margot Käßmann (ex-évêque de Hanovre) et Melinda Gates, s’expriment dans ce film et donnent leur point de vue sur la condition féminine. Un documentaire qui montre comment, peu à peu, leurs comparses font tomber les barrières qui les empêchaient d’avancer.

    https://www.senscritique.com/film/Les_femmes_de_pouvoir/19821282
    #film #documentaire
    #politique_étrangère_féministe #égalité #leadership_féminin #maternité #Christine_Lagarde #Minouche_Shafik #revenu #quota_féminin #Angela_Merkel #droits_des_femmes #féminisme #Michelle_Bachelet #préjugés #politique #Inde #Daphne_Jayasinghe #toilettes #corruption #Suède #Chili

    #Margot_Wallström, qui déclare :

    «Sexual violence against women is not cultural, is criminal»

    #violences_sexuelles #viol

    #viol_comme_arme_de_guerre #sens_de_culpabilité #armes #commerce_d'armes #Haifaa_al-Mansour #invisibilité #invisibilisation #Arabie_Saoudite #sous-représentation_féminine #religion

    #femmes_du_mur (#mur_des_lamentations)

    #Elana_Sztokman —> #mouvement_féministe_juif_orthodoxe
    (#judaïsme #judaïsme_orthodoxe)

    ligne de bus « #meandrine » (= de stricte observance)

    #ségrégation #patriarcat #radicalisme_religieux #Femen #auto-détermination #mariage_forcé #Niger #mortalité_maternelle #droit_à_l'avortement #avortement #droits_sexuels_et_reproductifs #IVG #Morena_Herera

    #El_Salvador #Las_17 (https://las17.org)

    #machisme
    contrôle de la #fertilité

    Incroyable maire d’un village en #Inde :
    #Chhavi_Rajawat


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhavi_Rajawat

  • Le pouvoir est pris dans une sale affaire de #missiles en #Libye

    Des missiles américains vendus à la France ont été retrouvés près de Tripoli dans une base militaire des troupes du général Haftar, l’homme fort de l’est du pays. Malgré les démentis de la ministre des armées, tout laisse penser que Paris a armé les troupes rebelles, en violation de l’embargo des Nations unies.

    Déjà fortement critiqué pour ses ventes d’armes à l’Arabie saoudite et leur utilisation dans la guerre au Yémen, voilà le gouvernement français engagé sur un nouveau front : la fourniture d’armes en Libye, en violation de l’embargo décrété par les Nations unies. Paris est en effet très fortement soupçonné d’armer les troupes rebelles du général Haftar. L’homme, qui tient l’est du pays et la région de Benghazi, a lancé depuis avril une violente offensive militaire pour prendre Tripoli. Selon l’ONU, elle a déjà provoqué plus de 1 000 morts et 5 500 blessés.

    Officiellement, la France dit parler en Libye avec « toutes les parties », le camp du général Haftar et le gouvernement de Tripoli, reconnu par les Nations unies. Dans les faits, Paris n’a cessé de soutenir le général Haftar, avec l’Égypte, l’Arabie saoudite et les Émirats arabes unis. Dès 2016, François Hollande avait reconnu la mort, dans un crash d’hélicoptère, de trois agents de la DGSE dépêchés auprès d’Haftar. Par la suite, le gouvernement français a reconnu avoir déployé des forces spéciales dans la région de Benghazi. Officiellement pour des missions « de lutte contre le terrorisme ».

    Mais cette fois un nouveau palier est franchi. Le New York Times a révélé le 9 juillet que des missiles antichar appartenant à la France ont été retrouvés le 26 juin à #Gharyan, dans une base militaire reprise par l’armée officielle aux forces rebelles du général Haftar. Gharyan, à une soixantaine de kilomètres au sud de Tripoli, a été le principal point d’appui d’Haftar pour mener son offensive sur la capitale libyenne. Armements, matériel et troupes étaient concentrés dans cette base reprise par surprise fin juin.

    Fait particulièrement gênant pour la France, ces missiles antichar – au nombre de quatre – ont été rapidement identifiés… par les États-Unis. Il s’agit de missiles Javelin, fabriqués par les groupes américains Raytheon et Lockheed Martin, et vendus par les États-Unis à la France en 2010. Paris avait alors acheté 260 missiles de ce type et leur équipement pour un contrat de 69 millions de dollars (soit 260 000 dollars l’unité).

    Voilà que quatre de ces missiles sont inopinément découverts dans ce qui fut le QG de campagne du général Haftar qu’il a dû abandonner en catastrophe à la suite de l’opération victorieuse de l’armée loyaliste de Tripoli ! L’enjeu est important pour le gouvernement français : une telle livraison d’armements aux troupes rebelles ne ferait pas que violer l’embargo international (par ailleurs massivement contourné par l’Égypte et les Émirats arabes unis). Elle violerait également l’accord commercial passé avec les États-Unis et qui interdit formellement la réexportation ou revente ou dissémination de ce type de missiles.

