#complexe_militaro-industriel

#Métaliste sur le #Memorandum_of_Understanding (#MoU) avec la #Tunisie

#Europe #Union_européenne #EU #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #accord #gestion_des_frontières #aide_financière #protocole_d'accord #politique_migratoire #externalisation

The State of #Chihuahua Is Building a 20-Story Tower in #Ciudad_Juarez to Surveil 13 Cities–and Texas Will Also Be Watching

https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/el-paso-1.jpg

Chihuahua state officials and a notorious Mexican security contractor broke ground last summer on the #Torre_Centinela (Sentinel Tower), an ominous, 20-story high-rise in downtown Ciudad Juarez that will serve as the central node of a new AI-enhanced surveillance regime. With tentacles reaching into 13 Mexican cities and a data pipeline that will channel intelligence all the way to Austin, Texas, the monstrous project will be unlike anything seen before along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And that’s saying a lot, considering the last 30-plus years of surging technology on the U.S side of the border.

The Torre Centinela will stand in a former parking lot next to the city’s famous bullring, a mere half-mile south of where migrants and asylum seekers have camped and protested at the Paso del Norte International Bridge leading to El Paso. But its reach goes much further: the Torre Centinela is just one piece of the Plataforma Centinela (Sentinel Platform), an aggressive new technology strategy developed by Chihuahua’s Secretaria de Seguridad Pública Estatal (Secretary of State Public Security or SSPE) in collaboration with the company Seguritech.

With its sprawling infrastructure, the Plataforma Centinela will create an atmosphere of surveillance and data-streams blanketing the entire region. The plan calls for nearly every cutting-edge technology system marketed at law enforcement: 10,000 surveillance cameras, face recognition, automated license plate recognition, real-time crime analytics, a fleet of mobile surveillance vehicles, drone teams and counter-drone teams, and more.

If the project comes together as advertised in the Avengers-style trailer that SSPE released to influence public opinion, law enforcement personnel on site will be surrounded by wall-to-wall monitors (140 meters of screens per floor), while 2,000 officers in the field will be able to access live intelligence through handheld tablets.

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKPuur6s4qg

Texas law enforcement will also have “eyes on this side of the border” via the Plataforma Centinela, Chihuahua Governor Maru Campos publicly stated last year. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a memorandum of understanding confirming the partnership.

Plataforma Centinela will transform public life and threaten human rights in the borderlands in ways that aren’t easy to assess. Regional newspapers and local advocates–especially Norte Digital and Frente Político Ciudadano para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (FPCDDH)—have raised significant concerns about the project, pointing to a low likelihood of success and high potential for waste and abuse.

“It is a myopic approach to security; the full emphasis is placed on situational prevention, while the social causes of crime and violence are not addressed,” FPCDDH member and analyst Victor M. Quintana tells EFF, noting that the Plataforma Centinela’s budget is significantly higher than what the state devotes to social services. “There are no strategies for the prevention of addiction, neither for rebuilding the fabric of society nor attending to dropouts from school or young people at risk, which are social causes of insecurity.”

Instead of providing access to unfiltered information about the project, the State of Chihuahua has launched a public relations blitz. In addition to press conferences and the highly-produced cinematic trailer, SSPE recently hosted a “Pabellón Centinel” (Sentinel Pavillion), a family-friendly carnival where the public was invited to check out a camera wall and drones, while children played with paintball guns, drove a toy ATV patrol vehicle around a model city, and colored in illustrations of a data center operator.

Behind that smoke screen, state officials are doing almost everything they can to control the narrative around the project and avoid public scrutiny.

According to news reports, the SSPE and the Secretaría de Hacienda (Finance Secretary) have simultaneously deemed most information about the project as classified and left dozens of public records requests unanswered. The Chihuahua State Congress also rejected a proposal to formally declassify the documents and stymied other oversight measures, including a proposed audit. Meanwhile, EFF has submitted public records requests to several Texas agencies and all have claimed they have no records related to the Plataforma Centinela.

This is all the more troubling considering the relationship between the state and Seguritech, a company whose business practices in 22 other jurisdictions have been called into question by public officials.

What we can be sure of is that the Plataforma Centinela project may serve as proof of concept of the kind of panopticon surveillance governments can get away with in both North America and Latin America.
What Is the Plataforma Centinela?

High-tech surveillance centers are not a new phenomenon on the Mexican side of the border. These facilities tend to use “C” distinctions to explain their functions and purposes. EFF has mapped out dozens of these in the six Mexican border states.

▻https://www.eff.org/files/2023/09/14/c-centers_map.png
▻https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1W73dMXnuXvPl5cSRGfi1x-BQAEivJH4&ll=25.210543464111723%2C-105.379

They include:

- C4 (Centro de Comunicación, Cómputo, Control y Comando) (Center for Communications, Calculation, Control, and Command),
- C5 (Centro de Coordinación Integral, de Control, Comando, Comunicación y Cómputo del Estado) (Center for Integral Coordination for Control, Command, Communications, and State Calculation),
- C5i (Centro de Control, Comando, Comunicación, Cómputo, Coordinación e Inteligencia) (Center for Control, Command, Communication, Calculation, Coordination and Intelligence).

Typically, these centers focus as a cross between a 911 call center and a real-time crime center, with operators handling emergency calls, analyzing crime data, and controlling a network of surveillance cameras via a wall bank of monitors. In some cases, the Cs may be presented in different order or stand for slightly different words. For example, some C5s might alternately stand for “Centros de Comando, Control, Comunicación, Cómputo y Calidad” (Centers for Command, Control, Communication, Computation and Quality). These facilities also exist in other parts of Mexico. The number of Cs often indicate scale and responsibilities, but more often than not, it seems to be a political or marketing designation.

The Plataforma Centinela however, goes far beyond the scope of previous projects and in fact will be known as the first C7 (Centro de Comando, Cómputo, Control, Coordinación, Contacto Ciudadano, Calidad, Comunicaciones e Inteligencia Artificial) (Center for Command, Calculation, Control, Coordination, Citizen Contact, Quality, Communications and Artificial Intelligence). The Torre Centinela in Ciudad Juarez will serve as the nerve center, with more than a dozen sub-centers throughout the state.

According to statistics that Gov. Campos disclosed as part of negotiations with Texas and news reports, the Plataforma Centinela will include:

- 1,791 automated license plate readers. These are cameras that photograph vehicles and their license plates, then upload that data along with the time and location where the vehicles were seen to a massive searchable database. Law enforcement can also create lists of license plates to track specific vehicles and receive alerts when those vehicles are seen.
- 4,800 fixed cameras. These are your run-of-the-mill cameras, positioned to permanently surveil a particular location from one angle.
- 3,065 pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras. These are more sophisticated cameras. While they are affixed to a specific location, such as a street light or a telephone pole, these cameras can be controlled remotely. An operator can swivel the camera around 360-degrees and zoom in on subjects.
- 2,000 tablets. Officers in the field will be issued handheld devices for accessing data directly from the Plataforma Centinela.
- 102 security arches. This is a common form of surveillance in Mexico, but not the United States. These are structures built over highways and roads to capture data on passing vehicles and their passengers.
- 74 drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/UAVs). While the Chihuahua government has not disclosed what surveillance payload will be attached to these drones, it is common for law enforcement drones to deploy video, infrared, and thermal imaging technology.
- 40 mobile video surveillance trailers. While details on these systems are scant, it is likely these are camera towers that can be towed to and parked at targeted locations.
- 15 anti-drone systems. These systems are designed to intercept and disable drones operated by criminal organizations.
- Face recognition. The project calls for the application of “biometric filters” to be applied to camera feeds “to assist in the capture of cartel leaders,” and the collection of migrant biometrics. Such a system would require scanning the faces of the general public.
- Artificial intelligence. So far, the administration has thrown around the term AI without fully explaining how it will be used. However, typically law enforcement agencies have used this technology to “predict” where crime might occur, identify individuals mostly likely to be connected to crime, and to surface potential connections between suspects that would not have been obvious to a human observer. However, all these technologies have a propensity for making errors or exacerbating existing bias.

As of May, 60% of the Plataforma Centinela camera network had been installed, with an expected completion date of December, according to Norte Digital. However, the cameras were already being used in criminal investigations.

All combined, this technology amounts to an unprecedented expansion of the surveillance state in Latin America, as SSPE brags in its promotional material. The threat to privacy may also be unprecedented: creating cities where people can no longer move freely in their communities without being watched, scanned, and tagged.

But that’s assuming the system functions as advertised—and based on the main contractor’s history, that’s anything but guaranteed.
Who Is Seguritech?

The Plataforma Centinela project is being built by the megacorporation Seguritech, which has signed deals with more than a dozen government entities throughout Mexico. As of 2018, the company received no-bid contracts in at least 10 Mexican states and cities, which means it was able to sidestep the accountability process that requires companies to compete for projects.

And when it comes to the Plataforma Centinela, the company isn’t simply a contractor: It will actually have ownership over the project, the Torre Centinela, and all its related assets, including cameras and drones, until August 2027.

That’s what SSPE Secretary Gilberto Loya Chávez told the news organization Norte Digital, but the terms of the agreement between Seguritech and Chihuahua’s administration are not public. The SSPE’s Transparency Committee decided to classify the information “concerning the procedures for the acquisition of supplies, goods, and technology necessary for the development, implementation, and operation of the Platforma Centinela” for five years.

In spite of the opacity shrouding the project, journalists have surfaced some information about the investment plan. According to statements from government officials, the Plataforma Centinela will cost 4.2 billion pesos, with Chihuahua’s administration paying regular installments to the company every three months (Chihuahua’s governor had previously said that these would be yearly payments in the amount of 700 million to 1 billion pesos per year). According to news reports, when the payments are completed in 2027, the ownership of the platform’s assets and infrastructure are expected to pass from Seguritech to the state of Chihuahua.

The Plataforma Centinela project marks a new pinnacle in Seguritech’s trajectory as a Mexican security contractor. Founded in 1995 as a small business selling neighborhood alarms, SeguriTech Privada S.A de C.V. became a highly profitable brand, and currently operates in five areas: security, defense, telecommunications, aeronautics, and construction. According to Zeta Tijuana, Seguritech also secures contracts through its affiliated companies, including Comunicación Segura (focused on telecommunications and security) and Picorp S.A. de C.V. (focused on architecture and construction, including prisons and detention centers). Zeta also identified another SecuriTech company, Tres10 de C.V., as the contractor named in various C5i projects.

Thorough reporting by Mexican outlets such as Proceso, Zeta Tijuana, Norte Digital, and Zona Free paint an unsettling picture of Seguritech’s activities over the years.

Former President Felipe Calderón’s war on drug trafficking, initiated during his 2006-2012 term, marked an important turning point for surveillance in Mexico. As Proceso reported, Seguritech began to secure major government contracts beginning in 2007, receiving its first billion-peso deal in 2011 with Sinaloa’s state government. In 2013, avoiding the bidding process, the company secured a 6-billion peso contract assigned by Eruviel Ávila, then governor of the state of México (or Edomex, not to be confused with the country of Mexico). During Enrique Peña Nieto’s years as Edomex’s governor, and especially later, as Mexico’s president, Seguritech secured its status among Mexico’s top technology contractors.

According to Zeta Tijuana, during the six years that Peña Nieto served as president (2012-2018), the company monopolized contracts for the country’s main surveillance and intelligence projects, specifically the C5i centers. As Zeta Tijuana writes:

“More than 10 C5i units were opened or began construction during Peña Nieto’s six-year term. Federal entities committed budgets in the millions, amid opacity, violating parliamentary processes and administrative requirements. The purchase of obsolete technological equipment was authorized at an overpriced rate, hiding information under the pretext of protecting national security.”

Zeta Tijuana further cites records from the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property showing that Seguritech registered the term “C5i” as its own brand, an apparent attempt to make it more difficult for other surveillance contractors to provide services under that name to the government.

Despite promises from government officials that these huge investments in surveillance would improve public safety, the country’s number of violent deaths increased during Peña Nieto’s term in office.

“What is most shocking is how ineffective Seguritech’s system is,” says Quintana, the spokesperson for FPCDDH. By his analysis, Quintana says, “In five out of six states where Seguritech entered into contracts and provided security services, the annual crime rate shot up in proportions ranging from 11% to 85%.”

Seguritech has also been criticized for inflated prices, technical failures, and deploying obsolete equipment. According to Norte Digital, only 17% of surveillance cameras were working by the end of the company’s contract with Sinaloa’s state government. Proceso notes the rise of complaints about the malfunctioning of cameras in Cuauhtémoc Delegation (a borough of Mexico City) in 2016. Zeta Tijuana reported on the disproportionate amount the company charged for installing 200 obsolete 2-megapixel cameras in 2018.

Seguritech’s track record led to formal complaints and judicial cases against the company. The company has responded to this negative attention by hiring services to take down and censor critical stories about its activities published online, according to investigative reports published as part of the Global Investigative Journalism Network’s Forbidden Stories project.

Yet, none of this information dissuaded Chihuahua’s governor, Maru Campos, from closing a new no-bid contract with Seguritech to develop the Plataforma Centinela project.
A Cross-Border Collaboration

The Plataforma Centinela project presents a troubling escalation in cross-border partnerships between states, one that cuts out each nation’s respective federal governments. In April 2022, the states of Texas and Chihuahua signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate on reducing “cartels’ human trafficking and smuggling of deadly fentanyl and other drugs” and to “stop the flow of migrants from over 100 countries who illegally enter Texas through Chihuahua.”

▻https://www.eff.org/files/2023/09/14/a_new_border_model.png

While much of the agreement centers around cargo at the points of entry, the document also specifically calls out the various technologies that make up the Plataforma Centinela. In attachments to the agreement, Gov. Campos promises Chihuahua is “willing to share that information with Texas State authorities and commercial partners directly.”

During a press conference announcing the MOU, Gov. Abbot declared, “Governor Campos has provided me with the best border security plan that I have seen from any governor from Mexico.” He held up a three-page outline and a slide, which were also provided to the public, but also referenced the existence of “a much more extensive detailed memo that explains in nuance” all the aspects of the program.

Abbott went on to read out a summary of Plataforma Centinela, adding, “This is a demonstration of commitment from a strong governor who is working collaboratively with the state of Texas.”

Then Campos, in response to a reporter’s question, added: “We are talking about sharing information and intelligence among states, which means the state of Texas will have eyes on this side of the border.” She added that the data collected through the Plataforma Centinela will be analyzed by both the states of Chihuahua and Texas.

Abbott provided an example of one way the collaboration will work: “We will identify hotspots where there will be an increase in the number of migrants showing up because it’s a location chosen by cartels to try to put people across the border at that particular location. The Chihuahua officials will work in collaboration with the Texas Department of Public Safety, where DPS has identified that hotspot and the Chihuahua side will work from a law enforcement side to disrupt that hotspot.”

In order to learn more about the scope of the project, EFF sent public records requests to several Texas agencies, including the Governor’s Office, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the El Paso County Sheriff, and the El Paso Police Department. Not one of the agencies produced records related to the Plataforma Centinela project.

Meanwhile, Texas is further beefing up its efforts to use technology at the border, including by enacting new laws that formally allow the Texas National Guard and State Guard to deploy drones at the border and authorize the governor to enter compacts with other states to share intelligence and resource to build “a comprehensive technological surveillance system” on state land to deter illegal activity at the border. In addition to the MOU with Chihuahua, Abbott also signed similar agreements with the states of Nuevo León and Coahuila in 2022.
Two Sides, One Border

The Plataforma Centinela has enormous potential to violate the rights of one of the largest cross-border populations along the U.S.-Mexico border. But while law enforcement officials are eager to collaborate and traffic data back and forth, advocacy efforts around surveillance too often are confined to their respective sides.

The Spanish-language press in Mexico has devoted significant resources to investigating the Plataforma Centinela and raising the alarm over its lack of transparency and accountability, as well as its potential for corruption. Yet, the project has received virtually no attention or scrutiny in the United States.

Fighting back against surveillance of cross-border communities requires cross-border efforts. EFF supports the efforts of advocacy groups in Ciudad Juarez and other regions of Chihuahua to expose the mistakes the Chihuahua government is making with the Plataforma Centinela and call out its mammoth surveillance approach for failing to address the root social issues. We also salute the efforts by local journalists to hold the government accountable. However, U.S-based journalists, activists, and policymakers—many of whom have done an excellent job surfacing criticism of Customs and Border Protection’s so-called virtual wall—must also turn their attention to the massive surveillance that is building up on the Mexican side.

In reality, there really is no Mexican surveillance and U.S. surveillance. It’s one massive surveillance monster that, ironically, in the name of border enforcement, recognizes no borders itself.

▻https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/state-chihuahua-building-20-story-tower-ciudad-juarez-surveil-13-cities-and-sta
#surveillance #tour #surveillance_de_masse #cartographie #visualisation #intelligence_artificielle #AI #IA #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #technologie #Plataforma_Centinela #données #reconnaissance_faciale #caméras_de_surveillance #drones #Seguritech #complexe_militaro-industriel #Mexique

La chute du Heron blanc, ou la fuite en avant de l’agence #Frontex

Sale temps pour Frontex, l’agence européenne de gardes-frontières : après le scandale des pushbacks dans les eaux grecques, qui a fait tomber son ex-directeur, l’un de ses drones longue portée de type Heron 1, au coût faramineux, s’est crashé fin août en mer ionienne. Un accident qui met en lumière la dérive militariste de l’Union européenne pour barricader ses frontières méridionales.

