• En #Thaïlande, avec le parti des #Commoners | Portfolios | Mediapart
    https://www.mediapart.fr/studio/portfolios/en-thailande-avec-le-parti-des-commoners

    Après cinq ans de dictature militaire, la Thaïlande se rend aux urnes le 24 mars. Même si les règles ont été manipulées par la junte au pouvoir, des dizaines de partis se présentent dans un élan d’enthousiasme civique. Les Commoners (« Gens du peuple ») sont une petite formation née des nombreuses #lutte_environnementales du pays, mêlant villageois affectés par des projets de mines ou de barrages et un groupe de jeunes militants des droits de l’homme de l’Issan, une province déshéritée du Nord-Est. Portraits de candidats qui livrent bataille aux marges du pays pour la survie économique et politique de leurs #communautés .

    L’un des intérêts des #communs est qu’ils donnent un cadre pour les récits et les perspectives politiques de militants de base, notamment pour la #justice_environnementale. Ici en Thailande.

  • 8 Social Media Marketing Myths Busted
    https://hackernoon.com/8-social-media-marketing-myths-busted-f9ab17a2a179?source=rss----3a8144e

    At this point, there is probably no doubt that social media is beyond something filed under “nice-to-have.” It’s became a massive channel for social media marketing — a channel that is used by 98% of all digital consumers. If someone has a business, then the chances are high that it’s a good idea to use some form of social media to advertise that business.However, like everything else in this world, social media marketing is plagued by misconceptions. In order for your business to be successful, you need to be able to see past the misconception — and bust the myths. Here are the most common myths, along with the facts that bust them.Myth 1. You need to be active on every social media platformThere is a common myth that says if you want your company to be successful, then you need to be active on (...)

    #social-media #social-media-myths #marketing-myths #social-media-platforms #common-myth

  • Alpine Water – common good or source of conflicts?

    Changing environmental and climatic conditions as well as growing demand is likely to lead to conflicts in water use and water management in the Alps. This ForumAlpinum will identify hot spots of water use and management in the Alps, will analyse target conflicts, assess their relevance in a regional, national or international context, and discuss possible solutions.


    https://austriaca.at/?arp=0x003a30da
    #eau #Alpes #conflits #bien_commun #communs #commons #climat #changement_climatique

  • #Nul_homme_n'est_une_île

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


    http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=260888.html
    #agriculture #alternative #agriculture_biologique #Sicile #Italie #agrumes #Galline_felici #localisme #Suisse #commons #communs #film #documentaire #Vorarlberg #Autriche #Alpes #architecture #dignité #coopérative #aménagement_du_territoire #prix_équitable #vente_directe #exode_rural #artisanat #économie_solidaire #EES #pizzo #auto-gestion #mafia #réseau_européen #réseau #Grisons #Bregenzerwald #conscience_européenne #fierté #participation_citoyenne #fête #utopie #Bureau_des_questions_du_futur (1’18’00)

    –—

    #Zwischenwasser (#Bregenzerwald) : Nel comune hanno costruito una scuola in cui hanno aiutato benevolmente gli abitanti e richiedenti asilo
    min. 1’12’15
    #asile #réfugiés

    • “Dalla Sicilia ripartirà tutto”. #Roberto_Li_Calzi: da “Le Galline felici” agli Sbarchi Gas

      “Prodotti bio e naturali a casa vostra. Coltiviamo rispettando la natura, vendiamo rispettando la gente. Creiamo occasioni di occupazione gioiosa rispettando la dignità del lavoro. Promuoviamo lo sviluppo armonico del territorio. Sosteniamo la crescita della concorrenza perché per noi ‘concorrere’ significa correre assieme”. È questa la filosofia che anima il consorzio Le Galline Felici, ideato da Roberto Li Calzi, conosciuto e intervistato da Daniel Tarozzi a Siracusa, tra le ultime tappe del suo viaggio nell’Italia che cambia.

      Dopo diversi anni trascorsi all’estero, Roberto è tornato in Sicilia ed ha iniziato ad acquistare dagli allevamenti intensivi le galline, restituendo loro condizioni di vita dignitose. Da qui il nome “Le Galline felici”, nato ufficialmente nel settembre 2007.

      Il consorzio, che oggi mette insieme più di 15 realtà economiche, riunisce siciliani innamorati della propria terra e determinati ad agire per cambiare. Si tratta di agricoltori dediti all’agricoltura biologica, che lavorano per un’agricoltura rispettosa degli equilibri naturali e da molti anni servono numerosi Gas al centro-nord.

      Roberto Li Calzi racconta che tutto è iniziato una decina di anni fa, proprio quando è entrato in contatto con il mondo dei Gas. “Ho chiesto a mio fratello di insegnarmi ad usare il computer e ho scritto a tutti i gruppi di acquisto presenti in rete offrendo i miei prodotti, principalmente agrumi. Immediatamente hanno cominciato ad arrivare richieste dal Centro-nord. Per qualche anno ho fatto da ponte anche per i prodotti agricoli di altre aziende. Li compravo e li rivendevo senza chiedere commissioni. Ad un certo punto, quindi, creare il consorzio e sistematizzare questo processo è stato quasi naturale” (da “Io faccio così”, pag. 335).

      Da “Le Galline felici” all’associazione culturale Siqillyàh (dall’antico nome arabo della Sicilia), creata da Roberto e altri tra il 2009 ed il 2010 per sperimentare e proporre altri modi di vivere e consumare e divenuta poi una delle più importanti Reti di economia solidale nel sud Italia.

      Tra persone, Gas e altre associazioni, l’Arcipelago Siqillyàh conta oggi circa 600, soci, il 40% dei quali non è in Sicilia. Tra gli obiettivi vi è la valorizzazione dei produttori locali e delle coltivazioni tipiche siciliane. In questi anni Siqillyàh ha inoltre favorito uno scambio nord-sud: i produttori biologici ed etici siciliani creano rapporti commerciali e culturali con i Gas del centro-nord .