    D’où les explications particulièrement confuses de la ministre des armées, Florence Parly, depuis mardi 9 juillet. Contacté par Mediapart, le cabinet de la ministre s’en tient à une version en trois points :

    – « Ces armes étaient destinées à l’autoprotection d’un détachement français déployé à des fins de renseignement en matière de contre-terrorisme. »
    – « Endommagées et hors d’usage, ces munitions étaient temporairement stockées dans un dépôt en vue de leur destruction. Elles n’ont pas été transférées à des forces locales. »
    – « Détenues par nos forces pour leur propre sécurité, ces armes n’étaient pas concernées par les restrictions d’importation en Libye. »

    Ces explications sont bien peu crédibles et le ministère n’a pas souhaité répondre aux questions complémentaires posées mercredi 10 juillet par Mediapart. Florence Parly – hasard du calendrier – a été auditionnée à huis clos par la commission de défense de l’Assemblée nationale mercredi en fin d’après-midi au sujet des ventes d’armes de la France et de son rapport annuel au Parlement faussement transparent sur les exportations. C’est la troisième fois en trois mois que la ministre est entendue à ce sujet alors que les révélations s’enchaînent démontrant l’utilisation d’armements français dans des conflits comme dans la guerre au Yémen, « la pire crise humanitaire au monde », selon l’ONU.

    Interrogée par les députés, la ministre s’est très vite réfugiée derrière le « secret-défense » pour ne pas répondre aux questions. Elle s’est limitée à noter que les Français avaient constitué sur le terrain « un détachement de renseignement », sans préciser où, pendant combien de temps et avec quel matériel.

    Reprenons. Un détachement français aurait donc été présent à Gharyan dans la base militaire-QG du général Haftar situé pratiquement sur la ligne de front ? Ce serait reconnaître un engagement français sans précédent dans la guerre civile libyenne, d’autant que ce n’est pas sur une ligne de front et au plus fort des opérations militaires qu’on mène des opérations « antiterroristes ». Première incohérence.

    Tous les spécialistes l’affirment. Les forces spéciales font du renseignement, peuvent mener des opérations ponctuelles et limitées. Mais elles ne sont certainement pas équipées de missiles antichar, ce qui signifierait qu’elles se trouveraient directement engagées sur le champ de bataille. Deuxième incohérence.

    Des missiles « endommagés et hors d’usage », dit le ministère. Comment pouvaient-ils alors protéger les soldats français ? Ou alors, avaient-ils été déjà utilisés, par qui et dans quelles conditions ? Le silence du ministère rend absurde cet argument. Une autre hypothèse est que ces missiles auraient été oubliés ou abandonnés par les forces françaises dans un autre lieu puis récupérés par les forces du général Haftar et apportés à la base de Gharyan. Ce qui, là encore, est bien peu crédible. Et ce qui, dans ce cas, démontrerait que ces armes étaient bien sous le contrôle exclusif des « forces locales », contrairement aux affirmations du ministère.

    Contacté par Mediapart, Olivier Faure, premier secrétaire du PS et membre de la commission de défense, comptait interroger la ministre sur un tel scénario : « Comment les forces spéciales auraient-elles pu abandonner de telles armes ? Pourquoi en étaient-elles équipées ? Et surtout, pourquoi Haftar a-t-il récupéré ces missiles s’ils ne pouvaient pas servir ? ». A l’issue de l’audition d’une ministre muette, il ne masquait pas ses interrogations grandissantes. « La ministre a été extrêmement concise, pour le dire diplomatiquement, sur la Libye. Pour le reste elle s’est livrée à un long exposé sur la nécessité des ventes d’armes, enjeu stratégique dans la lutte contre le terrorisme... ».
    « La France mène une guerre secrète en Libye »

    Le député de La France insoumise Bastien Lachaud, également membre de la commission de défense, se pose les mêmes questions. Avec une obsession : « Mais que fait la France en Libye et que fait-elle avec ses armes ? » « Le gouvernement doit s’expliquer, insiste le parlementaire. Il nous doit la vérité car le bordel en Afrique notamment dans la bande sahélo-sahélienne est consécutif à la crise libyenne où la France tient une grande responsabilité depuis Sarkozy. »

    L’élu LFI déplore l’opacité du système français : « Nous auditionnons la ministre mais c’est un bien grand mot. Car c’est à huis clos et contrairement à nos pairs du Congrès américain, nous n’avons aucun droit de suite, ni de relance. En face, la ministre nous sert les mêmes éléments de langage que sur Twitter. » Les explications du ministère des armées le sidèrent : « Comment peut-on laisser de telles armes après une opération et comment finissent-elles sur une base pro-Haftar ? Et si elles étaient inutilisables, que faisaient-elles en Libye ? »

    Deux autres étrangetés, pour ne pas dire plus, peuvent être relevées. La première est une déclaration faite le 1er juillet sur Twitter par l’ambassade de France en Libye. Sous le hastag #Fakenews, l’ambassade « dément catégoriquement la présence de soldats ou de personnel militaire français à Gharyan ».

    La seconde étrangeté tient à l’équipement même des forces françaises. Les missiles Javelin avaient été achetés en 2010, dans l’attente d’un missile français de nouvelle génération produit par MBDA, le missile moyenne portée. Selon plusieurs spécialistes, le missile Javelin est pour partie obsolète, en tous les cas beaucoup moins performant que le missile MBDA. Comme le note le site spécialisé Opex360, ce missile français devait être déployé au Sahel d’ici la fin 2018. Ce qui renforce encore la suspicion d’une livraison aux forces « amies » du général Haftar de missiles Javelin moins performants.

    Dernier élément : les missiles Javelin ont été retrouvés à Gharyan, non pas dans un lieu isolé, mais dans des entrepôts où était stocké tout un arsenal des forces rebelles, dont des drones de fabrication chinoise, des armes de fabrication russe et des obus venant des Émirats arabes unis, comme le montre la photo ci-contre. Les missiles français ne bénéficiaient d’aucune protection particulière qui laisserait entendre qu’ils ne faisaient pas partie de l’arsenal rebelle.