Jeudi 24 août 2023, un grand oiseau blanc a fait un plongeon fatal dans la mer ionienne, à 70 miles nautiques au large de la Crète. On l’appelait « Heron 1 », et il était encore très jeune puisqu’il n’avait au compteur que 3 000 heures de vol. Son employeur ? Frontex, l’agence européenne de gardes-frontières et de gardes-côtes chargée depuis 2004 de réguler les frontières européennes, avec un budget sans cesse en hausse.

Le Heron 1 est désigné dans la terminologie barbare du secteur de l’armement comme un drone MALE (Medium Altitude Long Endurance) de quatrième génération, c’est-à-dire un engin automatisé de grande taille capable de voler sur de longues distances. Frontex disposait jusqu’au crash de seulement deux drones Heron 1. Le premier a été commandé en octobre 2020, quand l’agence a signé un contrat de 50 millions d’euros par an avec Airbus pour faire voler cet appareil en « leasing » – Airbus passant ensuite des sous-contrats, notamment avec le constructeur israélien IAISystem
1
– pour un total de 2 400 heures de vol, et avec des dépassements qui ont fait monter la facture annuelle. En clair, le coût de fonctionnement de ce drôle d’oiseau est abyssal. Frontex rechigne d’ailleurs à entrer dans les détails, arguant de « données commerciales sensibles », ainsi que l’explique Matthias Monroy, journaliste allemand spécialisé dans l’aéronautique : « Ils ne veulent pas donner les éléments montrant que ces drones valent plus cher que des aéroplanes classiques, alors que cela semble évident. »
2

La nouvelle de la chute de l’onéreux volatile n’a pas suscité beaucoup de réactions publiques – il n’en est quasiment pas fait mention dans les médias autres que grecs, hormis sur des sites spécialisés. On en trouve cependant une trace sur le portail numérique du Parlement européen, en date du 29 août 2023. Ce jour-là, Özlem Demirel, députée allemande du parti de gauche Die Linke, pose la question « E-002469/2023 » (une interpellation enregistrée sous le titre : « Crash of a second long-range drone operated on Frontex’s behalf »), dans laquelle elle interroge la fiabilité de ces drones. Elle y rappelle que, déjà en 2020, un coûteux drone longue distance opéré par Frontex s’était crashé en mer – un modèle Hermes 900 cette fois-ci, tout aussi onéreux, bijou de l’israélien Elbit Systems. Et la députée de demander : « Qui est responsable ? »

Une question complexe. « En charge des investigations, les autorités grecques détermineront qui sera jugé responsable, explique Matthias Monroy. S’il y a eu une défaillance technique, alors IAI System devra sans doute payer. Mais si c’est un problème de communication satellite, comme certains l’ont avancé, ou si c’est une erreur de pilotage, alors ce sera à Airbus, ou plutôt à son assureur, de payer la note. »
VOL AU-DESSUS D’UN NID D’EMBROUILLES

Le Heron 1 a la taille d’un grand avion de tourisme – presque un mini-jet. D’une envergure de 17 mètres, censé pouvoir voler en autonomie pendant 24 heures (contre 36 pour le Hermes 900), il est équipé de nombreuses caméras, de dispositifs de vision nocturne, de radars et, semble-t-il, de technologies capables de localiser des téléphones satellites
3
. Détail important : n’étant pas automatisé, il est manœuvré par un pilote d’Airbus à distance. S’il est aussi utilisé sur des théâtres de guerre, notamment par les armées allemande et israélienne, où il s’est également montré bien peu fiable
4
, sa mission dans le cadre de Frontex relève de la pure surveillance : il s’agit de fournir des informations sur les embarcations de personnes exilées en partance pour l’Europe.

Frontex disposait de deux drones Heron 1 jusqu’au crash. Airbus était notamment chargé d’assurer le transfert des données recueillies vers le quartier général de Frontex, à Varsovie (Pologne). L’engin qui a fait un fatal plouf se concentrait sur la zone SAR(Search and Rescue
5
) grecque et avait pour port d’attache la Crète. C’est dans cette même zone SAR que Frontex a supervisé plus ou moins directement de nombreux pushbacks (des refoulements maritimes), une pratique illégale pourtant maintes fois documentée, ce qui a provoqué un scandale qui a fini par contraindre le Français Fabrice Leggeri à démissionner de la tête de l’agence fin avril 2022. Il n’est pas interdit de penser que ce Heron 1 a joué en la matière un rôle crucial, fournissant des informations aux gardes-côtes grecs qui, ensuite, refoulaient les embarcations chargées d’exilés.

Quant à son jumeau, le Heron positionné à Malte, son rôle est encore plus problématique. Il est pourtant similaire à celui qui s’est crashé. « C’est exactement le même type de drone », explique Tamino Bohm, « tactical coordinator » (coordinateur tactique) sur les avions de Sea-Watch, une ONG allemande de secours en mer opérant depuis l’île italienne de Lampedusa. Si ce Heron-là, numéro d’immatriculation AS2132, diffère de son jumeau, c’est au niveau du territoire qu’il couvre : lui survole les zones SAR libyennes, offrant les informations recueillies à ceux que la communauté du secours en mer s’accorde à désigner comme les « soi-disant gardes-côtes libyens »
6
– en réalité, des éléments des diverses milices prospérant sur le sol libyen qui se comportent en pirates des mers. Financés en partie par l’Union européenne, ils sont avant tout chargés d’empêcher les embarcations de continuer leur route et de ramener leurs passagers en Libye, où les attendent bien souvent des prisons plus ou moins clandestines, aux conditions de détention infernales
7
.

C’est ainsi qu’au large de Lampedusa se joue une sorte de guerre aérienne informelle. Les drones et les avions de Frontex croisent régulièrement ceux d’ONG telles que Sea-Watch, dans un ballet surréaliste : les premiers cherchant à renseigner les Libyens pour qu’ils arraisonnent les personnes exilées repérées au large ; les seconds s’acharnant avec leurs maigres moyens à documenter et à dénoncer naufrages et refoulements en Libye. Et Tamino d’asséner avec malice : « J’aurais préféré que le drone crashé soit celui opérant depuis Malte. Mais c’est déjà mieux que rien. »
BUDGET GONFLÉ, MANDAT ÉLARGI

Tant que l’enquête sur le crash n’aura pas abouti, le vol de drones Heron 1 est suspendu sur le territoire terrestre et maritime relevant des autorités grecques, assure Matthias Monroy (qui ajoute que cette interdiction s’applique également aux deux drones du même modèle que possède l’armée grecque). Le crash de l’un de ses deux Heron 1 est donc une mauvaise nouvelle pour Frontex et les adeptes de la forteresse Europe, déjà bien éprouvés par les arrivées massives à Lampedusa à la mi-septembre et l’hospitalité affichée sur place par les habitants. À l’image de ces murs frontaliers bâtis aux frontières de l’Europe et dans l’espace Schengen – un rapport du Parlement européen, publié en octobre 2022 « Walls and fences at EU borders » (▻https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2022)733692), précise que l’on en est à 2 035 kilomètres de barrières frontalières, contre 315 en 2014 –, matérialisation d’un coûteux repli identitaire clamant une submersion fantasmée, il est évident que la démesure sécuritaire ne freine en rien les volontés de rejoindre l’Europe.

Ce ne sont pourtant pas les moyens qui manquent. Lors de sa première année d’opérations, en 2005, Frontex disposait d’un budget de 6 millions d’euros. Depuis, celui-ci n’a cessé d’enfler, pour atteindre la somme de 845,4 millions d’euros en 2023, et un effectif de plus de 2 100 personnels – avec un budget prévisionnel 2021-2027 de 11 milliards d’euros et un objectif de 10 000 gardes d’ici à 2027 (dont 7 000 détachés par les États membres).

Depuis 2019, Frontex dispose d’un mandat élargi qui autorise l’acquisition et la possession d’avions, de drones et d’armes à feu. L’agence s’est aussi géographiquement démultipliée au fil de temps. Ses effectifs peuvent aussi bien patrouiller dans les eaux de Lampedusa que participer à des missions de surveillance de la frontière serbo-hongroise, alors que son rôle initial était simplement d’assister les pays européens dans la gestion de leurs frontières. L’agence européenne joue aussi un rôle dans la démesure technologique qui se développe aux frontières. Rien que dans les airs, l’agence se veut novatrice : elle a déjà investi plusieurs millions d’euros dans un projet de #zeppelin automatisé relié à un câble de 1 000 mètres, ainsi que dans le développement de drones « #quadcopter » pesant une dizaine de kilos. Enfin, Frontex participe aussi à la collecte généralisée de #données migratoires dans le but d’anticiper les refoulements. Elle soutient même des projets visant à gérer les flux humains par #algorithmes.

Traversée comme les armées par une culture du secret, l’agence s’est fait une spécialité des zones grises et des partenariats opaques, tout en prenant une place toujours plus importante dans la hausse de la létalité des frontières. « Frontex est devenue l’agent de la #militarisation_des_frontières européennes depuis sa création, résume un rapport de la Fondation Jean-Jaurès sorti en juillet 2023. Fondant son fonctionnement sur l’#analyse_des_risques, Frontex a contribué à la perception des frontières européennes comme d’une forteresse assiégée, liant le trafic de drogue et d’êtres humains à des mouvements migratoires plus larges. »

« VOUS SURVEILLEZ LES FRONTIÈRES, NOUS VOUS SURVEILLONS »

Dans sa volonté d’expansion tous azimuts, l’agence se tourne désormais vers l’Afrique, où elle œuvre de manière plus ou moins informelle à la mise en place de politiques d’#externalisation des frontières européennes. Elle pèse notamment de tout son poids pour s’implanter durablement au #Sénégal et en #Mauritanie. « Grâce à l’argent des contribuables européens, le Sénégal a construit depuis 2018 au moins neuf postes-frontières et quatre antennes régionales de la Direction nationale de lutte contre le trafic de migrants. Ces sites sont équipés d’un luxe de #technologies de #surveillance_intrusive : outre la petite mallette noire [contenant un outil d’extraction des données], ce sont des #logiciels d’#identification_biométrique des #empreintes_digitales et de #reconnaissance_faciale, des drones, des #serveurs_numériques, des lunettes de vision nocturne et bien d’autres choses encore », révèle une enquête du journal étatsunien In These Times. Très impopulaire sur le continent, ce type de #néocolonialisme obsidional se déploie de manière informelle. Mais il porte bien la marque de Frontex, agence agrippée à l’obsession de multiplier les murs physiques et virtuels.

Au Sénégal, pour beaucoup, ça ne passe pas. En août 2022, l’association #Boza_Fii a organisé plusieurs journées de débat intitulées « #Pushback_Frontex », avec pour slogan : « Vous surveillez les frontières, nous vous surveillons ». Une manifestation reconduite en août 2023 avec la mobilisation « 72h Push Back Frontex ». Objectif : contrer les négociations en cours entre l’Union européenne et le Sénégal, tout en appelant « à la dissolution définitive de l’agence européenne de gardes-frontières ». Sur RFI, son porte-parole #Saliou_Diouf expliquait récemment son point de vue : « Nous, on lutte pour la #liberté_de_circulation de tout un chacun. […] Depuis longtemps, il y a beaucoup d’argent qui rentre et est-ce que ça a arrêté les départs ? »

Cette politique « argent contre muraille » est déployée dans d’autres États africains, comme le #Niger ou le #Soudan. Frontex n’y est pas directement impliquée, mais l’Europe verse des centaines de millions d’euros à 26 pays africains pour que des politiques locales visant à bloquer les migrations soient mises en place.

« Nous avons besoin d’aide humanitaire, pas d’outils sécuritaires », assure Mbaye Diop, travailleur humanitaire dans un camp de la Croix-Rouge situé à la frontière entre le Sénégal et la Mauritanie, dans l’enquête de In These Times. Un constat qui vaut de l’autre côté de la Méditerranée : dans un tweet publié après le crash du Heron 1, l’ONG Sea-Watch observait qu’avec les 50 millions alloués à Airbus et à ses sous-traitants pour planter son Heron dans les flots, « on pourrait faire voler pendant 25 ans nos avions de secours Seabird 1 et Seabird 2 ».

▻https://afriquexxi.info/La-chute-du-Heron-blanc-ou-la-fuite-en-avant-de-l-agence-Frontex

#drones #Heron_1 #frontières #surveillances_des_frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #migrations #asile #réfugiés #drone_MALE (#Medium_Altitude_Long_Endurance) #crash #Airbus #complexe_militaro-industriel #IAI_System #coût #prix #budget #chute #fiabilité #Hermes_900 #Elbit_Systems #données #push-backs #refoulements #AS2132 #Libye #guerre_aérienne_informelle #biométrie

Human rights violations: German Federal Police equips Coast Guard in Tunisia

The German Ministry of the Interior gives indications that border troops from Tunisia are using German equipment for their crimes in the Mediterranean. Organisations report stolen engines and drowned refugees. These troops received dozens of engines, inflatable boats and training from Germany.

More than 130,000 people are reported to have crossed the Mediterranean to Italy in small boats this year to seek refuge in Europe. Most departures are now no longer from Libya, but from Tunisia. There, the refugees, most of whom come from sub-Saharan countries, are driven into the desert by the state and persecuted by the population in pogroms.

Human rights organisations regularly report that the Tunisian coast guard steals the engines of migrant boats on the high seas, thus exposing the occupants to drowning. The Federal Ministry of the Interior, in its answer to a parliamentary question, gives indications that maritime equipment from Germany is used for these crimes.

In the last two years, the Federal Police has donated 12 inflatable boats and 27 boat motors to the Tunisian border troops, according to the answer of the German Ministry of the Interior. In addition, the Federal Police has sent trainers to train the authorities in the use of “fast control boats”. This measure was repeated this year as a “further qualification”. In addition, there was a “basic and advanced training course” on repairing Yamaha engines.

Already in 2019, the German government supported the coast guard in Tunisia by providing them with equipment for a boat workshop. In addition, 14 training and advanced training measures were carried out for the National Guard, the border police and the coast guard. These trainings were also aimed at learning how to use “control boats”.

Tunisia has also received dozens of rigid-hull inflatable boats as well as patrol vessels from the USA since 2012. Several larger ships for the coast guard also come from Italy, and these donations are financed from EU funds. Germany could also be indirectly involved in these measures: according to the answer from the Ministry of the Interior, the German Federal Police has supplied Tunisia with six special tool kits for engines of 35-metre-class ships.

By supporting the Tunisian coast guard, the German Federal Police is “actively aiding and abetting the wanton drowning of people”, comments Clara Bünger, the refugee policy spokesperson of the Left Party in the Bundestag, who is responsible for the enquiry. “The equipment and training for the coast guard serve to prevent people from fleeing in violation of international law,” Felix Weiss from the organisation Sea-Watch, which rescues refugees in the Mediterranean, also says in response to a question from “nd”. The German government is thus partly responsible for the atrocities committed by the Tunisian counterpart, which recently claimed dozens of lives in the desert.

Tunisia also receives support from Germany in the desert region where the state crimes took place. The Ministry of Defence has financed an enhancement initiative” along the border with Libya, using surveillance technology worth millions of euros from the arms companies Airbus and later Hensoldt. This technology includes, among other things, radar systems and high-value sensors. The project was led by the US military.

During the same period, the Federal Police began its support in Tunisia and opened a “Project Office” in the capital in 2015. A year later, a “security agreement” was concluded, after which Germany donated dozens of all-terrain vehicles, binoculars, thermal imaging equipment and other material to Tunisian authorities as part of a “Border Police Project”. The Federal Police also installed body scanners at the airport in Tunis and trained the officers there in their operation. In addition, training was provided on “information gathering from the population”.

Other measures taken by the Federal Police include the construction and expansion of three police stations and barracks with control rooms. The funds for this project, which was carried out with France, the Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland, came from EU development aid.

According to the answer now available from the Ministry of the Interior, 449 Federal Police officers have been deployed in Tunisia over the past eight years. A total of 3395 members of the Tunisian National Guard and the border police have been trained, including in Germany.

The German government said it had “condemned the reported disappearance of refugees into the desert in the summer and demanded that these practices be stopped and clarified”. Most recently, the Minister of State of the Federal Foreign Office, Katja Keul, urged the observance of “general principles of the rule of law” during a visit to Tunis in August.

The office of the Green MP did not answer a question from “nd” on whether these repeated requests were successful from her point of view. The Foreign Office subsequently wrote: “Due to Tunisia’s geographical location on the southern edge of the Mediterranean, it follows that we must try to cooperate with Tunisia.”

After concluding a “Migration Pact”, the EU wants to provide the government in Tunis with a further €255 million from two financial pots for migration control. Despite known human rights abuses by the beneficiary authorities, the first €67 million of this will now be disbursed, the EU Commission announced on Friday. The package, announced in June, includes new vessels and thermal imaging cameras and other “operational tools”, as well as necessary training.

In a project already launched in 2017, the EU is also funding the development of a modern surveillance system along the Tunisian coast. By connecting to EU systems, the Tunisian border police and navy will exchange information with other EU Member States and Frontex.