      Proprio in quest’ambito si colloca un’altra importante iniziativa ispirata dal lavoro di Roberto Li Calzi: gli Sbarchi Gas, un nuovo modo di vivere gli incontri nazionali di tutti i rappresentanti dei gruppi di acquisto solidale. Il primo Sbarco (il nome si deve proprio a Roberto e si riferisce all’idea di una nave di gasisti che sbarcasse proprio sulle coste siciliane) è stato nel giugno del 2009 a Petralia Sottana, in provincia di Palermo. Tre giorni di festa con concerti, balli, campeggi ed esposizioni che hanno fatto sì che l’incontro venisse ricordato come una piccola Woodstock dei Gas.

      A questo primo Sbarco Gas hanno quindi fatto seguito gli Sbarchi in Piazza e si è contribuito alla creazione della Ressud, rete di economia solidale volta a rafforzare i legami tra i soggetti solidali del Sud nell’ottica di un percorso evolutivo di tutto il movimento nazionale dell’economia solidale.

      Gli obiettivi degli Sbarchi in piazza sono molteplici:
      – dimostrare che l’economia solidale offre risposte per i problemi prodotti dalla globalizzazione e dall’esasperazione del mercato;
      – diffondere questa consapevolezza e le sue pratiche tra la gente “comune” ed in particolare a quelle fasce “contigue” al mondo dell’Economia Solidale (associazioni, ecc.)
      – accrescere il numero dei consumatori consapevoli ed allargare quindi il consumo di beni provenienti da reti di produttori solidali;
      – consentire l’accesso a questo mercato a tutti quei produttori (con le caratteristiche adeguate) finora esclusi da questo mercato;
      – favorire la riconversione colturale (verso il bio) e culturale (verso la solidarietà) dei produttori;
      – stimolare i produttori ad operare in reti e agevolare la costruzione della rete sud sud;
      – favorire il ritorno alla terra di molti giovani (e non solo) disoccupati o insoddisfatti della qualità della propria vita;
      – uscire dalla testimonianza e cominciare a fare statistica;
      – raggiungere quei numeri, quella massa critica che permetta di concretizzare quelli che finora vengono considerate utopie.

      Una molteplicità di obiettivi, dunque, riconducibili ad un unico importante valore: l’importanza della rete, nella consapevolezza che ‘concorrere’ vuol dire correre insieme.

      “Non ci interessano i singoli – afferma Roberto Li Calzi – non cerchiamo gli eroi, ci interessa la rete. Siamo un mosaico, tutti insieme formiamo un quadro, ognuno è fondamentale, ma preso da solo non ha molto significato. Noi stiamo cercando di ribaltare i paradigmi, dimostrare che con le proprie energie si può sostenere la concorrenza e guadagnarci tutti. Sono convinto che dalla Sicilia ripartirà tutto”.

      http://www.italiachecambia.org/2014/01/io-faccio-cosi-10-dalla-sicilia-ripartira-tutto-roberto-li-calzi-da

  • #Commons and Contradictions: The #Political_Ecology of Elinor #Ostrom#ENTITLE blog – a collaborative writing project on Political Ecology

    Ostrom and her institutional economist collegues’ works are necessary to think a political ecology of the commons :

    Ostrom was not on the traditional left and didn’t research how capitalism, imperialism and allied structural forces shaped our society and environment. Indeed, we know that rather than commons failing because of lack of cooperation, they were often simply stolen and enclosed. Nonetheless, her detailed and open work provides huge intellectual stimulation and practical guidance to creating solutions that are democratic, diverse, equal and ecological. Finally, I would argue that politics, perhaps especially ecological politics, is about intervention and praxis, and in her defence of the commons, she made a very powerful intervention against all those who would argue, like Garrett Hardin, that the commoners should have their commons taken from them.

    https://entitleblog.org/2017/09/20/commons-and-contradictions-the-political-ecology-of-elinor-ostrom

    #enclosure #tragedy_of_the_commons #community_based_mangement #design_principles #García_López

  • The Highest Bidder Takes It All: The World Bank’s Scheme to Privatize the Commons

    The Highest Bidder Takes It All: The World Bank’s Scheme to Privatize the Commons details how the Bank’s prescribes reforms, via a new land indicator in the #Enabling_the_Business_of_Agriculture (#EBA) project, promotes large-scale land acquisitions and the expansion of agribusinesses in the developing world. This new indicator is now a key element of the larger EBA project, which dictates pro-business reforms that governments should conduct in the agricultural sector. Initiated as a pilot in 38 countries in 2017, the land indicator is expected to be expanded to 80 countries in 2019. The project is funded by the US and UK governments and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    The EBA’s main recommendations to governments include formalizing private property rights, easing the sale and lease of land for commercial use, systematizing the sale of public land by auction to the highest bidder, and improving procedures for #expropriation. Countries are scored on how well they implement the Bank’s policy advice. The scores then help determine the volume of aid money and foreign investment they receive.

    Amidst myriad flaws detailed in the report is the Bank’s prescription to developing countries’ governments, particularly in Africa, to transfer public lands with “potential economic value” to private, commercial use, so that the land can be put to its supposed “best use.” Claiming that low-income countries do not manage public land in an effective manner, the Bank pushes for the privatization of public land as the way forward. This ignores the fact that millions of rural poor live and work on these lands, which are essential for their livelihoods while representing ancestral assets with deep social and cultural significance.

    The Highest Bidder Takes It All is released as part of the Our Land Our Business campaign, made up of 280 organizations worldwide, demanding an end to the Enabling Business of Agriculture program.


    https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/highest-bidder-takes-all-world-banks-scheme-privatize-commons
    #Banque_mondiale #privatisation #terres #commons #communs #rapport #agriculture #industrie_agro-alimentaire #agro-business #land_grabbing #accaparement_des_terres #réformes #aide_au_développement #développement #commodification #économie #marchandisation #valeur_économique #néo-libéralisme

    signalé par @fil
    cc @odilon

  • Projet Common Voice : pour que la voix soit libre
    https://framablog.org/2018/12/19/projet-common-voice-pour-que-la-voix-soit-libre

    On nous demande souvent comment contribuer au Libre sans être un cador en informatique. Voici un projet utile, d’une grande importance et auquel il est très simple de contribuer : il suffit de savoir lire, parler et écouter. On vous explique … Lire la suite­­

    #Contributopia #Libres_Logiciels #CommonVoice #CreativeCommons #DeepSpeech #Lissy #Mozilla

  • Terre comuni. Percorsi inediti nelle proprietà collettive del Trentino

    C’è stato un periodo nel corso della storia in cui il Trentino era governato da un plurale ed estremamente diversificato sistema di governo del territorio, in cui le comunità locali godevano di ampi spazi di autonomia nella gestione di beni di interesse collettivo come prati, boschi, aree coltivate, torrenti.