    Dès lors, il est peu probable que le pouvoir français puisse en rester à des explications aussi imprécises. Les commissions spécialisées du Congrès américain pourraient se saisir de cette affaire et d’une éventuelle violation par la France d’un accord commercial. Les inspecteurs des Nations unies pourraient également intervenir et ont déjà documenté de multiples violations de l’embargo, en particulier par l’Égypte et les Émirats arabes Unis.

    Pour le chercheur Jalel Harchaoui, l’un des rares spécialistes de la crise libyenne aujourd’hui en France, « nous avons désormais avec la découverte de ces missiles une preuve indéniable de ce que l’on sait tous : la France mène une guerre secrète en Libye. Elle soutient Haftar même militairement. Elle souhaite que son poulain Haftar gagne, car elle est pour une dictature en Libye, elle voit en lui ce qu’elle aime en Égypte, un autoritarisme rigide sans aucune liberté individuelle ».

    Dans les rangs des ONG françaises aussi, cette information provoque des remous. Et on se pose les mêmes questions que les députés de l’opposition. « Pourquoi des missiles français se trouvent sur le territoire libyen pour assurer la protection des Français ? Ont-ils été déclarés auprès des Nations unies ? Ont-ils fait l’objet d’une autorisation du Congrès américain pour être utilisés en Libye ? Comment Haftar a eu accès à ces missiles ? Ces missiles sont, selon le gouvernement, inutilisables ? Qu’est-ce qui le prouve ? », lance Aymeric Elluin, chargé de plaidoyer à Amnesty International.

    Il rappelle l’affaire des #drones dits #MALE (moyenne endurance longue portée). Achetés en catastrophe à l’américain General Atomics, en 2013 pour être déployés dans la guerre au Mali et la bande sahélo-saharienne, ils ont été au cœur d’un feuilleton politico-industriel, Paris voulant s’éviter de passer devant le Congrès américain qui exige une autorisation pour toute nouvelle zone de déploiement. L’ONG, qui a transmis une douzaine de questions très précises aux députés en amont de l’audition de ce mercredi sur les ventes d’armes, se réjouit que cette affaire de missiles français sur le sol libyen survienne : « La France va devoir se plier au devoir de transparence. »

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/100719/le-pouvoir-est-pris-dans-une-sale-affaire-de-missiles-en-libye?onglet=full
    #armes #commerce_d'armes #USA #Etats-Unis #France #armement

  • Development and migration : POLICIES AND OUTCOMES IN THE NETHERLANDS


    https://www.cordaid.org/nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/Development-and-Migration-2019.pdf

    #Pays-Bas #développement #migrations #réfugiés #asile #aide_au_développement #rapport #migrations #économie #travail #welfare #remittances #discriminations #welfare_state #marginalisation #réfugiés #asile #brain-drain #fuite_de_cerveaux #armes #commerce_d'armes #SDG #SDGs

    Particularité de ce rapport : il regarde la contribution des migrations à la fois au développement des pays d’origine des migrants résidents aux Pays-Bas et au développement des Pays-Bas par la présence de migrants...

    ping @_kg_ @karine4

    • La migration contribue au développement

      Tant pour le développement de la #Belgique que celui du pays d’origine des migrants, la migration a des effets positifs. Telle est la leçon principale du dernier rapport de Caritas International, réalisé en partenariat avec deux chercheurs universitaires. Rien que pour vous, nous en avons extrait ses conclusions principales et recommandations politiques.

      Encore un rapport ? Oui ! Car nous pensons que le débat et le discours public belge en matière de migration et de développement doit être plus équilibré et fondé sur des données fiables. Par cette publication, nous souhaitons reconnaître, et faire connaître, la contribution vitale des migrants au développement et au bien-être de nos sociétés.

      Une contribution diversifiée

      La littérature s’accorde : la migration contribue au développement économique tant du pays de résidence des migrants que de celui d’origine. Les effets principaux sont les suivants :

      Plus de biens et services disponibles sur le marché belge ;
      Une source importante de main d’œuvre – un apport d’autant plus important pour les secteurs en pénurie et dans un contexte de vieillissement de la population ;
      Des effets positifs pour les finances publiques – 0,8% du PIB belge ;
      Plus d’échanges bilatéraux entre la Belgique et les pays d’origine ;
      Des transferts de fonds pour les pays d’origine – quelque 4,16 milliards d’euros ont été transférés par des migrants depuis la Belgique en 2017.

      La contribution sociale des migrants est également fondamentale, puisque la migration permet aux idées de circuler. Ainsi par exemple, de nombreux transferts financiers servent à financer l’éducation – et particulièrement celle des filles – dans les pays d’origine. La migration promeut ainsi l’égalité des genres.

      Au niveau politique, la migration a une influence profonde sur la sphère politique belge, comme en témoigne la présence d’immigrés d’origine italienne, mais également l’influence grandissante d’immigrés de première génération et de leurs descendants d’origine turque, marocaine et congolaise.

      La migration participe enfin à façonner l’identité culturelle de la Belgique. De multiples artistes et sportifs aux horizons divers – tels que le chanteur Stromae ou certains joueurs des Diables Rouges pour ne citer qu’eux – exercent une influence durable sur la scène publique belge.
      Une contribution malgré les obstacles

      Les résultats du rapport illustrent l’urgence de répondre aux obstacles conséquents qui empêchent la migration – et les migrants eux-mêmes – de contribuer pleinement au développement de la Belgique.