▻https://digit.site36.net/2023/09/27/human-rights-violations-german-federal-police-equips-coast-guard-in-tu

#Tunisie #migrations #réfugiés #militarisation_des_frontières #gardes-frontière #Allemagne #externalisation #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #accord #technologie #complexe_militaro-industriel #équipement #équipement_maritime #formation #Italie #techonologie #radar #Airbus #Hensoldt #accord #Border_Police_Project #Trust_Fund #migration_pact #bateaux #caméras_thermiques

Telling the story of EU border militarization

https://www.statewatch.org/media/3998/eu-border-militarisation-narrative-guide.jpg

Addressing and preventing European border violence is a huge but necessary strategic challenge. This guide offers framing messages, guiding principles, and suggested language for people and organisations working on this challenge. It emerges from a process of discussion online and in-person between over a dozen organisations working in the European migrant justice space.

The European Union’s external borders are rapidly becoming more expansive and more dangerous. Europe’s border regime is costing lives, destabilising countries beyond European borders, and driving widespread abuse - and its budget and power is increasing. Meanwhile, the migration justice movement is under-resourced and often necessarily composed of organisations working on a single significant element of the vast EU border regime.

A key part of successfully challenging Europe’s border regime is being able to describe and expose it, by telling the same story about the dangers it poses across the continent. For the last few months, a number of organisations involved in human rights and migration have worked together to produce this guide; which provides that story, as part of a narrative guide to communicating about border militarisation and its consequences.

▻https://www.statewatch.org/publications/reports-and-books/telling-the-story-of-eu-border-militarization
#ressources_pédagogiques #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #brochure #manuel #guide #justice_migratoire #narration #externalisation #Frontex #business #complexe_militaro-industriel #lobby #industrie_militaire #technologie #morts_aux_frontières #mourir_aux_frontières #menace #violence #justification #catégorisation #récit #contre-récit

Comment l’Europe sous-traite à l’#Afrique le contrôle des #migrations (1/4) : « #Frontex menace la #dignité_humaine et l’#identité_africaine »

Pour freiner l’immigration, l’Union européenne étend ses pouvoirs aux pays d’origine des migrants à travers des partenariats avec des pays africains, parfois au mépris des droits humains. Exemple au Sénégal, où le journaliste Andrei Popoviciu a enquêté.

Cette enquête en quatre épisodes, publiée initialement en anglais dans le magazine américain In These Times (▻https://inthesetimes.com/article/europe-militarize-africa-senegal-borders-anti-migration-surveillance), a été soutenue par une bourse du Leonard C. Goodman Center for Investigative Reporting.

Par une brûlante journée de février, Cornelia Ernst et sa délégation arrivent au poste-frontière de Rosso. Autour, le marché d’artisanat bouillonne de vie, une épaisse fumée s’élève depuis les camions qui attendent pour passer en Mauritanie, des pirogues hautes en couleur dansent sur le fleuve Sénégal. Mais l’attention se focalise sur une fine mallette noire posée sur une table, face au chef du poste-frontière. Celui-ci l’ouvre fièrement, dévoilant des dizaines de câbles méticuleusement rangés à côté d’une tablette tactile. La délégation en a le souffle coupé.

Le « Universal Forensics Extraction Device » (UFED) est un outil d’extraction de données capable de récupérer les historiques d’appels, photos, positions GPS et messages WhatsApp de n’importe quel téléphone portable. Fabriqué par la société israélienne Cellebrite, dont il a fait la réputation, l’UFED est commercialisé auprès des services de police du monde entier, notamment du FBI, pour lutter contre le terrorisme et le trafic de drogues. Néanmoins, ces dernières années, le Nigeria et le Bahreïn s’en sont servis pour voler les données de dissidents politiques, de militants des droits humains et de journalistes, suscitant un tollé.

Toujours est-il qu’aujourd’hui, une de ces machines se trouve au poste-frontière entre Rosso-Sénégal et Rosso-Mauritanie, deux villes du même nom construites de part et d’autre du fleuve qui sépare les deux pays. Rosso est une étape clé sur la route migratoire qui mène jusqu’en Afrique du Nord. Ici, cependant, cette technologie ne sert pas à arrêter les trafiquants de drogue ou les terroristes, mais à suivre les Ouest-Africains qui veulent migrer vers l’Europe. Et cet UFED n’est qu’un outil parmi d’autres du troublant arsenal de technologies de pointe déployé pour contrôler les déplacements dans la région – un arsenal qui est arrivé là, Cornelia Ernst le sait, grâce aux technocrates de l’Union européenne (UE) avec qui elle travaille.

Cette eurodéputée allemande se trouve ici, avec son homologue néerlandaise Tineke Strik et une équipe d’assistants, pour mener une mission d’enquête en Afrique de l’Ouest. Respectivement membres du Groupe de la gauche (GUE/NGL) et du Groupe des Verts (Verts/ALE) au Parlement européen, les deux femmes font partie d’une petite minorité de députés à s’inquiéter des conséquences de la politique migratoire européenne sur les valeurs fondamentales de l’UE – à savoir les droits humains –, tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur de l’Europe.

Le poste-frontière de Rosso fait partie intégrante de la politique migratoire européenne. Il accueille en effet une nouvelle antenne de la Division nationale de lutte contre le trafic de migrants (DNLT), fruit d’un « partenariat opérationnel conjoint » entre le Sénégal et l’UE visant à former et équiper la police des frontières sénégalaise et à dissuader les migrants de gagner l’Europe avant même qu’ils ne s’en approchent. Grâce à l’argent des contribuables européens, le Sénégal a construit depuis 2018 au moins neuf postes-frontières et quatre antennes régionales de la DNLT. Ces sites sont équipés d’un luxe de technologies de surveillance intrusive : outre la petite mallette noire, ce sont des logiciels d’identification biométrique des empreintes digitales et de reconnaissance faciale, des drones, des serveurs numériques, des lunettes de vision nocturne et bien d’autres choses encore…

Dans un communiqué, un porte-parole de la Commission européenne affirme pourtant que les antennes régionales de la DNLT ont été créées par le Sénégal et que l’UE se borne à financer les équipements et les formations.

« Frontex militarise la Méditerranée »

Cornelia Ernst redoute que ces outils ne portent atteinte aux droits fondamentaux des personnes en déplacement. Les responsables sénégalais, note-t-elle, semblent « très enthousiasmés par les équipements qu’ils reçoivent et par leur utilité pour suivre les personnes ». Cornelia Ernst et Tineke Strik s’inquiètent également de la nouvelle politique, controversée, que mène la Commission européenne depuis l’été 2022 : l’Europe a entamé des négociations avec le Sénégal et la Mauritanie pour qu’ils l’autorisent à envoyer du personnel de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes, Frontex, patrouiller aux frontières terrestres et maritimes des deux pays. Objectif avoué : freiner l’immigration africaine.

Avec un budget de 754 millions d’euros, Frontex est l’agence la mieux dotée financièrement de toute l’UE. Ces cinq dernières années, un certain nombre d’enquêtes – de l’UE, des Nations unies, de journalistes et d’organisations à but non lucratif – ont montré que Frontex a violé les droits et la sécurité des migrants qui traversent la Méditerranée, notamment en aidant les garde-côtes libyens, financés par l’UE, à renvoyer des centaines de milliers de migrants en Libye, un pays dans lequel certains sont détenus, torturés ou exploités comme esclaves sexuels. En 2022, le directeur de l’agence, Fabrice Leggeri, a même été contraint de démissionner à la suite d’une cascade de scandales. Il lui a notamment été reproché d’avoir dissimulé des « pushbacks » : des refoulements illégaux de migrants avant même qu’ils ne puissent déposer une demande d’asile.

Cela fait longtemps que Frontex est présente de façon informelle au Sénégal, en Mauritanie et dans six autres pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest, contribuant au transfert de données migratoires de ces pays vers l’UE. Mais jamais auparavant l’agence n’avait déployé de gardes permanents à l’extérieur de l’UE. Or à présent, Bruxelles compte bien étendre les activités de Frontex au-delà de son territoire, sur le sol de pays africains souverains, anciennes colonies européennes qui plus est, et ce en l’absence de tout mécanisme de surveillance. Pour couronner le tout, initialement, l’UE avait même envisagé d’accorder l’immunité au personnel de Frontex posté en Afrique de l’Ouest.

D’évidence, les programmes européens ne sont pas sans poser problème. La veille de leur arrivée à Rosso, Cornelia Ernst et Tineke Strik séjournent à Dakar, où plusieurs groupes de la société civile les mettent en garde. « Frontex menace la dignité humaine et l’identité africaine », martèle Fatou Faye, de la Fondation Rosa Luxemburg, une ONG allemande. « Frontex militarise la Méditerranée », renchérit Saliou Diouf, fondateur de l’association de défense des migrants Boza Fii. Si Frontex poste ses gardes aux frontières africaines, ajoute-t-il, « c’est la fin ».

Ces programmes s’inscrivent dans une vaste stratégie d’« externalisation des frontières », selon le jargon européen en vigueur. L’idée ? Sous-traiter de plus en plus le contrôle des frontières européennes en créant des partenariats avec des gouvernements africains – autrement dit, étendre les pouvoirs de l’UE aux pays d’origine des migrants. Concrètement, cette stratégie aux multiples facettes consiste à distribuer des équipements de surveillance de pointe, à former les forces de police et à mettre en place des programmes de développement qui prétendent s’attaquer à la racine des migrations.

Des cobayes pour l’Europe

En 2016, l’UE a désigné le Sénégal, qui est à la fois un pays d’origine et de transit des migrants, comme l’un de ses cinq principaux pays partenaires pour gérer les migrations africaines. Mais au total, ce sont pas moins de 26 pays africains qui reçoivent de l’argent des contribuables européens pour endiguer les vagues de migration, dans le cadre de 400 projets distincts. Entre 2015 et 2021, l’UE a investi 5 milliards d’euros dans ces projets, 80 % des fonds étant puisés dans les budgets d’aide humanitaire et au développement. Selon des données de la Fondation Heinrich Böll, rien qu’au Sénégal, l’Europe a investi au moins 200 milliards de francs CFA (environ 305 millions d’euros) depuis 2005.

Ces investissements présentent des risques considérables. Il s’avère que la Commission européenne omet parfois de procéder à des études d’évaluation d’impact sur les droits humains avant de distribuer ses fonds. Or, comme le souligne Tineke Strik, les pays qu’elle finance manquent souvent de garde-fous pour protéger la démocratie et garantir que les technologies et les stratégies de maintien de l’ordre ne seront pas utilisées à mauvais escient. En réalité, avec ces mesures, l’UE mène de dangereuses expériences technico-politiques : elle équipe des gouvernements autoritaires d’outils répressifs qui peuvent être utilisés contre les migrants, mais contre bien d’autres personnes aussi.

« Si la police dispose de ces technologies pour tracer les migrants, rien ne garantit qu’elle ne s’en servira pas contre d’autres individus, comme des membres de la société civile et des acteurs politiques », explique Ousmane Diallo, chercheur au bureau d’Afrique de l’Ouest d’Amnesty International.

En 2022, j’ai voulu mesurer l’impact au Sénégal des investissements réalisés par l’UE dans le cadre de sa politique migratoire. Je me suis rendu dans plusieurs villes frontalières, j’ai discuté avec des dizaines de personnes et j’ai consulté des centaines de documents publics ou qui avaient fuité. Cette enquête a mis au jour un complexe réseau d’initiatives qui ne s’attaquent guère aux problèmes qui poussent les gens à émigrer. En revanche, elles portent un rude coup aux droits fondamentaux, à la souveraineté nationale du Sénégal et d’autres pays d’Afrique, ainsi qu’aux économies locales de ces pays, qui sont devenus des cobayes pour l’Europe.

Des politiques « copiées-collées »

Depuis la « crise migratoire » de 2015, l’UE déploie une énergie frénétique pour lutter contre l’immigration. A l’époque, plus d’un million de demandeurs d’asile originaires du Moyen-Orient et d’Afrique – fuyant les conflits, la violence et la pauvreté – ont débarqué sur les côtes européennes. Cette « crise migratoire » a provoqué une droitisation de l’Europe. Les leaders populistes surfant sur la peur des populations et présentant l’immigration comme une menace sécuritaire et identitaire, les partis nationalistes et xénophobes en ont fait leurs choux gras.

Reste que le pic d’immigration en provenance d’Afrique de l’Ouest s’est produit bien avant 2015 : en 2006, plus de 31 700 migrants sont arrivés par bateau aux îles Canaries, un territoire espagnol situé à une centaine de kilomètres du Maroc. Cette vague a pris au dépourvu le gouvernement espagnol, qui s’est lancé dans une opération conjointe avec Frontex, baptisée « Hera », pour patrouiller le long des côtes africaines et intercepter les bateaux en direction de l’Europe.

Cette opération « Hera », que l’ONG britannique de défense des libertés Statewatch qualifie d’« opaque », marque le premier déploiement de Frontex à l’extérieur du territoire européen. C’est aussi le premier signe d’externalisation des frontières européennes en Afrique depuis la fin du colonialisme au XXe siècle. En 2018, Frontex a quitté le Sénégal, mais la Guardia Civil espagnole y est restée jusqu’à ce jour : pour lutter contre l’immigration illégale, elle patrouille le long des côtes et effectue même des contrôles de passeports dans les aéroports.

En 2015, en pleine « crise », les fonctionnaires de Bruxelles ont musclé leur stratégie : ils ont décidé de dédier des fonds à la lutte contre l’immigration à la source. Ils ont alors créé le Fonds fiduciaire d’urgence de l’UE pour l’Afrique (EUTF). Officiellement, il s’agit de favoriser la stabilité et de remédier aux causes des migrations et des déplacements irréguliers des populations en Afrique.

Malgré son nom prometteur, c’est la faute de l’EUTF si la mallette noire se trouve à présent au poste-frontière de Rosso – sans oublier les drones et les lunettes de vision nocturne. Outre ce matériel, le fonds d’urgence sert à envoyer des fonctionnaires et des consultants européens en Afrique, pour convaincre les gouvernements de mettre en place de nouvelles politiques migratoires – des politiques qui, comme me le confie un consultant anonyme de l’EUTF, sont souvent « copiées-collées d’un pays à l’autre », sans considération aucune des particularités nationales de chaque pays. « L’UE force le Sénégal à adopter des politiques qui n’ont rien à voir avec nous », explique la chercheuse sénégalaise Fatou Faye à Cornelia Ernst et Tineke Strik.

Une mobilité régionale stigmatisée

Les aides européennes constituent un puissant levier, note Leonie Jegen, chercheuse à l’université d’Amsterdam et spécialiste de l’influence de l’UE sur la politique migratoire sénégalaise. Ces aides, souligne-t-elle, ont poussé le Sénégal à réformer ses institutions et son cadre législatif en suivant des principes européens et en reproduisant des « catégories politiques eurocentrées » qui stigmatisent, voire criminalisent la mobilité régionale. Et ces réformes sont sous-tendues par l’idée que « le progrès et la modernité » sont des choses « apportées de l’extérieur » – idée qui n’est pas sans faire écho au passé colonial.

Il y a des siècles, pour se partager l’Afrique et mieux piller ses ressources, les empires européens ont dessiné ces mêmes frontières que l’UE est aujourd’hui en train de fortifier. L’Allemagne a alors jeté son dévolu sur de grandes parties de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et de l’Afrique de l’Est ; les Pays-Bas ont mis la main sur l’Afrique du Sud ; les Britanniques ont décroché une grande bande de terre s’étendant du nord au sud de la partie orientale du continent ; la France a raflé des territoires allant du Maroc au Congo-Brazzaville, notamment l’actuel Sénégal, qui n’est indépendant que depuis soixante-trois ans.

L’externalisation actuelle des frontières européennes n’est pas un cas totalement unique. Les trois derniers gouvernements américains ont abreuvé le Mexique de millions de dollars pour empêcher les réfugiés d’Amérique centrale et d’Amérique du Sud d’atteindre la frontière américaine, et l’administration Biden a annoncé l’ouverture en Amérique latine de centres régionaux où il sera possible de déposer une demande d’asile, étendant ainsi de facto le contrôle de ses frontières à des milliers de kilomètres au-delà de son territoire.

Cela dit, au chapitre externalisation des frontières, la politique européenne en Afrique est de loin la plus ambitieuse et la mieux financée au monde.

►https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2023/09/06/comment-l-europe-sous-traite-a-l-afrique-le-controle-des-migrations-1-4-fron

#réfugiés #asile #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #Sénégal #Rosso #fleuve_Sénégal #Mauritanie #Universal_Forensics_Extraction_Device (#UFED) #données #technologie #Cellebrite #complexe_militaro-industriel #Division_nationale_de_lutte_contre_le_trafic_de_migrants (#DNLT) #politique_migratoire_européenne #UE #EU #Union_européenne #partenariat_opérationnel_conjoint #dissuasion #postes-frontières #surveillance #technologie_de_surveillance #biométrie #identification_biométrie #reconnaissance_faciale #empreintes_digitales #drones #droits_fondamentaux #militarisation_des_frontières #Boza_Fii #externalisation #expériences_technico-politiques #Hera #opération_Hera #mobilité_régionale

Se il contrasto ai flussi via mare diventa un mercato dalle “ottime prospettive”

A dieci anni dalla strage di Lampedusa del 3 ottobre 2013, il Mediterraneo è la rotta più fatale del Pianeta con oltre 30mila morti tra 2014 e metà 2023 (le stime ufficiali sono fortemente al ribasso). I Paesi però non investono su ricerca e soccorso ma sul “contrasto ai flussi”. Un giro d’affari d’oro. Il caso di #Cantiere_Navale_Vittoria.