    La sopravvivenza di queste comunità in contesti ambientali così ostili come quelli montani dipendeva da un’attenta e oculata gestione di queste risorse. Tale sistema ha consentito di preservare nel tempo sino ai giorni nostri i delicati equilibri socio-ambientali dei versanti trentini grazie alla definizione di principi impliciti di sostenibilità ambientale, che i cinque itinerari qui proposti intendono svelare.

    Anche se il territorio è molto mutato, continuano oggi ad esistere le istituzioni depositarie di quelle antiche usanze: le proprietà collettive. Qual è l’attualità di queste istituzioni in un mondo radicalmente trasformato? Che cosa possiamo apprendere da questo secolare sistema di gestione sostenibile del territorio?

    Mappe, fotografie, racconti, statuti: attraverso questi strumenti il libro invita all’esplorazione delle terre comuni del Trentino, suggerendo cinque itinerari inediti. Su queste tracce il viaggiatore è introdotto al territorio delle proprietà collettive, cogliendo spunti e suggestioni per approfondire lo stretto legame tra una società, un territorio e le sue istituzioni locali.


    http://www.professionaldreamers.net/?p=2780
    #biens_communs #commons #propriété_collective #Alpes #Trentino #italie #livre

  • Instantané d’aire d’autoroute, quand la #classe_obscène (beau nom que Lordon a trouvé pour qualifier la #bourgeoisie triomphante) est bien obligée de se mêler, brièvement, aux #classes_populaires.

    L’autoroute est chargée, la station service fourmille. Comme d’habitude, les hommes entrent et sortent de leurs toilettes librement, tandis que côté femmes, une file d’une vingtaine de personnes patiente. Arrive une femme âgée, vêtue simplement d’une robe à fleurs défraîchie, marchant d’un pas lourd avec une canne. Elle tient deux enfants par la main. Elle observe la longue queue et s’avance pour voir où elle mène :
    « - C’est pour les toilettes tout ça ?
    – Eh oui... »
    Elle sourit, gênée, et continue à remonter lentement la queue. Elle arrive à l’entrée des WC. Dans ma nuque, une voix marmonne : « Non mais je rêve, elle va pas faire ça quand même ? » La vieille femme entre. De derrière moi surgit une passionnée de fitness et de cardio-training, 1m80, bronzée aux UV, mèches oxygénées et savamment coupées, tenue sport. Elle bondit après la vieille femme et hurle : « Il y a une file d’attente là ! La moindre des politesses ce serait de demander la permission de passer devant tout le monde ! C’est pas croyable ça ! » J’écarquille les yeux :
    « - Mais enfin madame, vous voyez bien que c’est une personne âgée qui se déplace difficilement !
    – Vous voulez que je vous pisse dessus, vous ?
    – Je vous demande pardon ? »
    Au même moment, la femme devant moi, corpulente, dreads approximatives sur la tête, réconforte doucement la vieille dame : « Quand elle aura sa vieille maman avec une canne, elle comprendra. » La sportive jette ses phrases comme des couteaux : « Ouais bah ma mère elle est morte, alors d’ici à ce qu’elle ressorte de sa tombe on a le temps. »
    L’ancienne, embarrassée, tente de se justifier :
    « - Vous comprenez, ce n’est pas un handicap, la canne me sert à...
    – Vous inquiétez pas, j’ai tout à fait compris la situation, je vois bien que c’est pas un handicap et que vous n’êtes pas prioritaire.
    – C’est un problème de hanche qui a...
    – Oh la la, me racontez pas votre vie, j’ai pas envie de vous entendre. Je suis médecin, les gens payent pour me parler. Y a un minimum de politesse à avoir. »
    Je fais remarquer que la courtoisie, c’est précisément à nous d’en faire preuve. M’ignorant superbement, la sportive reprend sa place dans le rang en jetant des « Avec sa canne, là, j’hallucine ! », tandis que la femme aux dreads et moi parlons à la vieille dame et lui signalons bientôt un WC qui se libère.
    L’épilogue n’est pas plus joyeux. Tandis que j’arrive moi-même dans les toilettes, j’entends dans celles d’à côté une voix d’ouvrière ou d’employée, expliquant à une petite fille : « Bah c’est vrai que maintenant la canne ça rend pas toujours prioritaire, parce que c’est pas forcément un handicap. En plus y a des handicaps, on les voit pas. Par exemple moi, si ça se trouve j’ai un handicap et personne le sait. On peut pas savoir. »

    #humiliation #priorité #handicap #vieillesse #pauvreté #judiciarisation #fascisme #mépris_de_classe #politesse

    • @sombre : ceci dit, elle formule très clairement ce que j’ai ressenti chez nombre de spécialistes. Cette phrase est juste ignoble, mais le plus flippant, c’est le biais colossal avec lequel cette femme riche, dans la force de l’âge, en excellente santé et férue d’exercices physiques perçoit le corps d’une vieille femme pauvre. Si c’est pas un handicap labellisé, c’est du chiqué. La faiblesse du corps devient un signe de manque de volonté, de laisser aller. Je n’ose même pas imaginer le type de médecine qu’elle pratique.

      Le truc intéressant, d’ailleurs, c’est que la sportive médicale n’a quand même pas osé refuser frontalement la priorité à l’ancienne, c’était un peu trop visible (sans compter que la grand-mère s’occupait de deux enfants). En revanche, elle a fermement tenu à ce qu’elle s’humilie en demandant une permission qui allait de soi pour toute personne décente (la #common_decency d’Orwell). Qu’une pauvresse mal fagotée lui passe devant sans mot dire, c’était insoutenable. Il fallait lui faire subir un rituel de soumission en bonne et due forme pour lui concéder cette dérogation exceptionnelle. Il n’y avait donc pour elle aucune contradiction à exiger de la politesse avec la plus grande grossièreté, car la politesse n’était qu’un prétexte, le véritable enjeu étant la soumission.