      Le premier obstacle renvoie à l’absence de voies légales et sûres tant pour les migrants désirant travailler, étudier ou vivre en famille que pour les personnes qui pourraient bénéficier d’un statut (protection subsidiaire ou réfugié). Cela explique pourquoi certaines personnes n’ont d’autre choix que d’emprunter des routes informelles, qui coûtent la vie à certains et affectent les autres. « Ce n’est qu’en respectant la dignité des personnes migrantes – durant tout leur parcours migratoire – qu’elles pourront s’épanouir et faire partie intégrante de la société » explique Elise Kervyn, chargée de plaidoyer.

      Certains migrants ne voient également pas leurs besoins fondamentaux remplis. En raison de certaines politiques et pratiques, il est plus difficile pour les migrants que les natifs de vivre en famille, d’avoir un logement de qualité et abordable et un travail où leurs droits sont respectés autant que ceux des natifs. Les causes sont diverses : obstacles administratifs, absence de réseaux, discriminations sur base ethnique, etc.
      Une ligne de conduite à adopter

      Avant que la migration ne voie son potentiel valorisé, les migrants doivent jouir de conditions de vie dignes. Cette nécessité ne répond pas uniquement à un impératif d’ordre moral. Les personnes contraintes de lutter quotidiennement pour satisfaire leurs besoins fondamentaux ne peuvent guère, au-delà, valoriser leurs compétences et connaissances et en faire bénéficier la société. Nos recommandations répondent à ces préoccupations majeures et à l’objectif de construire une société plus juste et plus solidaire. En voici les principales :

      Élargir les voies d’entrée sûres et légales
      Garantir un accueil de qualité aux demandeurs et bénéficiaires de protection internationale
      Protéger les droits fondamentaux de tous les migrants
      Concevoir et mettre en œuvre des politiques visant une meilleure insertion des migrants
      Lutter contre la discrimination et la xénophobie
      Soutenir la contribution des migrants envers les pays d’origine

      Une place pour toutes et tous

      Ce rapport insiste donc sur les besoins et la dépendance de la Belgique vis-à-vis de la migration. Caritas International est toutefois convaincue que la solidarité que nous devons manifester aux personnes migrantes ne doit en aucun cas être tributaire de leur niveau de contribution. Nous croyons en effet que tous et toutes, des personnes hautement qualifiées aux moins qualifiées, peuvent être des acteurs de développement si la société leur donne les moyens et la chance d’y parvenir.

      https://www.caritasinternational.be/fr/urgence-et-developpement/la-migration-contribue-au-developpement

      Pour télécharger le rapport sur la Belgique :


      https://www.caritasinternational.be/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Rapport_Penser_Maison_Commune.pdf?x34636

    • Et pour l’#Allemagne...
      Gemeinsam Heimat sein

      Studie zum Zusammenhang zwischen Migration und Entwicklung am Beispiel Deutschlands hier herunterladen.
      Migration und Entwicklung sind zwei Begriffe, die populärer nicht sein könnten. Dass es eine Beziehung zwischen den beiden Prozessen gibt, ist inzwischen ein gängiges Thema in der Diskussion unter Forschern, Politikern und Praktikern. Dennoch ist es recht schwierig nachzuvollziehen, wie sie sich gegenseitig beeinflussen.

      Dem Landes-Caritasverband Bayern ist es, im Rahmen des EU-Projekts MIND, gelungen einen wissenschaftlichen Beitrag zu dieser Thematik zu leisten. Gemeinsam mit Dr. Annett Fleischer, Caritas Europa und Global Migration Policy Associates, ist die Publikation „Das gemeinsame Zuhause“ in der Edition Common Home für Deutschland entstanden. Anhand der Quellen und durch eine Vielzahl an Interviews mit Praktikerinnen und Praktikern aus diesen Bereichen, will die Studie eine Grundlage schaffen, um das öffentliche Verständnis für den Zusammenhang zwischen universeller nachhaltiger Entwicklung und Migration in Deutschland und in ausgewählten Entwicklungsländern zu verbessern. Des Weiteren werden deutsche Beiträge zur Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und das verstärkte Engagement von Regierungsbehörden aller Ebenen, zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen (CSOs), Einzelpersonen und anderen Akteuren bei der Bewältigung von Ursachen und Faktoren der Migration erläutert. Und schließlich rückt sie Migranten und Flüchtlinge als wichtige Entwicklungsakteure in den Vordergrund. Dabei geht es nicht nur um Zahlen, Daten und Fakten, sondern auch welche Hürden, Chancen und Möglichkeiten sich Migranten in Deutschland stellen müssen. Die Publikation schließt mit Empfehlungen, um Themen mit Migrationsbezug zukünftig erfolgreich zu gestalten:

      Diskriminierung und Fremdenfeindlichkeit verhindern!

      Gewährleistung des Schutzes aller Migranten und Flüchtlinge durch die Menschenrechte.

      Anwendung und Durchsetzung des Arbeitsrechts, der Normen für menschenwürdige Arbeit sowie des Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutzes für alle Migranten.

      Ersetzung des negativen Diskurses durch eine zutreffende und positive Erzählung über Migration.

      Ausbau sicherer und legaler Wege der Migration.

      Verstärktes Engagement der Städte und lokalen Akteure bei der Integration.