Le prospettive economiche del contrasto al “fenomeno della immigrazione illegale” per mare nei prossimi anni sono “ottime”, scrive nel suo ultimo bilancio Cantiere Navale Vittoria, azienda del settore della nautica civile, militare e paramilitare con sede ad Adria (Rovigo), partner strategico del ministero dell’Interno, della Guardia costiera, della Marina militare nonché fornitore, come riporta, dei “principali ministeri e marine del bacino del Mediterraneo”.

Un mercato dalle “notevoli opportunità” che potrebbe portare a una “pipeline commerciale” superiore a 1,5 miliardi di euro solo per le nuove costruzioni previste nei prossimi anni, sommando commesse nazionali (della Marina, soprattutto) ed estere, tipo Tunisia, Grecia, Oman, Israele, Qatar, Malta, Libia, Romania, Croazia, Algeria.

Là fuori, intanto, la stagione è terribile, segnata ancora una volta da mancati od ostacolati soccorsi e migliaia di morti nel Mediterraneo: 2.652 solo quelli registrati ufficialmente tra gennaio e metà agosto 2023 dalle Nazioni Unite, che schizzano a oltre 31mila se si fa il conto dal 2014 e si allarga lo sguardo alle diverse direttrici (dalla Libia, dalla Tunisia, dalla Turchia, dal Libano, dall’Egitto, dalla Siria, dai Paesi dell’Africa occidentale, etc.). Una strage -e le cifre dell’Organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni sono solo la punta dell’iceberg– che fa in pezzi il “mai più” promesso dai governi dell’Unione europea dieci anni fa, poche ore dopo il naufragio di Lampedusa del 3 ottobre 2013, divenuto poi per legge la Giornata nazionale in memoria delle vittime dell’immigrazione.

Scorrere l’ultima relazione sulla gestione del cantiere di Adria adiacente al Canal Bianco, un ramo del Po, fa capire meglio dove vanno le politiche (e gli affari). “L’evoluzione del mercato di riferimento in cui opera la società -scrivono infatti gli amministratori- vede la decisa tendenza da parte di tutte le maggiori marine sovrane del Sud Europa nel volersi dotare di nuove unità destinate al pattugliamento d’altura e sotto costa oltre che a mezzi veloci necessari per contrastare efficacemente il fenomeno della immigrazione illegale”.

Ecco perché la “linea di business” chiamata “#Fast_patrol_vessel” -cioè le navi da pattugliamento veloci- pesa sui ricavi del 2022 (circa 100 milioni di euro) per quasi il 50%. Un esempio sono i quattro pattugliatori da 38 metri consegnati nel biennio 2021-2022 alla guardia costiera greca, con altri due che potrebbero essere opzionati nel corso del 2023. La stessa guardia costiera che è finita di nuovo sotto accusa per la strage di Pylos del giugno scorso avendo, secondo i testimoni, imprudentemente trainato il peschereccio partito dalla Libia con a bordo oltre 700 persone e provocato così il suo inabissamento.

La “linea” della ricerca e soccorso non arriva al 20% del fatturato, tallonata da quella del “#refitting”, ovvero la riparazione e rinnovo di assetti già esistenti. “La necessità di provvedere efficacemente al controllo costiero dei mari richiede anche l’ammodernamento delle unità già possedute -si legge ancora nel bilancio- e questo genera aperture molto interessanti nel mercato del refitting che Cantiere Navale Vittoria ha venduto ai propri clienti in anni precedenti”.

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/ea59ea880-d2aad0/yNZV9gyxD34y/UGTi1tWOGZIy3NXbQ279AvM27GposS1DC1Lum9Xv.png

Tipo le cosiddette guardie costiere libiche, che poi con quelle imbarcazioni, cedute con risorse pubbliche italiane ed europee, intercettano e riportano indietro i naufraghi verso il “cimitero più grande” che è il Nord Africa, per usare le parole di papa Francesco, in alcuni casi anche sparando contro le navi delle Ong. O la Guardia nazionale tunisina, per la quale l’azienda sta sistemando sei pattugliatori da 35 metri costruiti nel 2014. Ci sono poi veri e propri prototipi, come la serie di “#intercettori_fluviali_in_alluminio” lunghi dieci metri scarsi studiati per le “dure” condizioni affrontate dalla polizia romena o i due “#innovativi_intercettori” da 20 metri in grado di superare i 70 nodi (130 chilometri all’ora) commissionati dalla polizia reale omanita. Anche se la consegna più importante nell’ultimo anno è stata l’ammiraglia per le “forze armate maltesi”: 75 metri, un ponte di volo e 51,4 milioni di euro di valore. L’ipocrisia è in mezzo al mare.

▻https://altreconomia.it/se-il-contrasto-ai-flussi-via-mare-diventa-un-mercato-dalle-ottime-pros

Les fast patrol vessels (#FPV) :

The patrol boat is excellent for navies and maritime police today strength: more than 43 knots of maximum sustainable speed, with negligible speed loss up to Beaufort 3, combined with high-level accommodations to maximize crew comfort even on extended missions. Built in a series of four sister ships for the Cyprus Navy and the Maritime Police, the high speed allows rapid deployment even at great distances from the base, while the excellent hull design and motion control capabilities minimize the loss of speed in the open sea.

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/ea59ea880-d2aad0/pbo9HZLWJEBq/zxq5GsFmAJ0XsJScGfTSUcq0Ng2Rl8Mh35zs2euc.png

#migrations #asile #réfugiés #business #complexe_militaro-industriel #contrôles_frontaliers #technologie #navires #frontières #Italie

#Pre-frontier_information_picture

Je découvre dans un billet de blog que j’ai lu ce matin, cette info :

From the information gathered, Frontex produces, in addition to various dossiers, an annual situation report, which the agency calls an “Pre-frontier information picture.”

►https://digit.site36.net/2023/08/27/what-is-frontex-doing-in-senegal-secret-services-also-participate-in-t
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/997841#message1014789

... et du coup, ce terme de « pre-frontier information picture ».

ça me rappelle, évidemment, la carte de @reka de la #triple_frontière européenne (où une « pré-frontière » est dessinée au milieu du désert du Sahara) :

https://visionscarto.net/local/cache-vignettes/L2048xH1430/13670579344_d898-7ffd7-66a84.jpg?1690212438#.jpg

Je découvre ainsi, en faisant un peu de recherches, qu’il y a un #projet_de_recherche financé par #Horizon_2020 dédié à cette #pré-frontière, #NESTOR :

aN Enhanced pre-frontier intelligence picture to Safeguard The EurOpean boRders

Un système intégré de #surveillance des #frontières de l’UE

Les frontières de l’Europe sont soumises à une pression considérable en raison des flux migratoires, des conflits armés dans les territoires avoisinants, du trafic de biens et de personnes, et de la criminalité transnationale. Toutefois, certains obstacles géographiques, tels que les forêts denses, les hautes montagnes, les terrains accidentés ou les zones maritimes et fluviales entravent la surveillance des itinéraires empruntés par les réseaux criminels. Le projet NESTOR, financé par l’UE, fera la démonstration d’un #système_global_de_surveillance des frontières de nouvelle génération, entièrement fonctionnel et proposant des #informations sur la situation #en_amont des frontières et au-delà des frontières maritimes et terrestres. Ce système repose sur le concept de la gestion européenne intégrée des frontières et recourt à des #technologies d’analyse d’#images_optiques et du spectre de fréquences radio alimentées par un réseau de #capteurs_interopérables.

Objectif

For the past few years, Europe has experienced some major changes at its surrounding territories and in adjacent countries which provoked serious issues at different levels. The European Community faces a number of challenges both at a political and at a tactical level. Irregular migration flows exerting significant pressure to the relevant authorities and agencies that operate at border territories. Armed conflicts, climate pressure and unpredictable factors occurring at the EU external borders, have increased the number of the reported transnational crimes. Smuggling activity is a major concern for Eastern EU Borders particularly, as monitoring the routes used by smugglers is being hindered by mountainous, densely forested areas and rough lands aside with sea or river areas. Due to the severity and the abrupt emergence of events, the relevant authorities operate for a long-time interval, under harsh conditions, 24 hours a day. NESTOR aims to demonstrate a fully functional next generation holistic border surveillance system providing pre-frontier situational awareness beyond maritime and land border areas following the concept of the European Integrated Border Management. NESTOR long-range and wide area surveillance capabilities for detection, recognition classification and tracking of moving targets (e.g. persons, vessels, vehicles, drones etc.) is based on optical, thermal imaging and Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum analysis technologies fed by an interoperable sensors network including stationary installations and mobile manned or unmanned vehicles (aerial, ground, water, underwater) capable of functioning both as standalone, tethered and in swarms. NESTOR BC3i system will fuse in real-time border surveillance data combined with web and social media information, creating and sharing a pre-frontier intelligent picture to local, regional and national command centers in AR environment being interoperable with CISE and EUROSUR.

▻https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101021851/fr

Projet de 6 mio. d’euro et coordonné par la #police_grecque (#Grèce) :

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/DBwtKxTvyBLf/ZEdmT8uLwvl9V2PamCcjj5QnODwx98WmKj9hkOWU.png

Les participants (#complexe_militaro-industriel) au projet :

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/cqPnOmlwJhwB/AtaL5wJtqQxWtDG7xNe8oLJetBcGibXMtJlfBV6r.png https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/ua2GK7JkR9bi/gdKUr5xsXNYFhQHOxcZsFBJEL1Rag6Ony5AdYNyk.png https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/qnHyrvDqfGQP/iH51SyzccnQhki2Gl7aA4g1Q2HILh1WwWBZKBxEn.png

#données #technologie #interopérabilité #frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #surveillance_des_frontières #_Integrated_Border_Management #fréquence_radio #NESTOR_BC3i_system #CISE #EUROSUR

Conference on innovative technologies for strengthening the Schengen area

On 28 March 2023, the European Commission (DG HOME), Frontex and Europol will jointly hold a conference on innovative technologies for strengthening the Schengen area.

https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/EUresearchprojects/2023/A7400102.jpg

The conference will provide a platform for dialogue between policy decision-makers, senior technology project managers, and strategic industry leaders, essential actors who contribute to making the Schengen area more secure and resilient. The conference will include discussions on the current situation and needs in Member States, selected innovative technology solutions that could strengthen Schengen as well as selected technology use cases relevant for police cooperation within Schengen.

The conference target participants are ‘chief technology officers’ and lead managers from each Member State’s law enforcement and border guard authorities responsible for border management, security of border regions and internal security related activities, senior policy-makers and EU agencies. With regards to the presentation of innovative technological solutions, a dedicated call for industry participation will be published soon.

▻https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/events/conference-innovative-technologies-for-strengthening-schengen-area

Le rapport est téléchargeable ici:
Report from the conference on innovative technologies for strengthening the Schengen area

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/GDZa7md0Csxj/5JXfO21RdhsL2H7nxkVmu5OGZP7UqssnfjuUUWxI.png

In March 2023, the European Commission (DG HOME), Frontex and Europol jointly hosted a conference on innovative technologies for strengthening the Schengen area. The event brought together policy makers, senior technology project managers, and strategic industry leaders, essential actors who contribute to making the Schengen area more secure and resilient. The conference included discussions on the current situation and needs in Member States, selected innovative technology solutions that could strengthen Schengen as well as selected technology use cases relevant for police cooperation within Schengen.

▻https://frontex.europa.eu/innovation/announcements/report-from-the-conference-on-innovative-technologies-for-strengtheni
Lien pour télécharger le pdf:
▻https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/EUresearchprojects/2023/Conference_on_innovative_technologies_for_Schengen_-_Report.pdf

#technologie #frontières #Frontex #Europol #conférence #Schengen #UE #EU #commission_européenne #droits #droits_fondamentaux #biométrie #complexe_militaro-industriel #frontières_intérieures #contrôles_frontaliers #interopérabilité #acceptabilité #libre-circulation #Advanced_Passenger_Information (#API) #One-stop-shop_solutions #données #EU_Innovation_Hub_for_Internal_Security #Personal_Identification_system (#PerIS) #migrations #asile #réfugiés #vidéosurveillance #ePolicist_system #IDEMIA #Grant_Detection #OptoPrecision #Airbus_Defense_and_Space #Airbus #border_management #PNR #eu-LISA #European_Innovation_Hub_for_Internal_Security

#Texas prepares to deploy #Rio_Grande buoys in governor’s latest effort to curb border crossings

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/kPeBFPD98Reu/0T6Rz6GWyd7pNrzYEJOPXaekKlPRwqdn5iGKJ2Sq.png

Texas began rolling out what is set to become a new floating barrier on the Rio Grande on Friday in the latest escalation of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s multibillion-dollar effort to secure the U.S. border with Mexico, which already has included bussing migrants to liberal states and authorizing the National Guard to make arrests.

But even before the huge, orange buoys were unloaded from the trailers that hauled them to the border city of Eagle Pass, there were concerns over this part of Abbott’s unprecedented challenge to the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement. Migrant advocates voiced concerns about drowning risks and environmentalists questioned the impact on the river.

Dozens of the large spherical buoys were stacked on the beds of four tractor trailers in a grassy city park near the river on Friday morning.

Setting up the barriers could take up to two weeks, according to Lt. Chris Olivarez, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Public Safety, which is overseeing the project.

Once installed, the above-river parts of the system and the webbing they’re connected with will cover 1,000 feet (305 meter) of the middle of the Rio Grande, with anchors in the riverbed.

Eagle Pass is part of a Border Patrol sector that has seen the second highest number of migrant crossings this fiscal year with about 270,000 encounters — though that is lower than it was at this time last year.

The crossing dynamics shifted in May after the Biden administration stopped implementing Title 42, a pandemic era public health policy that turned many asylum seekers back to Mexico. New rules allowed people to seek asylum through a government application and set up appointments at the ports of entry, though the maximum allowed in per day is set at 1,450. The Texas governor’s policies target the many who are frustrated with the cap and cross illegally through the river.

Earlier iterations of Abbott’s border mission have included installing miles of razor wire at popular crossing points on the river and creating state checkpoints beyond federal stops to inspect incoming commercial traffic.

“We always look to employ whatever strategies will be effective in securing the border,” Abbott said in a June 8 press conference to introduce the buoy strategy.

But the state hasn’t said what tests or studies have been done to determine risks posed to people who try to get around the barrier or environmental impacts.

Immigrant advocates, including Sister Isabel Turcios, a nun who oversees a migrant shelter in Piedras Negras, Mexico, which sits just across the river from Eagle Pass, have remained vigilant about the effects of the new barrier on migration. Turcios said she met with the Texas Department of Public Safety in the days leading up to the arrival of the buoys and was told the floating barrier would be placed in deep waters to function as a warning to migrants to avoid the area.

Turcios said she is aware that many of the nearly 200 migrants staying in her shelter on any given day are not deterred from crossing illegally despite sharp concertina wire. But that wire causes more danger because it forces migrants to spend additional time in the river.

“That’s more and more dangerous each time ... because it has perches, it has whirlpools and because of the organized crime,” Turcios said.

Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw addressed the danger that migrants may face when the buoys are deployed during the June press conference when Abbott spoke: “Anytime they get in that water, it’s a risk to the migrants. This is the deterrent from even coming in the water.”

Less than a week ago — around the Fourth of July holiday — four people, including an infant, drowned near Eagle Pass as they attempted to cross the river.

The federal International Boundary and Water Commission, whose jurisdiction includes boundary demarcation and overseeing U.S.-Mexico treaties, said it didn’t get a heads up from Texas about the proposed floating barrier.

“We are studying what Texas is publicly proposing to determine whether and how this impacts our mission to carry out treaties between the US and Mexico regarding border delineation, flood control, and water distribution, which includes the Rio Grande,” Frank Fisher, a spokesperson for the commission, said in a statement.

On Friday morning, environmental advocates from Eagle Pass and Laredo, another Texas border city about 115 miles (185 kilometers) downriver, held a demonstration by the border that included a prayer for the river ahead of the barrier deployment.

Jessie Fuentes, who owns a canoe and kayaking business that takes paddlers onto the Rio Grande, said he’s worried about unforeseen consequences. On Friday, he filed a lawsuit to stop Texas from using the buoys. He’s seeking a permanent injunction, saying his paddling business is impacted by limited access to the river.

“I know it’s a detriment to the river flow, to the ecology of the river, to the fauna and flora. Every aspect of nature is being affected when you put something that doesn’t belong in the river,” Fuentes said.

Adriana Martinez, a professor at Southern Illinois University who grew up in Eagle Pass, studies the shapes of rivers and how they move sediment and create landforms. She said she’s worried about what the webbing might do.

“A lot of things float down the river, even when it’s not flooding; things that you can’t see like large branches, large rocks,” Martinez said. “And so anything like that could get caught up in these buoys and change the way that water is flowing around them.”

▻https://apnews.com/article/buoys-texas-immigration-rio-grande-mexico-522e45febd880de1453460370043a25f

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/ZVeThcK3tNNy/Se9yn4hKXqFLa2Z9MDqXhK1IKQmDVrurQ3O2cdu3.png

▻https://twitter.com/clemrenard_/status/1679018421449637888

#mur_flottant #frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis #barrières_frontalières #barrière_flottante

En #Grèce...
Grèce. Le « #mur_flottant » visant à arrêter les personnes réfugiées mettra des vies en danger
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/823621

North Africa a ’testing ground’ for EU surveillance technology

The EU is outsourcing controversial surveillance technologies to countries in North Africa and the Sahel region with no human rights impact assessments, reports say.