      @alexcorp : au-delà de son étonnante allégeance à la bourgeoise sportive au détriment de la vieille femme démunie, ce qui est désolant, c’est que cette ouvrière dit en partie vrai, mais pour de mauvaises raisons. Il y a effectivement des handicaps qui ne se voient pas, mais cela ne justifie pas qu’on doute de ceux qui se voient ou qu’on dénie un accueil adapté à des personnes dont le corps est visiblement fatigué, mais qui ne portent pas de carte de handicap. Bref, c’est une confusion totale, où seule la preuve bureaucratique attesterait d’une réalité et où toute éthique est absente.

    • Oui, d’autant que c’est un cas typique, d’une femme non seulement âgée, mais ayant la charge de deux enfants. Et qui explique pourquoi l’égalité en termes d’accès n’est pas une simple question arithmétique de surfaces équivalentes, mais doit nécessairement prendre en compte les usages. Les usages, eux, n’ont rien de symétrique.

      Cela étant, la médecin aurait crisé pareillement s’il s’était agi d’une file d’attente de supermarché, d’administration ou tout autre endroit où elle se retrouve traitée de la même façon que de moins riches qu’elle - ou, pire, qu’elle doive leur concéder quelque chose.

    • Puisque tu parles de file d’attente de supermarché, ça me rappelle pourquoi je vais chez Aldi, plutôt qu’au Casino à côté. La convivialité aux caisses y est nettement plus saine. Et la répartition des classes sociales est très nette. Pas « d’obscènes » chez Aldi, ou seulement par accident...

  • Biens communs : jouir sans posséder
    https://abonnes.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/06/21/biens-communs-jouir-sans-posseder_5318960_3232.html

    Débats citoyens

    « Dans les interactions entre habitants “historiques”, paysans, squatteurs, voisins (…) s’est construit un territoire commun, au-delà de la propriété, des habitudes et des appartenances », constate ainsi un collectif d’intellectuels, parmi lesquels la philosophe Isabelle Stengers et l’anthropologue au Collège de France Philippe Descola (Mediapart, 6 avril). Une démarche « collective, construite comme un “commun”, au sein de laquelle les individualités trouvent leur propre énergie », appuient l’ingénieur des Ponts et Chaussées Olivier Frérot et le géographe Luc Gwiazdzinski (Libération, 20 avril).

    « Pourquoi ne pas reconnaître aux ­zadistes un droit à l’expérimentation ? Ils pourraient ainsi promouvoir une autre approche de la propriété qui est celle des “commons”, c’est-à-dire un dispositif fondé sur un collectif identifié et porteur d’un territoire », insiste l’économiste Bernard Paranque (Le Monde, 18 mai).

    Lire aussi : Daniela Festa : « En Italie, un mouvement social a émergé autour des communs urbains »

    La question des communs ne s’invite pas seulement dans le bocage nantais. Une Université du bien commun a été lancée à Paris en octobre 2017, dont le premier cycle de conférences et de débats citoyens a rencontré un franc succès. « Nous pensons que ce succès est lié, non seulement à la qualité des intervenants, mais également au fait que nous essayons d’articuler l’analyse et la recherche avec des pratiques de terrain et des initiatives en cours sur les biens communs (semences, eau, agriculture urbaine, logiciels libres, logement, etc.) », précise Cristina Bertelli, cofondatrice de l’université.

    Pour son film Nul homme n’est une île, sorti en avril, le documentariste Dominique Marchais a parcouru l’Italie, l’Autriche et la Suisse, en quête d’initiatives d’entraide et de sauvegarde des territoires allant à contre-courant des modèles économiques dominants. Et il ne se passe pas un mois sans que sorte un nouvel ouvrage consacré à l’économie ou à la gouvernance des biens communs. Ces derniers font donc un retour en force dans le monde des idées. Mais de quoi parle-t-on précisément ?

    #Communs

  • EU leaders consider centers outside bloc to process refugees

    Draft conclusions for the European Council summit next week propose the creation of ‘disembarkation platforms.’

    European Council President Donald Tusk has proposed that EU leaders create “regional disembarkation platforms” outside the European Union, where officials could quickly differentiate between refugees in need of protection and economic migrants who would potentially face return to their countries of origin.

    The proposal is an effort to break the acute political crisis over migration and asylum that has bedeviled EU leaders since 2015 — and even threatened in recent days to topple the German government — even as the numbers of arrivals have plummeted since the peak of the crisis.

    The disembarkation platform concept — which officials said would have to be implemented in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) — could create a formal mechanism by which the EU can bridge the divide between hard-line leaders calling for tough border controls and those insisting that EU nations obey international law and welcome refugees in need of protection.

    But the idea could also open EU leaders to criticism that they are outsourcing their political problem by creating centers for people seeking entry in countries on the periphery of the bloc. Among the potential partner nations are Tunisia and Albania, but officials say it is far too soon to speculate.

    The idea to create such facilities was suggested in 2016 by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the strongest critic of the EU’s policies on migration — especially on the relocation of refugees across Europe.

    More recently, French President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the idea, and on Sunday Italian Foreign Minister Enzo Moavero said Italy wants to officially put the idea on the table at the European Council summit.

    According to the draft guidelines, the new sites would “establish a more predictable framework for dealing with those who nevertheless set out to sea and are rescued in Search And Rescue Operations.”

    The conclusions state: “Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection, and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.”
    https://www.politico.eu/article/regional-disembarkation-platforms-eu-leaders-consider-camps-outside-bloc-to

    Nouveau #mots, nouvelle absurdité #disembarkation_platform...!!!
    #tri #migrations #migrants_économiques #réfugiés #catégorisation #hotspots #externalisation #novlangue
    #regional_disembarkation_platforms #Tunisie #Albanie #plateformes_régionales_de_désembarquement

    cc @reka @isskein @i_s_

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

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

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

    • Une idée qui vient de la Hongrie...

      From protest to proposal : Eastern Europe tries new migration tactic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #camps #cpa_camps

    • Europe Pushes to Outsource Asylum, Again

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

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

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

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

      Key Design Questions

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

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

      Where Would People Be Stopped and Processed?

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

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

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

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

      Who Would Do the Processing?

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

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

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

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

      What Happens Next?