      Stärkung und Ermöglichung der Teilnahme von Migranten und Flüchtlingen in der lokalen Gemeinschaft und Städten sowie am politischen Dialog.

      Bewältigung der Fluchtursachen.

      Verbesserung der Datenerhebung und Wissensbestände zur Stärkung des Zusammenhangs zwischen Migration und Entwicklung.

      Stärkung des deutschen Engagements für die regionale, nationale und ganzheitliche menschliche Entwicklung im Ausland.

      Neben der deutschen Veröffentlichung werden auch die MIND Partnerländer (Österreich, Belgien, Bulgarien, Tschechien, Italien, Holland, Portugal, Slowakei Slowenien und Schweden) eine Publikation in der Edition Common Home veröffentlichen. Das Gelingen dieses Projekts ist ein gutes Beispiel für europäische Zusammenarbeit. Im Rahmen des MIND-Projekts hoffen wir, dass wir durch die europäischen Publikationen und den verschiedenen landesspezifischen Facetten wichtige Akzente zu den zukunftsweisenden Themen Migration und Entwicklung setzen können.


      https://www.caritas-bayern.de/beitraege/common-home-2019/1443490

      Pour télécharger le rapport en anglais :
      https://www.caritas-bayern.de/cms/contents/caritas-bayern.de/medien/dokumente/building-the-common/building_the_common_home_englisch.pdf?d=a

    • Interlinks between migration and development

      The EU and its Member States have reshaped their external policies, including development cooperation, to place more focus on migration-related issues. Widely used in this context, political rhetoric on ’addressing root causes of migration’ has been questioned by academics as creating unrealistic expectations. Indeed, a positive correlation between migration and narrowly understood economic development persists until countries reach middle-income country level. However,several key drivers of migration are related to discrepancies in levels of human development. Demographic pressures, youth unemployment, job opportunities in the country of destination, the growth of migrant networks and the desire to reunite families, all play roles in migration. A complex interaction between aid and migration also exists, which is far from a simple one-way causality. In general, poverty alleviation, the primary objective of development aid, tends to enhance rather than deter the realisation of the aspiration to migrate, in the short- and medium-term, by increasinghousehold incomes. A more global approach to cooperation with third countries, such as the EU’s already well-established assistance focusing on good governance, infrastructure, rural development and strengthening resilience, as well as going beyond development assistance to include trade and investment, appears promising in terms of deterring migration. On the other hand, studies confirm that international migration is an important path for development: remittances constitute a tool forpoverty reduction, while diaspora skills and networks provide resources for economic and social progress. Nevertheless, EU policy integrating development aid as an instrument for curbing irregular migration is criticised by development stakeholders as undermining aid effectiveness, principles, and risks diverting aid from the most needy and indirectly prompting human rights violations. To avoid such outcomes, a contextual analysis must be the basis for identifying genuine synergies to be reinforced between development and migration management.

      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/630351/EPRS_BRI(2019)630351_EN.pdf
      #migration-development_nexus

    • What is home ?

      MIND ist ein Projekt, das von der Europäischen Kommission für drei Jahre finanziert wird. Es wird umgesetzt von zwölf Caritas-Organisationen in elf EU-Mitgliedsstaaten, nämlich Österreich, Bayern, Bulgarien, in der Tschechischen Republik, den Niederlanden, Belgien, Italien, Portugal, der Slowakei, Slowenien und Schweden. Außerdem wirkt Caritas Europa als Dachorganisation mit. Wir möchten gemeinsam mit unseren Partnern mehr Aufmerksamkeit auf Prozesse in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und das Wissen um nachhaltige Entwicklung lenken. Die europaweite Webseite ist unter https://www.whatishome.eu zu finden.


      https://www.caritas.at/aktuell/kampagne/mind

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuKPn0lFwBY

      #home #chez_soi #maison

  • Genova, portuali pronti a impedire l’attracco a nave saudita che trasporta armi: “Organizzeremo boicottaggio”

    I leggendari “#camalli”, da sempre parte attiva nella vita sociale e politica della città, hanno ripreso lo slogan salviniano per dire: “Chiudiamo i porti alle armi, non alle persone”. Il cargo, con bandiera di Riyad, avrebbe a bordo armamenti che potrebbero essere utilizzati dalla coalizione del Golfo contro i civili in Yemen.

    “Chiudiamo i porti alle armi, non alle persone”. A riprendere in chiave pacifista lo slogan simbolo di Matteo Salvini sono i portuali di Genova, i leggendari “camalli”, da sempre parte attiva nella vita sociale e politica della città. Il tema è l’arrivo nel porto ligure, lunedì 20 maggio, della Bahri Yanbu, un cargo battente bandiera saudita di proprietà della Bahri, compagnia marittima partecipata dal governo di Riyadh. Una nave che – ormai è certo – porta a bordo armamenti di fabbricazione europea diretti allo scalo saudita di Gedda, dove l’arrivo è previsto a fine mese. E non è difficile immaginare che la destinazione finale sia lo Yemen, dove l’esercito del principe ereditario Mohammad bin Salman combatte insieme alle forze lealiste contro i ribelli Houthi, in un conflitto che dura da quattro anni e ha causato più di 60mila vittime. In particolare, mercoledì 8 maggio la Yanbu avrebbe dovuto fermarsi nel porto francese di Le Havre per imbarcare otto cannoni semoventi di tipo “Caesar” prodotti dall’azienda di Stato francese Nexter, come rivelato dal sito d’informazione Disclose e confermato in televisione dalla ministra della Difesa transalpina Florence Parly. Ma, a causa della mobilitazione dei portuali e di una serie di ong (tra cui Amnesty International e Oxfam), era rimasta a navigare in circolo per tre giorni a 25 chilometri dalla costa, fino a quando, nella serata di venerdì 10, l’Autorità portuale non ha annullato la tappa.