Controversial surveillance technologies are being outsourced by the European Union to countries in North Africa and the Sahel region with no transparency or regulation, according to two new reports.

Funding, equipment and training is funnelled to third countries via aid packages, where autocratic governments use the equipment and techniques to surveil the local population.

Beyond the borders of Europe, the movements of asylum seekers are being policed and eventually used to assess their asylum applications.

Antonella Napolitano, author of a report for human rights group EuroMed Rights, told Middle East Eye that the implementation of these projects is opaque and lacks proper consideration for the rights of civilians and the protection of their data.

“There aren’t enough safeguards in those countries. There aren’t data protection laws,” Napolitano said. “I think the paradox here is that border externalisation means furthering instability [in these countries].”

The complex web of funding projects and the diversity of actors who implement them make the trails of money difficult to track.

“This enables states to carry out operations with much less transparency, accountability or regulation than would be required of the EU or any EU government,” Napolitano told MEE.

The deployment of experimental technologies on the border is also largely unregulated.

While the EU has identified AI regulation as a priority, its Artificial Intelligence Act does not contain any stringent provision for the use of the technologies for border control.

“It’s creating a two-tiered system,” Napolitano told MEE. “People on the move outside the EU don’t have the same rights by design.”
Asylum claims

The surveillance of migrants on the move outside of Europe is also brought to bear back inside Europe.

A Privacy International report published in May found that five companies were operating GPS tagging of asylum seekers for Britain’s Home Office.

“It’s been massively expanded in the past couple of years,” Lucie Audibert, legal officer at Privacy International, told MEE.

Other, less tangible forms of surveillance are also deployed to monitor asylum seekers. “We know, for example, that the Home Office uses social media a lot… to assess the veracity of people’s claims in their immigration applications,” Audibert told MEE.

According to the reports, surveillance equipment and training is supplied by the EU to third countries under the guise of development aid packages.

These include the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF for Africa) and now the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument.

The reports cite multiple instances of how these funding instruments served to bolster law enforcement agencies in Algeria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, furnishing them with equipment and training that they then used against the local population.

The EUTF for Africa allocated 15 million euros ($16.5m USD) in funding to these countries to train up a group of “cyber specialists” in online surveillance and data extraction from smart devices.

A Privacy International investigation into the role of CEPOL, the EU law enforcement training agency, revealed that it had supplied internet surveillance training to members of Algeria’s police force.

The investigation highlights a potential connection between these tactics, which contravened the EU’s own policies on disinformation, and the wave of online disinformation and censorship driven by pro-regime fake accounts in the aftermath of the 2019 Hirak protests in Algeria.
A dangerous trend

For journalist Matthias Monroy, the major development in border surveillance came after the so-called migration crisis of 2015, which fuelled the development of the border surveillance industrial complex.

Prior to that, Europe’s border agency, Frontex, was wholly dependent on member states to source equipment. But after 2015, the agency could acquire its own.

“The first thing they did: they published tenders for aircraft, first manned and then unmanned. And both tenders are in the hands of private operators,” Monroy told MEE.

Frontex’s drones are now manned by the British company Airbus. “The Airbus crew detected the Crotone boat,” Monroy told MEE, referring to a shipwreck off the coast of Crotone, Italy, in February.

“But everybody said Frontex spotted the boat. No, it was Airbus. It’s very difficult to trace the responsibility, so if this surveillance is given to private operators, who is responsible?”

Almost 100 people died in the wreck.

Since 2015, with the expansion of the border surveillance industrial complex, its digitisation and control has been concentrated increasingly in the hands of private actors.

“I would see this as a trend and I would say it is very dangerous,” Monroy said.

▻https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/eu-north-africa-surveillance-technology-testing-ground

#surveillance #technologie #test #Afrique_du_Nord #Sahel #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #intelligence_artificielle #IA #EU_Emergency_Trust_Fund_for_Africa (#EUTF_for_Africa) #développement #Emergency_Trust_Fund #Algérie #Egypte #Tunisie #Libye #complexe_militaro-industriel #contrôles_frontaliers #Frontex #Airbus #drones #privatisation

ping @_kg_

L’agenzia europea che costruisce le frontiere in Tunisia
▻https://irpimedia.irpi.eu/thebigwall-icmpd-tunisia

A metà luglio è stato siglato il Memorandum of understanding tra Ue e Tunisia, con al centro il tema migratorio. Le esigenze di Tunisi sono rappresentate all’Europa anche da un’agenzia austriaca, l’Icmpd, di un cui un documento interno svela alcuni segreti Clicca per leggere l’articolo L’agenzia europea che costruisce le frontiere in Tunisia pubblicato su IrpiMedia.

Migrations : l’Union européenne, droit dans le mur

La Commission européenne affirme que l’UE ne finance pas de « murs » anti-migrants à ses #frontières_extérieures, malgré les demandes insistantes d’États de l’est de l’Europe. En réalité, cette « ligne rouge » de l’exécutif, qui a toujours été floue, s’efface de plus en plus.

Le 14 juin dernier, le naufrage d’un bateau entraînait la noyade de centaines de personnes exilées. Quelques jours auparavant, le 8 juin, les États membres de l’Union européenne s’enorgueillissaient d’avoir trouvé un accord sur deux règlements essentiels du « Pacte européen pour l’asile et la migration », qui multipliera les procédures d’asile express dans des centres de détention aux frontières de l’Europe, faisant craindre aux ONG une nouvelle érosion du droit d’asile.

Dans ce contexte délétère, un groupe d’une douzaine d’États membres, surtout d’Europe de l’Est, réclame que l’Union européenne reconnaisse leur rôle de « protecteurs » des frontières de l’Union en autorisant le financement européen de murs, #clôtures et #barbelés pour contenir le « flux migratoire ». Le premier ministre grec, Kyriákos Mitsotákis, avait même estimé que son pays était en première ligne face à « l’invasion de migrants ».

Officiellement, la Commission européenne se refuse toujours à financer les multiples projets de clôtures anti-migrants qui s’érigent le long des frontières extérieures de l’UE. « Nous avons un principe bien établi : nous ne finançons pas de murs ni de barbelés. Et je pense que cela ne devrait pas changer », avait encore déclaré Ylva Johansson, la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, le 31 janvier. Pourtant, la ligne rouge semble inexorablement s’effacer.

Le 7 octobre 2021, les ministres de douze États, dont la #Grèce, la #Pologne, la #Hongrie, la #Bulgarie ou les #Pays_baltes, demandaient par écrit à la Commission que le financement de « #barrières_physiques » aux frontières de l’UE soit une « priorité », car cette « mesure de protection » serait un outil « efficace et légitime » dans l’intérêt de toute l’Union. Une demande qu’ils réitèrent depuis à toute occasion.

Les États membres n’ont pas attendu un quelconque « feu vert » de la Commission pour ériger des clôtures. Les premières ont été construites par l’Espagne dans les années 1990, dans les enclaves de Ceuta et Melilla. Mais c’est en 2015, après l’exil de centaines de milliers de Syrien·nes fuyant la guerre civile, que les barrières se sont multipliées. Alors que l’Union européenne comptait 315 kilomètres de fil de fer et barbelés à ses frontières en 2014, elle en totalisait 2 048 l’an passé.

Depuis 2021, ce groupe d’États revient sans cesse à la charge. Lors de son arrivée au sommet des dirigeants européens, le 9 février dernier, Victor Orbán (Hongrie) annonçait la couleur : « Les barrières protègent l’Europe. » Les conclusions de ce sommet, ambiguës, semblaient ouvrir une brèche dans la politique européenne de financement du contrôle aux frontières. Les États demandaient « à la Commission de mobiliser immédiatement des fonds pour aider les États membres à renforcer […] les infrastructures de protection des frontières ».

Dans ses réponses écrites aux questions de Mediapart, la Commission ne mentionne plus aucune ligne rouge : « Les États membres ont une obligation de protéger les frontières extérieures. Ils sont les mieux placés pour définir comment le faire en pratique d’une manière qui […] respecte les droits fondamentaux. »

Si l’on en croit le ministre de l’intérieur grec, Panagiótis Mitarákis, les dernières résistances de la Commission seraient en train de tomber. Le 24 février, il affirmait, au sujet du projet grec d’#extension et de renforcement de sa clôture avec la Turquie, le long de la rivière #Evros, que la Commission avait « accepté que certaines dépenses pour la construction de la barrière soient financées par l’Union européenne ».

Pour Catherine Woollard, de l’ONG Ecre (Conseil européen pour les réfugiés et exilés), « c’est important que la Commission résiste à ces appels de financement des murs et clôtures, car il faut respecter le droit de demander l’asile qui implique un accès au territoire. Mais cette position risque de devenir symbolique si les barrières sont tout de même construites et qu’en plus se développent des barrières d’autres types, numériques et technologiques, surtout dans des États qui utilisent la force et des mesures illégales pour refouler les demandeurs d’asile ».

D’une ligne rouge à une ligne floue

Au sein de l’ONG Statewatch, Chris Jones estime que « cette “ligne rouge” de la Commission européenne, c’est du grand n’importe quoi ! Cela fait des années que l’Union européenne finance des dispositifs autour ou sur ces clôtures, des #drones, des #caméras, des #véhicules, des #officiers. Dire que l’UE ne finance pas de clôtures, c’est uniquement sémantique, quand des milliards d’euros sont dépensés pour fortifier les frontières ». Même diagnostic chez Mark Akkerman, chercheur néerlandais au Transnational Institute, pour qui la « #ligne_rouge de la Commission est plutôt une ligne floue ». Dans ses travaux, il avait déjà démontré qu’en 2010, l’UE avait financé l’achat de #caméras_de_vidéosurveillance à #Ceuta et la construction d’un #mirador à #Melilla.

Lorsqu’il est disponible, le détail des dépenses relatives au contrôle des frontières montre que la politique de non-financement des « murs » est une ligne de crête, car si la Commission ne finance pas le béton ni les barbelés, elle finance bien des #dispositifs qui les accompagnent.

En 2021, par exemple, la #Lituanie a reçu 14,9 millions d’euros de fonds d’aide d’urgence pour « renforcer » sa frontière extérieure avec la Biélorussie, peut-on lire dans un rapport de la Commission. Une frontière qui, selon le ministère de l’intérieur lituanien, contacté par Mediapart, est « désormais longée d’une clôture de 530 km et d’une barrière surmontée de fils barbelés sur 360 kilomètres ». Si la barrière a pesé 148 millions d’euros sur le #budget de l’État, le ministère de l’intérieur affirme que la rénovation de la route qui la longe et permet aux gardes-frontières de patrouiller a été financée à hauteur de « 10 millions d’euros par des fonds européens ».

En Grèce, le détail des dépenses du gouvernement, dans le cadre du fonds européen de sécurité intérieur, de 2014 à 2020, est éclairant. Toujours le long de la rivière Evros, là où est érigée la barrière physique, la police grecque a pu bénéficier en 2016 d’un apport de 15 millions d’euros, dont 11,2 millions financés par le fonds européen pour la sécurité intérieure, afin de construire 10 #pylônes et d’y intégrer des #caméras_thermiques, des caméras de surveillance, des #radars et autres systèmes de communication.

Cet apport financier fut complété la même année par 1,5 million d’euros pour l’achat d’#équipements permettant de détecter les battements de cœur dans les véhicules, coffres ou conteneurs.

Mais l’enjeu, en Grèce, c’est avant tout la mer, là où des bateaux des gardes-côtes sont impliqués dans des cas de refoulements documentés. Dans son programme d’action national du fonds européen relatif à la gestion des frontières et des visas, écrit en 2021, le gouvernement grec envisage le renouvellement de sa flotte, dont une dizaine de bateaux de #patrouille côtière, équipés de #technologies de #surveillance dernier cri, pour environ 60 millions d’euros. Et malgré les refoulements, la Commission européenne octroie les fonds.

Technologies et barrières font bon ménage

Les États membres de l’UE qui font partie de l’espace Schengen ont pour mission de « protéger les frontières extérieures ». Le droit européen leur impose aussi de respecter le droit d’asile. « Les exigences du code Schengen contredisent bien souvent l’acquis européen en matière d’asile. Lorsqu’un grand nombre de personnes arrivent aux frontières de l’Union européenne et qu’il existe des pressions pour faire baisser ce nombre, il est presque impossible de le faire sans violer certaines règles relatives au droit d’asile », reconnaît Atanas Rusev, directeur du programme « sécurité » du Centre pour l’étude de la démocratie, basé en Bulgarie.

La Bulgarie est au cœur de ces tiraillements européens. En 2022, la police a comptabilisé 164 000 passages dits « irréguliers » de sa frontière, contre 55 000 l’année précédente. Des demandeurs d’asile qui, pour la plupart, souhaitent se rendre dans d’autres pays européens.

Les Pays-Bas ou l’Autriche ont fait pression pour que la #Bulgarie réduise ce nombre, agitant la menace d’un report de son intégration à l’espace Schengen. Dans le même temps, des ONG locales, comme le Helsinki Committee Center ou le Refugee Help Group, dénoncent la brutalité qui s’exerce sur les exilé·es et les refoulements massifs dont ils sont victimes. Le pays a construit une clôture de 234 kilomètres le long de sa frontière avec la Turquie.

Dans son plan d’action, le gouvernement bulgare détaille son intention de dépenser l’argent européen du fonds relatif à la gestion des frontières, sur la période 2021-2027, pour renforcer son « système de surveillance intégré » ; une collecte de données en temps réel par des caméras thermiques, des #capteurs_de_mouvements, des systèmes de surveillance mobiles, des #hélicoptères.

Philip Gounev est consultant dans le domaine de la gestion des frontières. Il fut surtout ministre adjoint des affaires intérieures en Bulgarie, chargé des fonds européens, mais aussi de l’érection de la barrière à la frontière turque. Il explique très clairement la complémentarité, à ses yeux, des différents dispositifs : « Notre barrière ne fait que ralentir les migrants de cinq minutes. Mais ces cinq minutes sont importantes. Grâce aux caméras et capteurs qui détectent des mouvements ou une brèche dans la barrière, l’intervention des gardes-frontières est rapide. »

L’appétit pour les technologies et le numérique ne fait que croître, au point que des ONG, comme l’EDRi (European Digital Rights) dénoncent la construction par l’UE d’un « #mur_numérique ». Dans ce domaine, le programme de recherche européen #Horizon_Europe et, avant lui, #Horizon_2020, tracent les contours du futur numérisé des contrôles, par le financement de projets portés par l’industrie et des centres de #recherche, au caractère parfois dystopique.

De 2017 à 2021, « #Roborder » a reçu une aide publique de 8 millions d’euros. L’idée est de déployer une armada de véhicules sans pilotes, sur la mer ou sur terre, ainsi que différents drones, tous munis de caméras et capteurs, et dont les informations seraient croisées et analysées pour donner une image précise des mouvements humains aux abords des frontières. Dans son programme d’action national d’utilisation du fonds européen pour la gestion des frontières, la Hongrie manifeste un intérêt appuyé pour « l’adaptation partielle des résultats » de Roborder via une série de projets pilotes à ses frontières.

Les #projets_de_recherche dans le domaine des frontières sont nombreux. Citons « #Foldout », dont les 8 millions d’euros servent à développer des technologies de #détection de personnes, à travers des #feuillages épais « dans les zones les plus reculées de l’Union européenne ». « Le développement de technologies et de l’#intelligence_artificielle aux frontières de l’Europe est potentiellement plus puissant que des murs, décrypte Sarah Chandler, de l’EDRi. Notre inquiétude, c’est que ces technologies soient utilisées pour des #refoulements aux frontières. »

D’autres projets, développés sous l’impulsion de #Frontex, utilisent les croisements de #données et l’intelligence artificielle pour analyser, voire prédire, les mouvements migratoires. « Le déploiement de nouvelles technologies de surveillance, avec la construction de barrières pour bloquer les routes migratoires, est intimement lié à des dangers accrus et provoque davantage de morts des personnes en mouvement », peut-on lire dans un rapport de Statewatch. Dans un contexte de droitisation de nombreux États membres de l’Union européenne, Philip Gounev pense de son côté que « le financement de barrières physiques par l’UE deviendra inévitable ».

▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/170723/migrations-l-union-europeenne-droit-dans-le-mur
#murs #barrières_frontalières #migrations #financement #UE #EU #Union_européenne #technologie #complexe_militaro-industriel

Dans la Manche, l’État sous-traite le sauvetage d’exilés à une société privée

Le ministère des armées a signé un marché avec l’entreprise #SeaOwl, qui fournit, depuis le printemps, deux #bateaux pour des missions de sauvetage au large de #Dunkerque et de #Calais. Une première. D’après nos informations, des questions émergent autour de la formation des équipages et des performances des navires.

AccostéAccosté à un quai du port de Dunkerque, l’#Esvagt_Charlie se remarque de loin. Sa coque rouge de 40 mètres de long sur laquelle sont inscrits les mots « RESCUE ZONE » ne laisse aucun doute : il s’agit de l’un des deux nouveaux moyens de sauvetage déployés par la France dans la Manche. Sur le pont, quatre marins s’activent, avant de se murer dans le silence à la moindre question. La capitaine renvoie vers la préfecture maritime. Tous ont l’ordre de ne pas parler à la presse.