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

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

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

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


      https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/europe-pushes-outsource-asylum-again
      #schéma #visualisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • EU admits no African country has agreed to host migration centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY OF DISEMBARKATION OPTIONS

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


      https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/migration-disembarkation-june2018_en.pdf
      #scénario

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

      –-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • Ne dites pas que ce sont des #camps !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #shopping_de_l'asile #normalisation
      #cpa_camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      How does this relate to broader EU policies on migration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


      $https://blogs.prio.org/2018/07/record-deaths-at-sea-will-regional-disembarkation-help-save-lives

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The Austrian Presidency paper proposes:

      "2.1. By 2020

      By 2020 the following goals could be defined:

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

      2.2. By 2025

      By 2025 the following goals could be realised:

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

      And includes the following statements, amongst others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Libya rejects EU plan for refugee and migrant centres

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

      Despite terrorism, a ’safe country’

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Les plateformes de débarquement pour migrants enterrées ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Accords en négociations

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Redéfinitions à venir

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • EP lawyers back EU plans for migrant centres in Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      But the EU says it is pressing ahead anyway.

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

      https://euobserver.com/migration/143513

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Token Sale: How to Protect Yourself Against Scams and Hackers
    https://hackernoon.com/token-sale-how-to-protect-yourself-against-scams-and-hackers-a85edaa5e37

    Due to the booming cryptocurrency market, many genuine projects are being impersonated by scammers and hackers looking to take advantage of unsuspecting investors. Here, we take a look at some of the most common scams, and how to protect yourself against them.Brought to you by Namahe1. Make sure you are on the right websitePhishing is becoming more common as scammers become increasingly sophisticated, and arm themselves with new tools to fool unsuspecting investors.One of the major ways scammers are now targeting #ico investors is by cloning the official website. Often, these scammers will also purchase paid advertising on Google, and other search engines to increase their search ranking. As such, be sure to double check the URL when clicking through from a search engine or anywhere (...)

    #common-token-scams #weekly-sponsor #against-token-scams #blockchain

  • From (urban) commons to commoning: political practices and horizons in the Mediterranean context

    Dai Commons al Commoning (urbano): Pratiche e Orizzonti Politici Nel Contesto Mediterraneo. Introduzione al numero speciale
    Cesare Di Feliciantonio, Silvia Aru
    258-268

    Lottare Per La Casa Nel Quartiere Che Cambia Volto. Il Potenziale Politico Dei Commons Urbani
    Nico Bazzoli
    269-291
    #quartiers #communs_urbains

    Cultura bene comune? Strategie di resistenza e riappropriazione dal basso in una città mediterranea
    Luca Ruggiero, Teresa Graziano
    292-324
    #culture #Méditerranée

    Undoing Commons. Diritto Alla Città, Attivismo Culturale e Pratiche di (Un-)Commoning nel Sud d’Italia
    Chiara Giubilaro
    325-347
    #droit_à_la_ville #Italie #Italie_du_Sud

    Spazi comuni nell’Atene della crisi: il commoning urbano come processo creativo
    Marco Volpini, Emanuele Frixa
    348-375
    #Athènes #création #créativité

    The Newcomers’ Right to the Common Space: The case of Athens during the refugee crisis
    Charalampos Tsavdaroglou
    376-401
    #réfugiés #migrations #asile

    Da vuoto urbano a verde pubblico: un caso di commoning a #Partinico (Palermo)
    Giulia de Spuches, Marco Picone, Noemi Granà
    402-426
    #Palerme #Sicile

    “Essere Nel Giusto”: Orizzonti Di Lotta E Pratiche Di Commoning In Due Esperienze Di Occupazione A Cagliari
    Silvia Aru
    427-453
    #Cagliari #Sardaigne

    L’amore alla guida degli spazi di messa in comune?
    Cesare Di Feliciantonio
    454-479

    Estrattivismo contro il comune. Venezia e l’economia turistica
    Giacomo-Maria Salerno
    480-505
    #extractivisme #Venise #tourisme

    Tessere il Comune. Autogestione del lavoro e pratiche socio-spaziali nelle economie popolari urbane a #Buenos_Aires
    Alioscia Castronovo

    #autogestion #économie_populaire


    https://www.acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/issue/view/109
    #commons #les_communs #communs #urban_matter #villes #géographie_urbaine #revue

    • ’National day of shame’ : #David_Lammy criticises treatment of Windrush generation

      Labour MP says situation has come about because of the hostile environment that begun under Theresa May, as he blames a climate of far-right rhetoric. People who came to the UK in the 1950s and 60s are now concerned about whether they have a legal right to remain in the country. The government has admitted that some people from the Windrush generation had been deported in error, as Theresa May appeared to make a U-turn on the issue Some Windrush immigrants wrongly deported, UK admits.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfy1mDdNtEQ

    • Amber Rudd’s resignation letter in full and the Prime Minister’s response

      Amber Rudd has resigned as home secretary amid increasing pressure over the way the Home Office handled immigration policy.

      Her resignation came after leaked documents undermined her claims she was unaware of the deportation targets her officers were using.

      Downing Street confirmed Theresa May had accepted Ms Rudd’s resignation on Sunday night. She is the fifth cabinet minister to have left their position since the Prime Minister called the snap election in June 2017.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/amber-rudd-resignation-letter-full-transcript-windrush-scandal-theres

    • Black history is still largely ignored, 70 years after Empire Windrush reached Britain

      Now, 70 years and three to four generations later, the legacy of those who arrived on the Windrush and the ships that followed is being rightly remembered – albeit in a way which calls into question how much their presence, sacrifices and contributions are valued in Britain.

      https://theconversation.com/black-history-is-still-largely-ignored-70-years-after-empire-windru
      #histoire #mémoire

    • Chased into ’self-deportation’: the most disturbing Windrush case so far

      As Amelia Gentleman reflects on reporting one of the UK’s worst immigration scandals, she reveals a new and tragic case.

      In the summer of 2013, the government launched the peculiarly named Operation Vaken, an initiative that saw vans drive around six London boroughs, carrying billboards that warned: “In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest.” The billboards were decorated with pictures of handcuffs and the number of recent immigration arrests (“106 arrests last week in your area”). A line at the bottom adopted a softer tone: “We can help you to return home voluntarily without fear of arrest or detention.”