    Il timore dei “camalli”, ora, è che l’imbarco saltato in Francia debba avvenire a Genova. E sono pronti a mobilitarsi per impedirlo. Nella mattinata di giovedì, mentre il caso suscitava le prime attenzioni istituzionali, la notizia è stata smentita dallo stesso armatore: la Bahri ha comunicato all’Autorità portuale che in Liguria non saranno caricati né scaricati armamenti, invitandola a mettere a disposizione lo scalo. Ma intanto sono in corso accertamenti della Prefettura, che a breve dovrebbe decidere eventuali provvedimenti, fino all’ipotesi estrema di un diniego all’attracco, come già successo in Francia. I portuali, nel frattempo, hanno confermato l’assemblea già indetta per il pomeriggio di venerdì alla sala Chiamata del Porto nel quartiere di San Benigno, storico ritrovo della Culmv (Compagnia unica lavoratori merci varie), la società di servizi che riunisce oltre mille operai dello scalo. “Faremo il possibile perché nel nostro porto non passi alcun tipo di materiale bellico”, dice a Ilfattoquotidiano.it Enrico Poggi, ex gruista del Gmt (Genoa metal terminal) e segretario generale della Filt Cgil di Genova. “Se l’obiettivo è imbarcare armi organizzeremo un boicottaggio, come abbiamo sempre fatto a partire dal secolo scorso, quando da Genova dovevano partire gli ordigni americani destinati al Vietnam o ai Paesi del Golfo”.

    “Ma anche se non fosse così – spiega Poggi – organizzeremo un presidio sotto la sede dell’Autorità portuale, insieme alle associazioni che hanno già aderito, per ribadire la nostra contrarietà alla vendita di armi europee a Stati che le utilizzano a scopo di aggressione, colpendo obiettivi civili. Come d’altra parte prevedono trattati internazionali ratificati anche dall’Italia”. Il riferimento è all’articolo 6 del Trattato Onu sul commercio delle armi entrato in vigore nel 2014 che impone agli Stati contraenti di “non autorizzare trasferimenti di armi convenzionali se sono a conoscenza del fatto che potrebbero essere usate in attacchi verso obiettivi civili”. Posizione fatta propria anche da Amnesty International che, anzi, chiama in causa pure i produttori di armi italiani: “È reale e preoccupante – scrive la ong – la possibilità che anche a Genova possano essere caricate armi e munizionamento militare. Negli ultimi anni è stato accertato da numerosi osservatori indipendenti l’utilizzo contro la popolazione civile yemenita anche di bombe prodotte dalla RWM Italia con sede a Ghedi, Brescia, e stabilimento a Domusnovas, in Sardegna”. Per Amnesty “esiste quindi il fondato pericolo che i porti italiani accolgano gli operatori marittimi che trasferiscono sistemi di armi e munizioni destinati a paesi in conflitto: armi che possono essere usate – com’è già accaduto – per commettere gravi violazioni dei diritti umani e che anche secondo i trattati internazionali firmati dal nostro Paese non dovrebbero essere consegnate”.

    Tra i soggetti aderenti all’assemblea di domani anche la Comunità di San Benedetto al Porto fondata da Don Gallo, l’Arci e Oxfam Italia. Hanno preso posizione anche due deputate del Partito democratico, Raffaella Paita (già candidata alla presidenza della Regione, sconfitta nel 2015 da Giovanni Toti) e Lia Quartapelle: “Il porto attende il parere della Prefettura che rappresenta il governo e in particolare il Ministero dell’Interno. La Francia ha negato i suoi porti. Chiediamo che l’Italia faccia lo stesso. È possibile che per una volta Conte, Di Maio, Salvini e Toninelli si trovino d’accordo per salvare vite umane? Sarebbe il colmo se i porti italiani, che Salvini ha voluto chiusi a chi scappa dalle guerre, venissero aperti alle armi usate in quelle guerre”, scrivono.

    https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/05/16/genova-portuali-pronti-a-impedire-lattracco-a-nave-saudita-che-trasporta-armi-organizzeremo-boicottaggio/5184866
    #Gênes #Italie #ports_fermés #armes #commerce_d'armes #résistance #Arabie_Saoudite #boycott #Yémen
    ping @isskein @reka

    • La nave delle armi: i cannoni per lo Yemen potrebbero essere imbarcati a Spezia

      La #Yanbu è attesa domani a Genova. Previsto un presidio di protesta al varco Etiopia.

      Mentre i portuali genovesi, con la campagna di boicottaggio contro la nave delle armi diretta in Arabia Saudita recuperano, grazie in particolare all’impegno della Cgil, una leadership internazionalista e raccolgono ampi consensi ottenendo anche l’adesione di importanti associazioni cattoliche come i salesiani e le Acli, un treno carico dei cannoni destinati in Yemen potrebbe nelle prossime ore arrivare, in gran segreto a Spezia.
      Concentrati sulla vasta eco chesta avendo la protesta pacifista contro la Bahri Yanbu, ci si era dimenticati degli otto cannoni francesi Caesar che sono all’origine del caso. Ricapitoliamo.
      Un’inchiesta giornalistica del sito francese Disclose svela la rotta delle armi tra Francia e Arabia Saudita. Con documenti dei servizi segreti precisa che a Le Havre dieci giorni fa dovevano essere caricatiotto cannoni Caesar, un tipo di arma il cui utilizzo nella guerra in Yemen avrebbe provocato numerose vittime fra la popolazione civile. I portuali di Le Havre assieme ad organizzazioni pacifiste impediscono l’accosto alla Yanbu che salpa diretta prima a Santander e ora, domani mattina è previsto l’arrivo, a Genova, nel terminal Gmt.