Les deux marchés conclus en mars et en avril 2023 entre le ministère des armées et l’entreprise SeaOwl, qui fournit ces bateaux et leur équipage, sanctionnent en effet de pénalités financières toute communication sans « accord préalable de l’autorité maritime ». Ce #marché_public est une première : jamais l’État français n’avait lancé d’appel d’offres en direction du privé pour une mission entièrement dédiée au sauvetage d’exilé·es.

Depuis 2019 et l’augmentation du nombre de passages par la mer, la préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord coordonne en effet les opérations de sauvetage avec les moyens de la marine nationale, des douanes, de la Société nationale de sauvetage en mer (SNSM), de la gendarmerie maritime ou des Abeilles, ces remorqueurs destinés aux bateaux de marchandises ou ferries. Parmi tous ces acteurs, seule la SNSM, une association d’utilité publique, est exclusivement dédiée au sauvetage et composée de sauveteurs bénévoles.

En optant pour une société privée, l’État montre son incapacité à mobiliser ses propres moyens. « Dans le #Pas-de-Calais, tout le système a été conçu pour le sauvetage des biens et des gros bateaux. Jamais personne n’a vu venir la question de la mort massive en mer », analyse Vincent Guigueno, historien spécialiste des enjeux maritimes et conférencier à Sciences Po Paris.

Deux bateaux ont ainsi été affrétés par SeaOwl : l’Esvagt Charlie, depuis début avril à Dunkerque ; et l’#Apollo_Moon, depuis début mai à Calais. #Coût du marché, d’après nos informations : 4 millions d’euros par an pour chaque bateau, renouvelable au bout de quatre années.

Rachetée en 2021 par l’homme d’affaires #Walter_Butler, SeaOwl est spécialisée dans les technologies de défense maritime (drones flottants armés, surveillance, navire d’entraînement pour la marine) et propose des services de sécurité pour des plateformes offshore en Asie, en Afrique ou au Moyen-Orient.

Ce recours au privé a été annoncé en décembre 2022 par la première ministre Élisabeth Borne, après qu’un naufrage a fait 27 morts et quatre disparus à la fin 2021, et dans la foulée de révélations du Monde sur l’attitude, ce jour-là, de certains militaires du centre régional opérationnel de surveillance et de sauvetage (Cross) de Gris-Nez – sept militaires ont depuis été mis en examen pour « non-assistance à personne en danger ».

Mais si les spécialistes du monde maritime interrogés saluent le renforcement du dispositif de sauvetage, les interrogations se multiplient quant à l’efficacité opérationnelle des deux navires de SeaOwl, à l’heure où la capacité des embarcations d’exilé·es augmente jusqu’à 40 voire 60 personnes. « Il fallait vite mettre quelque chose en place. Sauf que quand on fait les choses dans l’urgence, dans le domaine du sauvetage, on fait n’importe quoi, n’importe comment », expose Jean-Paul Hellequin, marin à la retraite, porte-parole du syndicat des marins CGT du Grand Ouest et président de l’association de défense des marins Mor Glaz.

Ainsi, à l’arrivée de l’Esvagt Charlie, à la mi-avril, « il y avait zéro personne formée à bord », témoigne sous couvert d’anonymat l’un des membres d’équipage. « Il n’y en a pas un qui ait de l’expérience dans ce que ce bateau est censé faire : sauver beaucoup de gens à la fois. » À bord, ils sont six marins recrutés par SeaOwl, à alterner tous les quinze jours avec une autre équipe.

En plus de ces marins, les navires embarquent en permanence « des agents de sécurité, ni marins ni secouristes ». Embauchés eux aussi par SeaOwl, il s’agit d’« une équipe dite de protection, composée de trois personnes », confirme le secrétariat général de la mer, organe interministériel dirigé par l’ancien préfet de police de Paris, Didier Lallement, sous l’autorité de la première ministre. Mission : « Aider à prendre en charge et gérer les naufragés ».

Pas de formation en sauvetage de masse prévue dans l’appel d’offres

Mais avec quelle #formation ? « Leur métier est la sécurité, ils ne sont pas là pour prendre soin... Ils sont là pour fouiller les naufragés, fustige le marin déjà cité. Cela relève d’un fantasme entourant ces gens qui traversent, comme s’ils pouvaient représenter un danger. » « Le cas échéant, [cette équipe] est en mesure de protéger l’équipage », soutient le secrétariat général de la mer.

Le cahier des clauses, consulté par Mediapart, reste vague quant aux exigences de formation de l’équipage. « Il n’existe pas de formation institutionnelle en matière de sauvetage de masse définie par l’organisation maritime internationale. Cela ne pouvait donc pas être intégré dans les prérequis de l’appel d’offres », justifie l’équipe de Didier Lallement. En renvoyant la balle au titulaire du marché : « Il [lui] appartient de prendre les dispositions requises pour que ses navires soient en mesure de réaliser la mission ordonnée dans de bonnes conditions. »

Pourtant, des formations sont organisées depuis janvier 2022 auprès de plusieurs administrations intervenant dans la Manche, comme la marine, les douanes, les affaires maritimes... Elles sont délivrées par Arnaud Banos, formateur pour la SNSM, l’une des rares personnes à pouvoir former au sauvetage de masse en France. Directeur de recherche au CNRS et sauveteur auprès d’ONG en Méditerranée, Arnaud Banos affirme avoir été contacté « début juin » par la préfecture maritime afin de former les équipages de SeaOwl. Mais aucune date n’a pour l’instant été fixée.

L’Esvagt Charlie est déjà intervenu sur quatre opérations de sauvetage (38 personnes le 18 mai, 17 dans la nuit du 27 au 28 mai, 45 le 12 juin, et 54 dans la nuit du 20 au 21 juin), et les semaines continuent donc de défiler sans équipage formé. « Le jour où un naufrage avec quelque chose de grave se passe, ça va être le gros merdier », craint un marin.

« Les opérations de sauvetage impliquant des dizaines de naufragés sont très complexes à mener et mettent en danger aussi bien les naufragés que les équipages », complète Arnaud Banos.

Un vieux navire censé jouer les ambulances

Par ailleurs, pour plusieurs experts interrogés, les caractéristiques techniques des bateaux ne sont pas à la hauteur des enjeux. L’Esvagt Charlie, un bateau vieux de presque 50 ans, ne dépasse pas les 10 nœuds (18 km/h) ; pas plus que son homologue l’Apollo Moon, ex-navire de pêche. À titre de comparaison, certains canots de la Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) anglaise ou de la SNSM atteignent les 25 nœuds (46 km/h), soit plus du double.

« On ne transforme pas en quelque temps des chalutiers ou de vieux navires en des ambulances de la mer », raille Jean-Paul Hellequin. « La rapidité d’intervention est primordiale », complète un acteur expérimenté du sauvetage dans la Manche, souhaitant pour sa part rester anonyme. « S’il y a une urgence vitale, dans une nuit très chargée, ils ne pourront pas agir dans la seconde », abonde Flore, responsable communication de l’association d’aide aux exilé·es Utopia 56. « En période hivernale, quand les personnes sont gelées, avec les risques d’hypothermie, il y a aussi un vrai enjeu à rentrer vite au port », s’inquiète-t-elle.

L’accord-cadre exige certes un tirant d’eau maximum (partie immergée du bateau) de 4,5 mètres, afin de pouvoir opérer dans les zones de petits fonds du détroit. Ceux des deux navires atteignent 4,20 mètres... Encore trop, selon le spécialiste du sauvetage interrogé sous anonymat : « En mer du Nord, il y a des bancs de sable partout, durs comme la pierre. À 4,20 mètres ça ne passe pas : s’ils les touchent, ils s’échouent et ne peuvent pas intervenir sur les embarcations. »

Enfin, le franc-bord (hauteur entre la ligne de flottaison sur l’eau et le pont principal) de l’Apollo Moon est très haut. « Même avec un franc-bord d’à peine un mètre, c’est déjà un défi de sortir les gens de l’eau », insiste cet acteur du sauvetage. L’Esvagt Charlie et l’Apollo Moon fonctionnent avec des zodiacs mis à l’eau par une grue. L’accord-cadre prévoit que les bateaux disposent d’une zone de sauvetage « abaissée » pour faciliter la remontée des naufragé·es depuis ces zodiacs. L’Esvagt Charlie en a une, mais pas l’Apollo Moon.

Son pont, situé à plusieurs mètres au-dessus de l’eau, rend donc impossible la remontée sans utiliser à nouveau les grues. Avec ce système, « on ne prend que quelques naufragés à chaque fois, pas 50. Cela peut durer longtemps : le problème de l’hypothermie arrive très vite, on risque de perdre du monde », avertit l’expert interrogé. « Je pense que les armateurs français auraient pu fournir des navires plus modernes et plus adéquats », conclut pour sa part Jean-Paul Hellequin.

« Obligation de moyens, pas de résultats »

D’autres experts sont plus nuancés. « La question, c’est les compétences de l’équipage. Les compétences s’articulent à l’outil technique que vous avez », recentre Vincent Guigueno. Les traversées dans la Manche sont « une situation neuve. La période d’adaptation est courte. L’État fait ce qu’il peut », relève aussi le marin interrogé sous anonymat.

En janvier dernier, lors de la présentation du bilan annuel de la préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord, le préfet Marc Véran a déclaré que « l’État a une obligation de moyens, pas de résultats ». Et de comparer les risques encourus par les exilé·es à ceux liés aux avalanches pour les skieurs en hors-piste : « Les sauveteurs vont tout faire pour vous sauver, mais ils n’y arriveront peut-être pas. Nous, c’est pareil. » Ces deux nouveaux bateaux permettent donc à l’État de répondre à son obligation de moyens…

Alors que l’État va dépenser 550 millions d’euros reçus du Royaume-Uni (via un accord signé en novembre 2022) dans la sécurisation du littoral et l’interception des départs, aucun investissement n’est pour le moment prévu pour renforcer ses effectifs de sauvetage en mer. En revanche, 500 agents de police supplémentaires doivent être déployés, et un centre de rétention administrative (CRA) construit.

« Les différentes administrations se demandent sur qui va retomber la responsabilité dans le cas d’un nouveau naufrage », conclut l’historien Vincent Guigueno. « L’idée, c’est de mettre en place le storytelling, et de pouvoir dire : “On a mis des moyens supplémentaires”, si un nouveau drame se produit. »

▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/270623/dans-la-manche-l-etat-sous-traite-le-sauvetage-d-exiles-une-societe-privee
#sous-traitance #France #sauvetage #migrations #asile #privatisation #réfugiés #frontières #Manche #complexe_militaro-industriel

Who profits from brutal and muderous Pushbacks?

The podcast is in English

Anlässlich des World Refugee Days am 20. Juni hört ihr einen Podcast von unserem Kooperationsradio Radio Mytilini auf Lesvos. Es geht um die brutalen und mörderischen Pushbacks an den Außengrenzen der EU und wer davon finanziell profitiert. Die Menschen die solche Pushbacks durchführen werden dafür bezahlt, wo das Geld herkommt erfahrt ihr in dieser Sendung.

▻https://de.cba.fro.at/624115
#asile #migrations #réfugiés #push-backs #refoulements #frontières #profit #Grèce #responsabilité #mer_Egée #Evros #frontières_terrestres #frontières_maritimes #violence #complexe_militaro-industriel #integrated_border_management_fund #technologie #Thales #Frontex #european_peace_facility #visa #industrie_militaire #consultants #McKinzie #accord_UE-Turquie

#podcast #audio

ping @_kg_ @kaparia

UK provided £3m to Turkish border forces to stop migrants, FOI reveals

Investigation shows Home Office funds ‘return and reintegration assistance’ and provides equipment and training to Turkish police

The Home Office has provided more than £3m in funding to Turkish border forces in the last year to prevent migrants reaching the UK, an investigation for the Guardian has found.

Funding to Turkey’s border force operations has increased substantially from 2019, when £14,000 was given to Turkish police and coastguard for maritime border security training, according to documents obtained through freedom of information (FOI) requests. That figure rose to £425,000 in 2021-22 for training and equipment and up to £3m this year for “return and reintegration assistance”, training and personnel.

The funding was diverted from the official development assistance (ODA) budget and delivered through Home Office International Operations, part of the department’s Intelligence Directorate.

In addition to funding, the Home Office has also supplied Turkish border forces, including the National Police and the coastguard, with equipment and training. In June 2022, nine vehicles were handed over by the UK’s deputy high commissioner to the Turkish National Police on the border with Iran.

Last year Turkey said it “turned back” 238,448 migrants at its eastern border with Iran. Video evidence seen by the Guardian shows cases of extreme violence and force used against Afghan migrants attempting to cross the border into Turkey. This includes the authorities firing live bullet rounds as people flee, including at the feet of children; beatings using rifle butts; robberies; humiliation tactics and pushing people back to the other side of the border.

Mahmut Kaçan, a Turkish lawyer working on asylum and human rights abuses, said the deaths and pushbacks on the border began escalating two years ago. “The UNHCR never criticises or mentions what Turkey is doing at the border. They are complicit in the deaths of these people, as are the EU and other countries that are giving money to Turkey for border security.”

A source with knowledge of the Home Office International Operations team said Turkey had become “a country of emerging importance [to the UK government] in the last two to three years and is now seen as strategically crucial to border securitisation”.

“We offer our expertise and provide officials [locally] with evidence, showing the routes we think illegal migrants or gangs are operating along,” the source said. “It’ll probably be along the lines of: ‘This is a route smugglers and illegal migrants use to get to the UK, we need to do more to stop it.’ The Turkish government will then respond by saying: ‘This is what we need to be able to do that’, and then we fund it, basically.”

The source added: “We don’t tend to hold local forces to account with any targets but certainly if we say: ‘We need to bolster X area of border security’, Turkey might respond by saying they need Y in order to boost border officer numbers and we’ll help them to do that.”

Another source familiar with the work of the Home Office International Operations unit said: “Us paying for stuff like that builds our soft power credentials in other areas, such as possible returns agreements. It’s like a mini FCDO [Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office] inside the Home Office.”

Sources added that Home Office operations overseas involved intelligence gathering through interviews with migrants who had arrived in the UK. Information from those interviews is then passed on to border forces locally to “put an operational plan in place to stop it”.

Documents obtained through an FOI request also show that the Home Office has increased the number of its staff deployed to work at post, with sources from the FCDO saying Home Office staff now outnumbers diplomats working in Turkey.

“The Home Office is seen by international partners as quite hostile, quite adversarial,” said a senior government source with knowledge of the department’s operations in Turkey. “The FCDO, on the other hand, is viewed as relatively collegiate and collaborative. In this context, there are obvious tensions in the approach and the culture among staff.”

The department’s 2025 Border Strategy states that one of its key priorities is to “improve our use of upstream illegal migration countermeasures to prevent irregular entry into the UK”.

It also stipulates the department will “prevent entry into the UK through improved border security and through work with source and transit countries to support them in addressing irregular migration challenges within their region”.

Mary Atkinson, campaigns and networks manager at JCWI, said: “This government has shown that it will break international law to prevent people from exercising the fundamental human right to seek safety.

“Whether on the border between Turkey and Iran, or those of France or Belgium, this government is covertly funding others to do its dirty work, while at the same time ramping up its xenophobic rhetoric against the few that do finally make it here.”

In response to the findings of the investigation, a spokesperson for the Home Office said: “Like many other European states, the UK works tirelessly at home and abroad on a range of priorities, including tackling illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and modern slavery. This includes mutually beneficial close working with our operational counterparts in a range of partner countries, like Turkey, to tackle these and wider socially damaging issues.”

▻https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/07/uk-provided-3m-to-turkish-border-forces-to-stop-migrants-foi-reveals

#externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #UK #Angleterre #Turquie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #renvois #réintégration #financement #aide_financière #militarisation_des_frontières #aide_au_développement #développement #coopération_au_développement #refoulements #push-backs #complexe_militaro-industriel #2025 _Border_Strategy #Home_Office

UK signs contract with US startup to identify migrants in small-boat crossings

The UK government has turned a US-based startup specialized in artificial intelligence as part of its pledge to stop small-boat crossings. Experts have already pointed out the legal and logistical challenges of the plan.

In a new effort to address the high number of Channel crossings, the UK Home Office is working with the US defense startup #Anduril, specialized in the use of artificial intelligence (AI).

A surveillance tower has already been installed at Dover, and other technologies might be rolled out with the onset of warmer temperatures and renewed attempts by migrants to reach the UK. Some experts already point out the risks and practical loopholes involved in using AI to identify migrants.

“This is obviously the next step of the illegal migration bill,” said Olivier Cahn, a researcher specialized in penal law.

“The goal is to retrieve images that were taken at sea and use AI to show they entered UK territory illegally even if people vanish into thin air upon arrival in the UK.”

The “illegal migration bill” was passed by the UK last month barring anyone from entering the country irregularly from filing an asylum claim and imposing a “legal duty” to remove them to a third country.
Who is behind Anduril?

Founded in 2017 by its CEO #Palmer_Luckey, Anduril is backed by #Peter_Thiel, a Silicon Valley investor and supporter of Donald Trump. The company has supplied autonomous surveillance technology to the US Department of Defense (DOD) to detect and track migrants trying to cross the US-Mexico border.