      The Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto promise to reduce migration to the tens of thousands had been going badly. It was time for ministers to develop new ways of scaring immigrants into leaving and for the government’s hostile environment policy to get teeth. More than 170,000 people, many of them living in this country legally, began receiving alarming texts, with warnings such as: “Message from the UK Border Agency: you are required to leave the UK as you no longer have the right to remain.”

      The hope was that the Home Office could get people to “self-deport”, frightening them into submission. In this, politicians appeared to have popular support: a YouGov poll at the time showed that 47% of the public approved of the “Go home” vans. The same year, Home Office vehicles began to be marked clearly with the words “Immigration Enforcement”, to alert people to the hovering presence of border guards.

      Operation Vaken ran for just one month, and its success was limited. A Home Office report later found that only 11 people left the country as a result; it also revealed that, of the 1,561 text messages sent to the government’s tip-off hotline, 1,034 were hoaxes – taking up 17 hours of staff time.

      Theresa May’s former adviser Nick Timothy later tried to argue that the vans had been opposed by the prime minister and were only approved while she was on holiday. But others who worked on the project insisted that May had seen the wording on the vans and requested that the language be toughened up. Meanwhile, the Immigration Enforcement vehicles stayed, with their yellow fluorescent stripes and black-and-white checks, a sinister presence circling areas of high migration. Gradually, the broader strategy of intimidation began to pay off. Some people were frightened into leaving.
      Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
      Read more

      In my two years of reporting on what became known as the Windrush scandal, Joycelyn John’s experience was the most disturbing case I came across. Joycelyn arrived in London in 1963 at the age of four, travelling with her mother on a Grenadian passport as a British subject. She went to primary and secondary school in Hammersmith, west London, before working in hotels in the capital – including the Ritz and a Hilton.

      Some time around 2009, she lost her Grenadian passport, which contained the crucial stamp giving her indefinite leave to remain. She had trouble getting a new passport, because her mother had married and changed her daughter’s surname from Mitchell to John. Because she never registered the change, there was a discrepancy between Joycelyn’s birth certificate and the name she had used all her adult life. She spent several years attempting to sort out her papers, but by 2014, aged 55, she had been classified as living in Britain illegally. She lost her job and was unable to find new work. For a while, she lived in a homeless hostel, but she lost her bed, because the government does not normally fund places for people classified as illegal immigrants. She spent two years staying with relatives, sleeping on sofas or the floor.

      In that time, Joycelyn managed to gather 75 pages of evidence proving that she had spent a lifetime in the UK: bank statements, dentists’ records, medical files, tax records, letters from her primary school, letters from friends and family. But, inexplicably, this was not enough. Every letter she received from the Home Office warned her that she was liable to be deported to Grenada, a country she had left more than 50 years ago. She began to feel nervous about opening the door in case immigration officers were outside.

      A Home Office leaflet encouraging people to opt for a voluntary departure, illustrated with cheerful, brightly coloured planes and published about the same time as the “Go Home” vans were launched, said: “We know that many people living in the UK illegally want to go home, but feel scared of approaching the Home Office directly. They may fear being arrested and detained. For those returning voluntarily, there are these key benefits: they avoid being arrested and having to live in detention until a travel document can be obtained; they can leave the UK in a more dignified manner than if their removal is enforced.” This appeal to the desire for a dignified departure was a shrewd tactic; the idea of being forcibly taken away terrified Joycelyn, who saw the leaflets and knew of the vans. “There’s such stigma... I didn’t want to be taken off the plane in handcuffs,” she says. She was getting deeper into debt, borrowing money from a younger brother, and felt it was no longer fair to rely on him.

      When the hostile environment policy is working well, it exhausts people into submission. It piles up humiliations, stress and fear until people give up. In November 2016, Joycelyn finally decided that a “voluntary” departure would be easier than trying to survive inside the ever-tightening embrace of Home Office hostility. Officials booked her on a flight on Christmas Day; when she asked if she could spend a last Christmas with her brother and five sisters, staff rebooked her for Boxing Day. She was so desperate that she felt this was the best option. “I felt ground down,” she says. “I lost the will to go on fighting.”

      By that point, she estimated she must have attempted a dozen times to explain to Home Office staff – over the phone, in person, in writing – that they had made a mistake. “I don’t think they looked at the letters I wrote. I think they had a quota to fill – they needed to deport people.” She found it hard to understand why the government was prepared to pay for her expensive flight, but not to waive the application fee to regularise her status. A final letter told her: “You are a person who is liable to be detained... You must report with your baggage to Gatwick South Virgin Atlantic Airways check-in desk.” The letter resorted to the favoured Home Office technique of scaring people with capital letters, reminding her that in her last few weeks: “YOU MAY NOT ENTER EMPLOYMENT, PAID OR UNPAID, OR ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION.” It also informed her that her baggage allowance, after a lifetime in the UK, was 20kg – “and you will be expected to pay for any excess”.

      How do you pack for a journey to a country you left as a four-year-old? “I was on autopilot,” Joycelyn recalls. “I was feeling depressed, lonely and suicidal. I wasn’t able to think straight; at times, I was hysterical. I packed the morning I left, very last-minute. I’d been expecting a reprieve. I didn’t take a lot – just jeans and a few T-shirts, a toothbrush, some Colgate, a towel – it didn’t even fill the whole suitcase.” She had £60 to start a new life, given to her by an ex-boyfriend. She had decided not to tell her sisters she was going; she confided only in her brother. “I just didn’t want any fuss.” She didn’t expect she would ever be allowed to return to Britain.

      In Grenada, she found everything unfamiliar. She had to scrub her clothes by hand and struggled to cook with the local ingredients. “It’s just a completely different lifestyle. The culture is very different.” She was given no money to set her up and found getting work very difficult. “You’re very vulnerable if you’re a foreigner. There’s no support structure and no one wants to employ you. Once they hear an English accent – forget it. They’re suspicious. They think you must be a criminal if you’ve been deported.”

      Joycelyn recounts what happened to her in a very matter-of-fact way, only expressing her opinion about the Home Office’s consistent refusal to listen when I ask her to. But her analysis is succinct: “The way I was treated was disgusting.” I still find it hard to accept that the government threatened her until she felt she had no option but to relocate to an unfamiliar country 4,300 miles away. The outcome – a 57-year-old Londoner, jettisoned to an island off the coast of Venezuela, friendless and without money, trying to make a new life for herself – is as absurd as it is tragic.