      Sotto la Lanterna, Prefettura e Capitaneria hanno già spiegato che non saranno caricate delle armi ma solo materiale civile.
      I portuali però hanno fotografato il carico in attesa e accusano di ipocrisia le autorità: “Un generatore elettrico ad uso militare è un’arma da guerra? Se alimenta un campo da cui partono incursioni o bombardamenti, come lo considera la Capitaneria di porto? Questa “merce varia” è già a ponte Eritrea, Genoa Metal Terminal, pronta per essere imbarcata lunedì sul Bahri Yanbu, destinazione Jeddah. La ditta che li produce, Teknel, è convenzionata con la N.A.T.O. e produce servizi logistici militari”.

      Venerdì pomeriggio alla sala chiamata della Culmv durante un’affollata assemblea, le varie anime pacifiste della città si sono riunite e, pur nella diversità delle posizioni, hanno convenuto su un’azione comune. Senza dimenticare che l’aggregazione di numerose realtà attorno ad una battaglia così importante e di grande risonanza internazionale è già, di per sè, un successo. Soprattutto il tema di un porto aperto alle armi ha toccato nel vivo chi in questi mesi si indigna di fronte alle politiche del governo targato lega che chiude i porti alle navi cariche di migranti salvati dai gommoni partiti dalla Libia. La contestazione alla Yanbu unisce quindi due questioni: pacifismo e accoglienza.
      Per lunedì mattina all’ingresso del porto a Sampierdarena, al varco Etiopia, è previsto un presidio di protesta. Come ha già spiegato il console della Culmv Antonio Benvenuti, una squadra di camalli salirà a bordo della nave e se si scoprirà che sta per essere imbarcato materiale militare scatterà immediatamente uno sciopero.
      Ma la partita in queste ore sembra si stia giocando su un altro fronte.
      La società Nexter, azienda bellica interamente controllata dallo Stato francese ha un accordo con l’Arabia Saudita che avrebbe già pagato i cannoni che non sono stati caricati a Le Havre. E’ quindi compito del produttore garantire in qualche modo la consegna. Si sarebbe così deciso di trasferire via treno i cannoni in un altro porto. Per questioni logistiche la scelta sarebbe ricaduta sul porto di Spezia. Uno scalo meno “caldo” di quello di Genova o Livorno e soprattutto con una lunga esperienza nel campo degli armamenti visto che Spezia è la città dell’Oto Melara l’azienda del gruppo Leonardo – Fimeccanica che costruisce carri armati. Mezzi che sono sempre stati imbarcati da una banchina riservata del porto di Spezia.Al momento nessuno conferma ufficialmente questa ipotesi che, però, proviene da fonti assolutamente attendibili per il loro ruolo nella vicenda.
      Va anche sottolineato come la Bahri sia una potenza nel mondo dello shipping. È, infatti, la compagnia di bandiera dell’Arabia Saudita ed è rappresentata in Italia proprio da una società genovese, la Delta agenzia marittima del gruppo Gastaldi. Da diversi anni le sue navi facevano scalo a Genova nella rotta fra il nord Europa e il Mar Rosso. Le armi a bordo sono sempre state trasportate, senza clamori. Ma ora, il clima, nei porti, è cambiato.


      https://genova.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/05/19/news/la_nave_delle_armi_i_cannoni_per_lo_yemen_potrebbero_essere_imbarcati_a_spezia-226611996/?rss&ref=twhs

    • Les dockers de Marseille refusent de char­ger les armes françaises vendues à l’Ara­bie saou­dite

      Recalé au Havre il y a une ving­taine de jours, le navire qui doit trans­por­ter des armes françaises en Arabie saou­dite est coincé à Marseille. Selon les infor­ma­tions du média d’in­ves­ti­ga­tion Disclose, dont deux jour­na­listes ont été convoqués le 14 mai par la DGSI, les dockers de la ville phocéenne refusent de char­ger une cargai­son de muni­tions sur le #Bahri_Tabuk.

      « Fidèles à leur histoire et valeurs de paix […] ils ne char­ge­ront aucune arme, aucune muni­tion pour quelle guerre que ce soit », a indiqué le syndi­cat CGT des dockers du port de Marseille-Fos dans un commu­niqué. Alors que Disclose a montré que les armes françaises livrées à Riyad étaient utili­sées au Yémen, où les civils meurent par dizaines de milliers, la ministre des Armées, Florence Parly, a réaf­firmé sa volonté de pour­suivre le « parte­na­riat avec l’Ara­bie saou­dite » lors d’une allo­cu­tion à l’As­sem­blée natio­nale, hier.