In 2021, the UK Ministry of Defence awarded Anduril with a £3.8-million contract to trial an advanced base defence system. Anduril eventually opened a branch in London where it states its mission: “combining the latest in artificial intelligence with commercial-of-the-shelf sensor technology (EO, IR, Radar, Lidar, UGS, sUAS) to enhance national security through automated detection, identification and tracking of objects of interest.”

According to Cahn, the advantage of Brexit is that the UK government is no longer required to submit to the General Data Protection Regulation (RGPDP), a component of data protection that also addresses the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas.

“Even so, the UK has data protection laws of its own which the government cannot breach. Where will the servers with the incoming data be kept? What are the rights of appeal for UK citizens whose data is being processed by the servers?”, he asked.

’Smugglers will provide migrants with balaclavas for an extra 15 euros’

Cahn also pointed out the technical difficulties of identifying migrants at sea. “The weather conditions are often not ideal, and many small-boat crossings happen at night. How will facial recognition technology operate in this context?”

The ability of migrants and smugglers to adapt is yet another factor. “People are going to cover their faces, and anyone would think the smugglers will respond by providing migrants with balaclavas for an extra 15 euros.”

If the UK has solicited the services of a US startup to detect and identify migrants, the reason may lie in AI’s principle of self-learning. “A machine accumulates data and recognizes what it has already seen. The US is a country with a significantly more racially and ethnically diverse population than the UK. Its artificial intelligence might contain data from populations which are more ethnically comparable to the populations that are crossing the Channel, like Somalia for example, thus facilitating the process of facial recognition.”

For Cahn, it is not capturing the images which will be the most difficult but the legal challenges that will arise out of their usage. “People are going to be identified and there are going to be errors. If a file exists, there needs to be the possibility for individuals to appear before justice and have access to a judge.”

A societal uproar

In a research paper titled “Refugee protection in the artificial intelligence Era”, Chatham House notes “the most common ethical and legal challenges associated with the use of AI in asylum and related border and immigration systems involve issues of opacity and unpredictability, the potential for bias and unlawful discrimination, and how such factors affect the ability of individuals to obtain a remedy in the event of erroneous or unfair decisions.”

For Cahn, the UK government’s usage of AI can only be used to justify and reinforce its hardline position against migrants. “For a government that doesn’t respect the Geneva Convention [whose core principle is non-refoulement, editor’s note] and which passed an illegal migration law, it is out of the question that migrants have entered the territory legally.”

Identifying migrants crossing the Channel is not going to be the hardest part for the UK government. Cahn imagines a societal backlash with, “the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom being solicited, refugees seeking remedies to legal decisions through lawyers and associations attacking”.

He added there would be due process concerning the storage of the data, with judges issuing disclosure orders. “There is going to be a whole series of questions which the government will have to elucidate. The rights of refugees are often used as a laboratory. If these technologies are ’successful’, they will soon be applied to the rest of the population."

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/48326/uk-signs-contract-with-us-startup-to-identify-migrants-in-smallboat-cr

#UK #Angleterre #migrations #asile #réfugiés #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #start-up #complexe_militaro-industriel #IA #intelligence_artificielle #surveillance #technologie #channel #Manche

–—

ajouté à la métaliste sur la Bibby Stockholm:
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1016683

Il muro della Bulgaria. Un altro ostacolo europeo ai diritti dei migranti

La Commissione europea ha messo a disposizione 600 milioni di euro per sostenere gli Stati membri nelle attività di contrasto ai flussi delle persone. Sofia, tra i primi destinatari dei finanziamenti, punta a rafforzare la barriera di 130 chilometri con la Turchia. Mentre Ong e volontari internazionali denunciano gravi violazioni e abusi

https://i0.wp.com/altreconomia.it/app/uploads/2023/04/MSB153143High-scaled.jpg

Il 3 aprile di quest’anno i cittadini bulgari sono stati chiamati alle urne. Ad avere la maggioranza (risicata) è stato il partito Gerb guidato da Bojko Borisov. Il gruppo conservatore non ha stravinto e si preannuncia dunque un difficile periodo di transizione alla ricerca di alleanze per poter formare un nuovo governo. Borisov è già stato per tre volte a capo dell’esecutivo e durante i suoi mandati si è distinto per una linea molto dura in tema di immigrazione.

Una linea mantenuta anche dall’attuale presidente, Rumen Radev, eletto per la prima volta nel 2017 grazie al sostegno del Partito socialista. A febbraio di quest’anno Radev ha chiesto all’Unione europea fondi per finanziare il rafforzamento della barriera lunga 130 chilometri che divide il Paese dalla Turchia. La richiesta per il “muro” è pervenuta nonostante la presidente della Commissione europea, Ursula von der Leyen, già a ottobre avesse affermato, non senza ipocrisie, che l’Ue non avrebbe mai finanziato la costruzione di muri e di filo spinato per impedire l’attraversamento dei migranti.

Pochi mesi dopo però, in apertura dell’ultimo Consiglio europeo, è stata diramata una lettera (diffusa da Statewatch: ▻https://www.statewatch.org/news/2023/march/von-der-leyen-letter-key-border-between-bulgaria-and-turkiye-is-first-ta) nella quale è stato annunciato lo stanziamento di 600 milioni di euro per supportare “in modo sostanziale gli Stati membri nel controllo delle frontiere”, con particolare riferimento a quelle “esterne” della Turchia e quelle “interne” della Bulgaria, che riceveranno per prime tali fondi. Il budget sarà speso per finanziare sistemi di sorveglianza quali telecamere termiche, droni e radar grazie ai quali la polizia di frontiera potrà sorvegliare ogni movimento sospetto ai confini.

Questa decisione, presa per rafforzare il controllo delle frontiere, interviene nonostante le criticità espresse da Ong e operatori locali nei confronti della gestione dell’immigrazione da parte delle autorità bulgare. A ottobre dello scorso anno un ragazzo siriano è stato raggiunto da colpi di arma da fuoco sparati dalla polizia di frontiera bulgara mentre tentava di attraversare il confine dalla Turchia. L’uomo è sopravvissuto nonostante i proiettili lo abbiano raggiunto al petto e alla mano, lasciandogli quest’ultima semi-paralizzata. E non era la prima volta che accadeva: sulla stessa frontiera nel 2015 un cittadino afghano è morto dopo gli spari esplosi da una guardia bulgara.

Episodi del genere vengono confermati ripetutamente dalle testimonianze che i migranti rilasciano alle organizzazioni internazionali come Medici senza frontiere che in suo recente report ha raccolto le voci di chi è transitato in Bulgaria. C’è chi è stato picchiato ripetutamente con tubi di gomma da parte delle autorità, donne che hanno subito dalle stesse violenze sessuali, persone private di ogni bene e costrette a tornare in Turchia senza vestiti, sulla neve. Un uso della violenza spropositato, in barba a qualsiasi norma sui diritti umani, che viene denunciato anche da No name kitchen (Nnk), Ong spagnola e internazionale che opera sulle rotte balcaniche.

Una delle testimonianze raccolte da Nnk recita: “La polizia bulgara ci ha attaccati con un cane che ha morso un mio amico alle gambe, alle mani e alla testa. Dopo ci hanno tolto tutti i vestiti, anche alle donne che erano con noi, e ci hanno spediti indietro in Turchia. I colpi che ci hanno inferto hanno rotto gambe e braccia ad alcune persone che poi non sono riuscite a proseguire il cammino per mesi e mesi”.

Barbara Bécares, responsabile stampa della stessa Ong, spiega come tra 2018 e 2019 moltissimi migranti abbiano preferito passare per la Grecia a causa della nota violenza e dei trattamenti disumani perpetrati dalla polizia bulgara. Una polizia europea. Ma questa rotta è tornata in auge proprio dal 2020, quando anche in Grecia le autorità si sono macchiate di simili comportamenti rendendo il passaggio per il Paese altrettanto difficile e pericoloso. Le testimonianze che giungono sono da considerarsi come una piccola parte rispetto al totale di coloro che subiscono gli stessi trattamenti e che magari preferiscono non parlare per paura di ritorsioni. In Bulgaria la criminalizzazione delle organizzazioni non governative impedisce ai migranti di poter chiedere aiuto e denunciare gli abusi che subiscono. Chi riesce a varcare il confine dalla Turchia senza essere stanato, tenta di mantenere un profilo basso in attesa di oltrepassare la frontiera per la Serbia. Molti sanno che se vengono intercettati dalle autorità rischiano di essere respinti in Turchia o di finire all’interno di campi di detenzione. Un’inchiesta realizzata dal collettivo Lighthouse Reports denuncia l’esistenza di centri di detenzione illegali: vere e proprie gabbie nei pressi della stazione di polizia di Sredets (città a 40 chilometri dal confine turco) dove i migranti vengono rinchiusi anche per giorni. “La struttura assomiglia a una cuccia per cani in disuso, con sbarre su un lato -si legge nell’inchiesta-. I richiedenti asilo l’hanno descritta come una ‘gabbia’”.

Gli abusi che vengono perpetrati quotidianamente a richiedenti asilo e migranti nel Paese sono ormai più che noti. A ciò si somma una sistematica negligenza nell’esame delle richieste d’asilo: molti richiedenti hanno denunciato di attendere una risposta alla propria domanda da anni.

Tra questi c’è anche Khalid, un uomo eritreo che raggiunto telefonicamente ci ha raccontato la sua storia. È scappato dall’Eritrea nel lontano 2012. Arrivato in Turchia ha tentato di raggiungere la Grecia attraversando il confine dal fiume Evros ma per tre volte è stato respinto dalla polizia ellenica. Ha deciso dunque di cambiare frontiera e a marzo 2013 è riuscito ad arrivare in Bulgaria e da qui è cominciato quello che lui stesso definisce “un incubo”, non ancora finito. Dapprima è stato rinchiuso per tre mesi in un centro di detenzione a Lyubimets, una piccola cittadina non lontana dal confine turco. Le condizioni all’interno del centro sono descritte come degradanti: “Era un edificio di tre piani nelle quali venivano stipate migliaia di persone. Al piano inferiore c’erano le donne e le famiglie con bambini e a quello superiori gli uomini. Era sovraffollato e non veniva rispettata nessuna regola da parte delle autorità”.

Poi è stato trasferito in un campo profughi vicino la capitale bulgara dove gli sono state prese le impronte digitali e dove ha richiesto la protezione internazionale. Non avendo ricevuto alcuna risposta, dopo sette mesi ha dunque deciso di scappare e di andare in Grecia, dove è stato rinchiuso all’interno di un altro centro. Qui ha trascorso altri sette mesi e dopo il suo rilascio ha iniziato un lungo viaggio che lo avrebbe poi portato fino in Svezia. Siamo nel 2016. Nel Paese scandinavo ha tentato di chiedere nuovamente asilo ma la sua domanda è stata respinta in base al Regolamento di Dublino ed è stato quindi trasferito in maniera coatta proprio in Bulgaria, dove è rimasto per altri tre anni. Dopo un anno e mezzo gli è stata notificata la prima risposta alla richiesta d’asilo: negativa. Ad aprile 2018 Khalid ha fatto appello alla Corte suprema bulgara. Ma tutto si è rivelato un buco nell’acqua. Senza alcun riscontro ed esasperato per l’attesa, ha deciso di ripercorrere l’intera rotta balcanica fino alla Slovenia, dove è giunto nel 2019 e dove ha ripresentato la domanda d’asilo. Dopo un anno gli è stato notificato l’ennesimo esito negativo e a quel punto, pur di non essere deportato nuovamente, ha deciso di andare in Francia, passando per l’Italia.

Ed è proprio da un centro per richiedenti asilo di Parigi che ora racconta la sua storia. A metà aprile avrà il suo primo colloquio negli uffici per l’immigrazione ma è già stato avvisato che, tra le opzioni possibili, c’è anche quella di essere riportato in Slovenia e da lì in Bulgaria. Quando gli si chiede che cosa pensa di fare, dice che probabilmente non andrà all’appuntamento. “Preferisco rimettermi in viaggio per il Belgio o tenterò di attraversare il canale della Manica per raggiungere l’Inghilterra”. Nel 2012, quando fuggì dalla sua Asmara, aveva 33 anni.

▻https://altreconomia.it/il-muro-della-bulgaria-un-altro-ostacolo-europeo-ai-diritti-dei-migrant
#murs #barrières_frontalières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #Bulgarie #Turquie #drones #radar #caméras_thermiques #budget #complexe_militaro-industriel #militarisation_des_frontières #violence #route_des_Balkans #Lyubimets

À qui profite l’exil ?

https://www.editions-delcourt.fr/sites/default/files/styles/image_list/public/product/9782413078890-001-X.jpeg

Qui profite des moyens engagés en faveur de la fermeture des frontières ? Que se passe-t’il quand on retrouve des corps sur les plages ? Sait-on que les frontières de l’Europe se sont délocalisées au Sahara ? Qui sont les sans-papiers qui font fonctionner l’#économie ? Trafiquants, industriels de la défense, employeurs européens profitent de ce système sans se préoccuper des 40 000 morts et disparus.

▻https://www.editions-delcourt.fr/bd/series/serie-qui-profite-l-exil/album-qui-profite-l-exil

#BD #bande-dessinée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #business #complexe_militaro-industriel #livre #frontières #externalisation #décès #morts_aux_frontières #mourir_aux_frontières

Dall’Italia cento #pick-up alla Tunisia per il controllo delle frontiere

Nonostante da diversi giorni nel Paese sia aumentata la violenza ai danni delle persone di origine sub-sahariana -dopo un discorso violento e razzista del presidente Saied- l’Italia continua a garantire il suo sostegno al governo tunisino sia nelle parole, sia nei fatti. La nuova fornitura, aggiudicata dalla Nissan Italia, vale 3,6 milioni di euro

Cento pick-up per un valore di oltre 3,6 milioni di euro per rinforzare il ministero dell’Interno tunisino nel contrasto all’immigrazione “irregolare”. La nuova commessa deliberata dal governo italiano per il tramite del Viminale concretizza il sostegno a parole ribadito ancora lunedì 27 febbraio dal ministro degli Esteri #Antonio_Tajani, che ha sottolineato come l’esecutivo sia “in prima linea nel sostenere la Tunisia nell’attività di controllo delle frontiere”.

Le dichiarazioni del ministro #Tajani ignorano però l’aumento degli arresti arbitrari, a cui si aggiungono intimidazioni e violenze, che da ormai dieci giorni subiscono le persone di origine sub-sahariana su tutto il territorio tunisino. Una repressione aumentata a seguito dell’annuncio del presidente della Repubblica Kais Saied di voler fermare un “piano criminale per cambiare la composizione demografica del Paese affinché venga considerata come un Paese solo africano, e non più anche arabo e musulmano”. Un discorso che evidentemente non ha intaccato i rapporti tra Italia e Tunisia, un partner da salvaguardare a tutti i costi.

Nei primi giorni di febbraio di quest’anno, quando l’apparato di sicurezza presidenziale lanciava l’operazione denominata “Rafforzamento del tessuto di sicurezza e riduzione del fenomeno del soggiorno irregolare”, la Direzione centrale dell’immigrazione e della Polizia di frontiere dava notizia in Italia dell’avvenuta assegnazione di un doppio bando del valore totale di 3,6 milioni di euro (Iva esclusa), 1,8 per commessa, per la fornitura di mezzi “idonei allo scopo di garantire un dispiegamento efficace dei servizi di prevenzione e di contrasto all’immigrazione irregolare sul territorio tunisino”.

I 100 pick-up, realizzati secondo precise indicazioni di “optional e allestimenti tecnici” individuati dal ministero di Tunisi sono stati forniti dalla #Nissan_Italia, succursale della multinazionale giapponese. Il modello delle vetture 4×4 è il “Navara”, una delle linee “storiche” di produzione dell’azienda automobilistica. I due lotti sono stati aggiudicati rispettivamente a marzo e novembre 2021, dopo un’interlocuzione tra Nissan e il ministero iniziata a dicembre 2020, ma la pubblicazione del lotto di gara, come detto, è datata 7 febbraio. Nei documenti si sottolinea come gli oltre 3,6 milioni di euro impiegati siano necessari perché l’attività di contrasto all’immigrazione “irregolare” da parte del governo tunisino è di “primaria importanza per la sicurezza nazionale, anche alla luce dei recenti (marzo 2021, ndr) sbarchi sulle coste italiane di migranti provenienti dalle coste tunisine”. Secondo IrpiMedia e Action Aid tra il 2020 e il 2021 l’Italia ha fornito a Tunisi più di 19 milioni di euro per il controllo delle frontiere. Nell’aprile 2022 l’Ong Statewatch, un gruppo di ricerca indipendente, ha ottenuto una copia del progetto di piano d’azione della commissione sulla Tunisia riguardante la messa in atto del Patto sulla migrazione e l’asilo adottato dalla Commissione europea nel settembre 2020 che prevede più di 25 milioni di euro destinati dall’Ue alla Tunisia per sostenerla sempre nella gestione dei confini.

Con la fornitura di #pickup, la doppia strategia del governo italiano continua: da un lato rimpatri più veloci possibili, a qualunque costo (economico e di diritti) di chi è riuscito ad arrivare in Italia, dall’altro il sostegno al controllo terrestre della frontiera. La Tunisia diventa però sempre di più un Paese non sicuro, sia per le persone originarie dell’Africa sub-sahariana vittime dei recenti raid della polizia sia per i cittadini tunisini. Attivisti, oppositori politici e giornalisti subiscono una forte repressione e vengono definiti come “traditori e terroristi”. La “carta” della violenza sugli stranieri, oltre 21mila nel 2021 (ultima stima disponibile a cura del Forum tunisino per i diritti economici e sociali), sembra essere l’ultima giocata dal presidente Saied per distogliere l’attenzione dalla deriva autoritaria che il suo governo sta seguendo. Sabato 25 febbraio, riporta il Guardian, oltre mille persone sono scese in piazza a Tunisi per dimostrare solidarietà alle persone migranti. “Niente paura, niente terrore, la strada è per le persone”, hanno scritto su uno striscione.