      *

      In April 2018, the leaders of 52 countries arrived in London for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting. The Mall was decorated with flags; caterers at Buckingham Palace prepared for tea parties and state dinners. In normal times, this summit would have been regarded as a routine diplomatic event, heavy with ceremony and light on substance. But, with Brexit looming, the occasion was seen as an important opportunity to woo the countries on which Britain expected to become increasingly reliant.

      A week before the event, however, the 12 Caribbean high commissioners had gathered to ask the British government to adopt a more compassionate approach to people who had arrived in the UK as children and were never formally naturalised. “I am dismayed that people who gave their all to Britain could be discarded so matter-of-factly,” said Guy Hewitt, the Barbados high commissioner. “Seventy years after Windrush, we are again facing a new wave of hostility.”

      Hewitt revealed that a formal request to meet May had been declined. The rebuff convinced the Caribbean leaders that the British government had either failed to appreciate the scale and seriousness of what was happening or, worse, was aware, but did not view it as a priority. It smacked of racism.

      By then, I had been covering cases such as Joycelyn’s for six months. I had written about Paulette Wilson, a 61-year-old grandmother who had been detained by the Home Office twice and threatened with deportation to Jamaica, a country she had left half a century earlier; about Anthony Bryan, who after 50 years in the UK was wrongly detained for five weeks; and about Sylvester Marshall, who was denied the NHS radiotherapy he needed for prostate cancer and told to pay £54,000 for treatment, despite paying taxes here for decades. Yet no one in the government had seemed concerned.

      I contacted Downing Street on 15 April to ask if they could explain the refusal to meet the Caribbean delegation. An official called back to confirm that a meeting had not been set up; there would be other opportunities to meet the prime minister and discuss this “important issue”, she said.

      It was a huge mistake. An article about the diplomatic snub went on the Guardian’s front page and the political response was instantaneous. Suddenly, ministers who had shown no interest were falling over themselves to express profound sorrow. The brazen speed of the official turnaround was distasteful to watch. Amber Rudd, then the home secretary, spoke in parliament to express her regret. The Home Office would establish a new team to help people gather evidence of their right to be here, she announced; fees would be waived. The prime minister decided that she did, after all, need to schedule a meeting with her Caribbean colleagues.

      There were a number of factors that forced this abrupt shift. The campaigner Patrick Vernon, whose parents emigrated from Jamaica in the 50s, had made a critical connection between the scandal and the upcoming 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury Docks. A fortnight earlier, he had launched a petition that triggered a parliamentary debate, calling for an immigration amnesty for those who had arrived as British subjects between 1948 and 1971. For months, I had been describing these people as “Caribbean-born, retirement-age, long-term British residents”, a clunky categorisation that was hard to put in a headline. But Vernon’s petition succinctly called them the “Windrush generation” – a phrase that evoked the emotional response that people feel towards the pioneers of migration who arrived on that ship. Although it was a bit of a misnomer (those affected were the children of the Windrush generation), that branding became incredibly potent.

      After months of very little coverage, the BBC and other media outlets began to report on the issue. On 16 April, the Guardian reprinted the photographs and stories of everyone we had interviewed to date. The accounts were undeniable evidence of profound and widespread human suffering. It unleashed political chaos.

      *

      It was exciting to see the turmoil caused by the relentless publication of articles on a subject that no one had previously wanted to think about. Everyone has moments of existential doubt about whether what they do serves a purpose, but, for two weeks last April, the government was held to account and forced to act, demonstrating the enormous power of journalism to trigger change.

      At the Guardian’s offices in London, a team of reporters was allocated to interview the huge number of emerging Windrush voices. Politicians were contacted by constituents who had previously been nervous about giving their details to officials; they also belatedly looked through their constituency casebooks to see if there were Windrush people among their immigration caseload; finally, they began to speak up about the huge difficulties individuals were facing as a result of Home Office policy.

      Editors put the story on the front page, day after day. Any hope the government might have had of the issue quickly exhausting itself was dashed repeatedly by damaging new revelations. For a while, I was unable to get through my inbox, because there were too many unhappy stories about the government’s cruel, bureaucratic mishandling of cases to be able to read and process. Caroline Bannock, a senior journalist who runs the Guardian’s community team, created a database to collect people’s stories, and made sure that everyone who emailed got an answer, with information on where to go for advice and how to contact the Windrush Taskforce, set up by Rudd.

      I found the scale of the misery devastating. One morning, I came into work to find 24 messages on my answerphone from desperate people, each convinced I could help. I wanted to cry at my desk when I opened a letter from the mother of a young woman who had arrived in Britain from Jamaica in 1974, aged one. In 2015, after being classified as an illegal immigrant and sent to Yarl’s Wood detention centre, she had taken an overdose and died. “Without the time she spent in Yarl’s Wood, which we understand was extremely unpleasant, and the threat of deportation, my daughter would be alive today,” she wrote. The government had been aiming to bring down immigration at any cost, she continued. “One of the costs, as far as I am concerned, was my daughter’s life.”

      Alongside these upsetting calls and letters, there were many from readers offering financial support to the people we interviewed, and from lawyers offering pro bono assistance. A reader sent a shoebox full of chocolate bars, writing that he wanted to help reporters keep their energy levels up. At a time when the reputation of journalism can feel low, it was rewarding to help demonstrate why independent media organisations are so important.

      If the scene at the office was a smooth-running model of professionalism, at home it was chaos. I wrote until 2am and got up at 5am to catch up on reading. I tapped out so many articles over two weeks that my right arm began to ache, making it hard to sleep. My dictaphone overheated from overuse and one of its batteries exploded. I had to retreat entirely from family life, to make sure I poured out every bit of information I had. Shoes went missing, homework was left undone, meals were uncooked. There was an unexpected heatwave and I was aware of the arrival of a plague of ants, flies and fleas (and possibly nits), but there was no time to deal with it.