      Au Havre, le 7 mai dernier, des canons Caesar étaient restés à quai. Cette fois, « les charges modu­laires parties en contai­ners depuis l’usine d’Eu­renco de Berge­rac ont été redi­ri­gées vers une desti­na­tion incon­nue », détaille Disclose.

      https://www.ulyces.co/news/les-dockers-de-marseille-refusent-de-charger-les-armes-francaises-vendues-a-l
      #Marseille #France

    • Aggiornamento importante: secondo alcune fonti i container che verranno caricati oggi sulla #BahriTabuk sarebbero in totale 44 (quindi ulteriori 40...) che potrebbero corrispondere a circa 8000 bombe! Sarebbe una delle più grandi spedizioni di ordigni mai effettuata da Sardegna.

      https://twitter.com/ReteDisarmo/status/1134416948966633473
      #Sardaigne #bombes

      Et sur Facebook :

      Caricati all’alba sulla Bahri Tabuk 4 container arrivati sotto scorta al porto di Cagliari: ancora armi per la guerra in #Yemen?
      Rete Disarmo è in grado di diffondere le immagini del carico.

      Stamattina attorno alle 7.30 sono stati scortati nel Porto Canale di Cagliari 4 container che sono stati poi caricati sul cargo saudita Bahri Tabuk. Il trasporto è stato fatto con uso di aziende private di sicurezza e agendo con percorsi e procedure al di fuori delle normali regole e procedure del porto (di fatto by-passando il controllo dei lavoratori portuali). Sui container non erano presenti evidenti segni di riconoscimento di materiale esplosivo, ma viste le tempistiche delle operazioni di carico e lo spiegamento di strutture di sicurezza è alto il sospetto che si sia trattato di un carico di nuovi ordigni prodotti in Sardegna e diretti in Arabia Saudita.

      Rete Italiana per il Disarmo è in grado di documentare fotograficamente (grazie alle immagini scattate da Kevin McElvaney) la sequenza degli eventi avvenuti questa mattina: la nave Bahri Tabuk è giunta nel porto canale di Cagliari attorno alle 06.40 (con una attracco inizialmente non dichiarato alla partenza da Marsiglia il 29 maggio sera), alle ore 7.30 circa sono poi giunti i 4 container da trenta tonnellate su camion con seguito di scorta privata. Container che sono poi stati caricati sulla Bahri Tabuk circa alle 8.30.

      Rete Italiana per il Disarmo chiede alle Autorità locali in Sardegna (Prefetto e Questore) alle Autorità portuali di Cagliari e al Governo di chiarire se il carico di questa mattina sul cargo battente bandiera saudita sia stato legato o meno all’export di bombe verso Paesi coinvolti nel conflitto Yemenita, e quali siano state le condizioni di sicurezza del trasporto (e in caso di conferma come mai i container non avevano segni evidenti legati a materiale esplosivo). Chiediamo anche conto del fatto che il carico sia avvenuto di primo mattino (con ingresso praticamente notturno della nave in porto e attracco non segnalato preventivamente ed esplicitamente da Bahri) e di fatto non seguendo le normali procedure, impedendo quindi ai lavoratori portuali di Cagliari di attivarsi per evitare eventuale export di armamenti (come avvenuto in diversi porti italiani ed europei di recente).

      Ancora una volta facciamo appello al Governo affinché abbia il coraggio di fermare il flusso di armi verso una delle catastrofi umanitarie più grandi attualmente presenti al mondo, catastrofe in buona misura causata dai bombardamenti eseguiti anche con bombe italiane.

      https://www.facebook.com/retedisarmo/photos/a.197814639708/10157220938039709/?type=3&theater

  • Global military spending tops $1.8 trillion, highest on record

    Global military spending has reached a new post-Cold War high, topping $1.8 trillion in 2018, according to an annual report published this week by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This marks a 2.6 percent increase over the previous annual record for worldwide military expenditures in 2017.

    Most notably, US military spending increased by 4.6 percent in 2018, to $649 billion, the first annual US spending hike recorded by SIPRI since 2011. This trend is set to continue, with President Donald Trump having signed a $686 billion budget for 2019 and requesting $718 billion for the Pentagon in 2020. The Congressional Budget Office projects that if current funding trends continue, the US will spend $7 trillion on its military over the next decade, equivalent to the amount which will be spent on education, infrastructure and public health programs combined.


    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/30/pers-a30.html#disqus_thread
    #industrie_militaire #business #armes #commerce_d'armes #statistiques #chiffres #2018

  • Yémen : des armes made in France - Une enquête en partenariat avec Disclose.ngo | ARTE
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/086089-022-A/yemen-des-armes-made-in-france

    Cette note a été transmise au Président de la République Emmanuel Macron, lors du conseil restreint de défense du 3 octobre 2018 à l’Élysée, en présence de la ministre des Armées, Florence Parly, du Premier ministre, Edouard Philippe et du ministre de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères, Jean-Yves Le Drian.

    Ces derniers ont tous pu consulter les quinze pages du document provenant de la direction du Renseignement militaire français (DRM), qui détaille l’ensemble des armes vendues par la France aux Émirats arabes unis et à l’Arabie saoudite. Des armes aujourd’hui utilisées dans la guerre au Yémen.

    Cette note révèle pour la première fois les positions, à la date du 25 septembre 2018, de l’armement français utilisé par la coalition saoudienne dans le conflit yéménite. Ces “Yémen Papers” contredisent la position du gouvernement français. Des armes françaises sont bien utilisées par la coalition dans la guerre au Yémen sur tous les fronts : air, terre et mer.

    https://www.arte.tv/sites/story/reportage/yemen-des-armes-made-in-france
    #crime_de_guerre #crime_contre_l'humanité #armement #industrie_de_la_mort #mensonge_d'état