      I am married to Jo Johnson, who at the time was a minister in May’s government. As a news reporter, I have to be politically independent; I let him get on with his job and he doesn’t interfere in mine. Life is busy and mostly we focus on the day-to-day issues that come with having two children. Clearly, there are areas of disagreement, but we try to step around anything too contentious for the sake of family harmony.

      But the fact did not go unnoticed. One Sunday morning, Jo had to go on television to defend Rudd, returning home at lunchtime to look after the children so I could talk on the radio about how badly the government had got it wrong. I can see why it looks weird from the outside; that weekend it felt very weird. I had only one brief exchange about the issue with his brother Boris, who was then the foreign secretary, at a noisy family birthday party later in the year. He said: “You really fucked the Commonwealth summit.”

      *

      On 25 April, Rudd appeared in front of the home affairs select committee. She told MPs she had been shocked by the Home Office’s treatment of Paulette and others. Not long into the session, Rudd was thrown off course by a question put to her by the committee’s chair, Yvette Cooper. “Targets for removals. When were they set?”

      “We don’t have targets for removals,” she replied with easy confidence. It was an answer that ended her career as home secretary.

      In an earlier session, Lucy Moreton, the head of the Immigration Service Union, had explained how the Home Office target to bring net migration below 100,000 a year had triggered challenging objectives; each region had a removal target to meet, she said. Rudd’s denial seemed to indicate either that she was incompetent and unaware of how her own department worked, or that she was being dishonest. Moreton later told me that, as Rudd was giving evidence, colleagues were sending her selfies taken in front of their office targets boards.

      Rudd was forced back to parliament the next day. This time, she admitted that the Home Office had set local targets, but insisted: “I have never agreed there should be specific removal targets and I would never support a policy that puts targets ahead of people.” But, on 29 April, the Guardian published a private memo from Rudd to May, sent in early 2017, that revealed she had set an “ambitious but deliverable” target for an increase in enforced deportations. Later that evening, she resigned.

      When I heard the news, I felt ambivalent; Rudd hadn’t handled the crisis well, but she wasn’t responsible for the mess. She seemed to be resigning on a technicality, rather than admitting she had been negligent and that her department had behaved atrociously on her watch. The Windrush people I spoke to that night told me Rudd’s departure only shifted attention from the person who was really responsible: Theresa May.

      *

      Joycelyn John was issued with a plane ticket from Grenada to England in July 2018. “A bit of me was ecstatic, a bit of me was angry that no one had listened to me in the first place,” she told me when we met at her still-bare flat in June this year. She had been rehoused in September, but the flat was outside London, far from her family and empty; council officials didn’t think to provide any furniture. Friends gave her a bed and some chairs, but it was months before she was able to get a fridge.

      In late 2018, she received a letter of apology from the then home secretary, Sajid Javid. “People of the Windrush generation who came to Britain from the Commonwealth, as my parents did, have helped make this country what it is today,” he wrote. “The experiences faced by you and others have been completely unacceptable.” The letter made her cry, but not with relief. “I thought: ‘What good is a letter of apology now?’ They ruined my life completely. I came back to nothing. I have had to start rebuilding my life from scratch at the age of 58.”

      She still has nightmares that she is back in Grenada. “I can feel the heat, I can smell the food, I can actually taste the fish in the dream – in a good way. But mostly they are bad memories.” The experience has upended her sense of who she is. “Before this I felt British – I just did. I’m the sort of person who would watch every royal wedding on television. I feel less British now. I feel I don’t belong here, and I don’t belong there.”

      While a government compensation scheme has been announced, Joycelyn, like most of the Windrush generation, has yet to receive any money. Since the government apologised for its “appalling” treatment, 6,000 people have been given documents confirming their right to live in the UK. Joycelyn is one of them. But, although her right to be here is now official, she hasn’t yet got a passport – because she can’t afford the fee. And she remains frightened. “I’m still looking over my shoulder all the time. I’m a nervous wreck.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/14/scale-misery-devastating-inside-story-reporting-windrush-scandal?CMP=sh

  • Pour tou.te.s les géographes ici :

    Pour une géographie anarchiste
    Simon Springer
    Traduit de l’anglais par Nicolas Calvé
    Lux Editeur
    Parution en Amérique du Nord : 25 janvier 2018
    Parution en Europe : 15 mars 2018
    http://www.luxediteur.com/catalogue/pour-une-geographie-anarchiste

    Grâce aux ouvrages de David Harvey, Mike Davis ou même Henri Lefebvre, on connaît aujourd’hui la géographie radicale ou critique née dans le contexte des luttes politiques des années 1960 aux États-Unis et qui a, comme le disait Harvey, donné à Marx « la dimension spatiale qui lui manquait ». Dans ce livre, Simon Springer enjoint aux géographes critiques de se radicaliser davantage et appelle à la création d’une géographie insurrectionnelle qui reconnaisse l’aspect kaléidoscopique des espaces et son potentiel émancipateur, révélé à la fin du XIXe siècle par Élisée Reclus et Pierre Kropotkine, notamment.

    L’histoire de l’humanité est une longue suite d’expériences dans et avec l’espace ; or aujourd’hui, la stase qui est imposée à ces mouvements vitaux, principalement par les frontières, menace notre survie. Face au désastre climatique et humain qui nous guette, il est indispensable de revoir les relations que nous entretenons avec le monde et une géographie rebelle comme celle que défend Springer nous libérerait du carcan de l’attentisme. Il faut se défaire une bonne fois pour toutes des géographies hiérarchiques qui nous enchaînent à l’étatisme, au capitalisme, à la discrimination et à l’impérialisme. « La géographie doit devenir belle, se vouer entièrement à l’émancipation. »

    #géographie #anarchisme #Simon_Springer #Lux

  • Book Review: Gramsci’s Common Sense: Inequality and its Narratives by Kate Crehan

    In Gramsci’s Common Sense: Inequality and its Narratives, Kate Crehan examines a number of core concepts in the work of theorist #Antonio_Gramsci – including common sense, the subaltern and the intellectual – that can help give precise insight into the emergence and persistence of social inequalities. Drawing on such case studies as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements, this is a timely and profound account that has much to contribute to understandings of political change, writes Marcos González Hernando.

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/01/22/book-review-gramscis-common-sense-inequality-and-its-narratives-by-kate
    #Gramsci #inégalités #common_sense #sens_commun #subalternité