Le parole di Saied, secondo quanto riportato dal Guardian, avrebbero scatenato violenze generalizzate, con testimonianze di persone che hanno preso d’assalto le case dei migranti e sgomberato con la forza gli occupanti. Anche alcune compagnie di trasporto private si sono rifiutate di vendere biglietti a persone ritenute senza documenti. Molte persone, come riportano diversi giornalisti sul posto, tra cui Arianna Poletti, sono da giorni accampate davanti alle ambasciate in cerca di protezione.

Il discorso razzista dei vertici istituzionali è stato condannato, tra gli altri, dall’Unione africana che ha “condannato fermamente le dichiarazioni scioccanti fatte dalle autorità tunisine contro i compatrioti africani”. La Ong Avocats sans frontièrs denuncia almeno 700 arresti come conseguenza dell’iniziativa lanciata proprio a metà febbraio. Insieme a 25 organizzazioni attive sul territorio a tutela delle persone circa 21mila persone straniere senza documenti (stime del Forum tunisino per i diritti economici e sociali), hanno scritto a metà febbraio un comunicato stampa per prendere posizione sulle crescenti violenze nel Paese, ricordando anche le responsabilità dell’Unione europea. “Le politiche di esternalizzazione delle frontiere europee hanno contribuito per anni a trasformare il Paese in un attore chiave nel monitoraggio delle rotte migratorie nel Mediterraneo -si legge-. Compresa l’intercettazione delle imbarcazioni di migranti al di fuori delle acque territoriali e il loro trasferimento in Tunisia”. Sempre secondo il Forum tunisino in totale sono più di 29mila le persone respinte nei primi dieci mesi del 2022 dall’Italia verso la Tunisia. L’anno scorso più del 50% di chi ha intrapreso il viaggio, secondo i dati della Guardia costiera tunisina, non era cittadino tunisino. I pattugliamenti, anche con gli ultimi mezzi di terra, servono perciò all’Italia e all’Unione europea, nuovamente in silenzio di fronte alla violazione dei diritti umani.

▻https://altreconomia.it/dallitalia-cento-pick-up-alla-tunisia-per-il-controllo-delle-frontiere
#business #frontières #externalisation_des_frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Tunisie #Italie #Nissan #complexe_militaro-industriel

#Air_Partner: the Home Office’s little-known deportation fixer

International travel megacorp #Carlson_Wagonlit_Travel (#CWT) holds a £5.7 million, seven-year contract with the Home Office for the “provision of travel services for immigration purposes”, as it has done for nearly two decades. However, a key part of its work – the chartering of aircraft and crew to carry out the deportations – has been subcontracted to a little-known aviation charter outfit called Air Partner.

Summary

Digging deeper into Air Partner, we found a company which has been quietly organising mass deportations for the Home Office for years. We also learnt that:

It likely arranged for the airline #Privilege_Style to carry out the aborted flight to #Rwanda, and will seek another airline if the Rwanda scheme goes ahead.
It has organised deportation logistics for the US and several European governments.
It is currently one of four beneficiaries of a €15 million framework contract to arrange charter deportations for the European Coast Guard and Border Agency, #Frontex.
The company grew off the back of military contracts, with profits soaring during the ‘War on Terror’, the Arab Spring, and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Its regular clients include politicians, celebrities and sports teams, and it recently flew teams and fans to the FIFA World Cup in Qatar.
Air Partner was bought in spring 2022 by American charter airline, Wheels Up, but that company is in troubled financial waters.

Air Partner: Home Office deportation broker

In Carlson Wagonlit’s current contract award notice, published on the EU website Tenders Electronic Daily, the “management and provision of aircraft(s) charter services” is subcontracted to Air Partner – a detail which is redacted in documents on the UK government’s procurement site. In other words, when the Home Office wants to carry out a mass deportation flight, the task of finding the airline is delegated to Air Partner.

The contract stipulates that for each charter flight, Air Partner must solicit bids from at least three potential airlines. Selection is on the basis of value for money. However, the contract also states that “the maximum possible flexibility “ is expected from the carrier in terms of dates and destinations. The winning bidder must also be morally comfortable with the work, although it is not clear at what point in the process a first-time deportation airline is fully informed of the nature of the task.

The contract suggests that airlines like #Privilege_Style, #Titan_Airways, #Hi_Fly and #TUI, therefore, owe their entry into the UK deportation business to Air Partner, which effectively acts as gatekeeper to the sector. Meanwhile, #Carlson_Wagonlit books the tickets, oversees the overall operation, arranges deportations on scheduled flights, and liaises with the guards who physically enforce the expulsion (currently supplied by the company that runs Manston camp, Mitie, in a Home Office escorting contract that runs until 2028).

The latest deal between the Home Office and Carlson Wagonlit was awarded in 2017 and runs until 31st October 2024. It is likely that Air Partner makes money through a commission on each deportation flight.

Flying for Frontex

Yet Air Partner isn’t just the UK government’s deportation dealer. Its Austrian branch is currently one of four companies which organise mass expulsions for the European Coast Guard and Border Agency, Frontex, in a €15 million framework contract that was renewed in August 2022. A framework contract is essentially a deal in which a few companies are chosen to form a pool of select suppliers of particular goods or services, and are then called upon when needed. The work was awarded without advertising, which Frontex can do when the tender is virtually identical as in the previous contract.

Frontex organises deportation charter flights – either for multiple EU states at a time (where the plane stops to pick up deportees from several countries) – or for a single state. The Agency also arranges for individuals to be deported on regular commercial flights.

Air Partner’s work for Frontex is very similar to its work for the Home Office. It sources willing aircraft and crew, obtains flight and landing permits, and organises hotels – presumably for personnel – “in case of delays”. The other beneficiaries of the framework contract are #Air_Charter_Service, #Professional_Aviation_Solutions, and #AS_Aircontact.

Air Charter Service is a German company, sister of a Surrey-based business of the same name, and is owned by Knightsbridge private equity firm, #Alcuin_Capital_Partners. Professional Aviation Solutions is another German charter company, owned by #Skylink_Holding. Finally, Norwegian broker AS Aircontact is a subsidiary of travel firm #Aircontact_Group, ultimately owned by chairman #Johan_Stenersen. AS Aircontact has benefited from the Frontex deal for many years.

The award was given to the four companies on the basis of lowest price, with each bidder having to state the price it was able to obtain for a range of specified flights. The companies then bid for specific deportations, with the winner being the one offering best value for money. Air Partner’s cut from the deal in 2021 was €2.7 million.

The contract stipulates the need for total secrecy:

[The contractor] Must apply the maximum discretion and confidentiality in relation to the activity… must not document or share information on the activity by any means such as photo, video, commenting or sharing in social media, or equivalent.

The Frontex award effectively means that Air Partner and the other three firms can carry out work on behalf of all EU states. But the company’s involvement with deportations doesn’t stop there: Air Partner has also profited for years from similar contracts with a number of individual European governments.

The company has done considerable work in Ireland, having been appointed as one of its official deportation brokers back in 2005. Ten years later, the Irish Department of Justice was recorded as having paid Air Partner to carry out a vaguely-described “air charter” job (on a web page that is no longer available), while in 2016 the same department paid Air Partner €240,000 for “returns air charter” – government-speak for deportation flights.

Between August 2021 and February 2022, the Austrian government awarded the company six Frontex-funded deportation contracts, worth an estimated average of €33,796.

The company also enjoys a deportation contract with the German government, in a deal reviewed annually. The current contract runs until February 2023.

Finally, Air Partner has held deportation contracts with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and has been involved in deporting Mexican migrants to the US as far back as the early 2000s.1
Relationship with the airlines

In the first half of 2021, 22 of the EU’s 27 member states participated in Frontex flights, with Germany making far greater use of the ‘service’ than any other country. The geographic scale of Air Partner’s work gives an indication of the privileged access it has as gatekeeper to Europe’s lucrative ‘deportation market’, and ultimately, the golden land of government contracts more generally.

For example, British carrier Titan Airways – which has long carried out deportations for the Home Office – only appears to have broken into this market in Germany and Austria in 2018 and 2019, respectively. As Corporate Watch has documented, other airlines such as Privilege Style, #AirTanker, #Wamos and #Iberojet (formerly, #Evelop) regularly run deportation flights for a number of governments, including the UK. We can assume that Air Partner’s relationships with the firms are key to these companies’ ability to secure such deals in new markets.

Some of these relationships are clearly personal: #Alastair_Wilson, managing director of Titan Airways, worked as trading manager for Air Partner for seven years until he left that firm for Titan in 2014. By 2017, Titan was playing a major role in forcible expulsions from the UK.

The business: from military money to deportation dealer

Air Partner’s origins are in military work. Founded in 1961, the company started its life as a training centre which helped military pilots switch to the commercial sector. Known for much of its history as Air London, it has enjoyed extensive Ministry of Defence deals for troop rotations and the supply of military equipment. Up until 2010, military contracts represented over 60% of pre-tax profits. However, in recent years it has managed to wean itself off the MOD and develop a more diverse clientele; by 2018, the value of military contracts had dropped to less than 3% of profits.

The company’s main business is in brokering aircraft for charter flights, and sourcing planes from its pool of partner airlines at the request of customers who want to hire them. It owns no aircraft itself. Besides governments and wealthy individuals, its current client base includes “corporates, sports and entertainment teams, industrial and manufacturing customers, and tour operators.”

Its other source of cash is in training and consultancy to government, military and commercial customers through three subsidiaries: its risk management service Baines Simmons, the Redline Security project, and its disaster management sideline, Kenyon Emergency Services. Conveniently, while the group’s main business pumps out fossil fuels on needless private flights, Kenyon’s disaster management work involves among other things, preparing customers for climate change-induced natural disasters.

Despite these other projects, charter work represents the company’s largest income stream by far, at 87% of the group’s profits. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of this is from leasing large jets to customers such as governments, sports teams and tour operators. Its second most lucrative source of cash is leasing private jets to the rich, including celebrities. Finally, its freight shipments tend to be the least profitable division of its charter work.

The company’s charter division continues to be “predominantly driven by government work”.2 It has been hired by dozens of governments and royal families worldwide, and almost half the profits from its charter work now derive from the US, although France has long been an important market too.

Ferrying the mega-rich

Meanwhile, Air Partner’s work shuttling politicians and other VIPs no doubt enables the company to build up its bank of useful contacts which help it secure such lucrative government deals. Truly this is a company of the mega-rich: a “last-minute, half-term holiday” with the family to Madeira costs a mere £36,500 just for the experience of a private jet. It was the first aircraft charter company to have held a Royal Warrant, and boasts of having flown US election candidates and supplying George W Bush’s press plane.3

The “group charter” business works with bands and sports teams. The latter includes the Wales football team, Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea and Real Madrid, while the Grand Prix is “always a firm fixture in the charter calendar”.4 It also flew teams and fans to the controversial 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar.5

Crisis profiteer: the War on Terror, the Arab Spring & Covid-19

Air Partner has cashed in on one crisis after the next. Not only that, it even contributes to one, and in so doing multiplies its financial opportunities. As military contractor to belligerent Western forces in the Middle East, the company is complicit in the creation of refugees – large numbers of whom Air Partner would later deport back to those war zones. It feeds war with invading armies, then feasts on its casualties.

The company reportedly carried at least 4,000t of military supplies during the first Gulf War. The chairman at the time, Tony Mack, said:

The Gulf War was a windfall for us. We’d hate to say ‘yippee, we’re going to war’, but I guess the net effect would be positive.6

And in its financial records over the past twenty years, three events really stand out: 9/11 and the ‘War on Terror’, the Arab Spring, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror was a game changer for the company, marking a departure from reliance on corporate customers and a shift to more secure government work. First – as with the pandemic – there was a boom in private jet hire due to “the number of rich clients who are reluctant to travel on scheduled services”.7

But more significant were the military contracts it was to obtain during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. During the occupation of Afghanistan, it “did a lot of freighting for the military”,8 while later benefiting from emergency evacuation work when coalition foreign policy came to its inevitably grim conclusion in 2021.

It enjoyed major military assignments with coalition forces in Iraq,9 with the UK’s eventual withdrawal resulting in a 19% drop in freight sales for the company. At one point, Air Partner lamented that its dip in profits was in part due to the temporary “cessation of official hostilities” and the non-renewal of its 2003 “Gulf contracts”.

9/11 and the aggression that followed was a boon for Air Partner’s finances. From 2001-02, pre-tax profits increased to then record levels, jumping 85% from £2.2 million to £4 million. And it cemented the company’s fortunes longer-term; a 2006 company report gives insight into the scale of the government work that went Air Partner’s way:

… over the last decade alone, many thousands of contracts worth over $500m have been successfully completed for the governments of a dozen Western Powers including six of the current G8 member states.

Two years on, Air Partner’s then-CEO, #David_Savile, was more explicit about the impact of the War on Terror:

Whereas a decade ago the team was largely servicing the Corporate sector, today it majors on global Government sector clients. Given the growing agenda of leading powers to pursue active foreign policies, work levels are high and in today’s climate such consistent business is an important source of income.

Profits soared again in 2007, coinciding with the bloodiest year of the Iraq war – and one which saw the largest US troop deployment. Its chairman at the time said:

The events of 9/11 were a watershed for the aviation industry…since then our sales have tripled and our profitability has quadrupled. We now expect a period of consolidation… which we believe will present longer term opportunities to develop new business and new markets.

It seems likely that those “new markets” may have included deportation work, given that the first UK charter deportations were introduced by the New Labour government in 2001, the same year as the invasion of Afghanistan.

Another financial highlight for the company was the 2011 Arab Spring, which contributed to a 93% increase in pre-tax profits. Air Partner had earlier won a four-year contract with the Department for International Development (DfID) to become its “sole provider of passenger and freight air charter services”, and had been hired to be a charter broker to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Crisis Centre.

As people in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Tunisia took to the streets against their dictators, the company carried out emergency evacuations, including for “some of the largest oil companies”. A year later, it described a “new revenue stream from the oil & gas industry”, perhaps a bonus product of the evacuation work.

Finally, its largest jump in profits was seen in 2021, as it reaped the benefits of converging crises: the pandemic, the evacuation of Afghanistan, and the supply chain crisis caused by Brexit and the severe congestion of global sea-shipping routes. The company was tasked with repatriation flights, PPE shipments, and “flying agricultural workers into the UK from elsewhere in Europe”, as well as responding to increased demand for “corporate shuttles” in the UK and US.10 Pre-tax profits soared 833% to £8.4 million. It made a gross profit of approximately £45 million in both 2021 and 2022. The company fared so well in fact from the pandemic that one paper summed it up with an article entitled “Air Partner takes off after virus grounds big airlines”.

While there is scant reporting on the company’s involvement in deportations, The Times recently mentioned that Air Partner “helps in the deporting of individuals to Africa and the Caribbean, a business that hasn’t slowed down during the pandemic”. In a rare direct reference to deportation work, CEO Mark Briffa responded that it:

…gives Wheels Up [Air Partner’s parent company] a great opportunity to expand beyond private jets…It was always going to be a challenge for a company our size to scale up and motor on beyond where we are.

Yet Briffa’s justification based on the apparent need to diversify beyond VIP flights looks particularly hollow against the evidence of decades of lucrative government work his company has enjoyed.

When asked for comment, a spokesperson from the company’s PR firm TB Cardew said:

As a policy, we do not comment on who we fly or where we fly them. Customer privacy, safety and security are paramount for Air Partner in all of our operations. We do not confirm, deny or comment on any potential customer, destination or itinerary.

The parent company: Wheels Up

Air Partner was bought in spring 2022 for $108.2 million by Wheels Up Experience Inc, a US charter airline which was recently listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The company calls itself one of the world’s largest private aviation companies, with over 180 owned or long-term leased aircraft, 150 managed fleet (a sort of sharing arrangement with owners), and 1,200 aircraft which it can hire for customers when needed.

In contrast to Air Partner, its new owner is in deep trouble. While Wheels Up’s revenues have increased considerably over the past few years (from $384 million in 2019 to $1.2 billion in 2022), these were far outweighed by its costs. It made a net loss in 2021 of $190 million, more than double that of the previous year. The company attributes this to the ongoing impact of Covid-19, with reduced crew availability and customer cancellations. And the situation shows no sign of abating, with a loss of $276.5 million in the first nine months of this year alone. Wheels Up is responding with “aggressive cost-cutting”, including some redundancies.

#Wheels_Up is, in turn, 20% owned by #Delta_Airlines, one of the world’s oldest and largest airlines. Mammoth asset manager Fidelity holds an 8% share, while Wheels Up’s CEO #Kenneth_Dichter owns 5%. Meanwhile, the so-called ‘Big Three’ asset managers, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street each hold smaller shareholdings.

Among its clients, Wheels Up counts various celebrities – some of whom have entered into arrangements to promote the company as ‘brand ambassadors’. These apparently include Jennifer Lopez, American football players Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, J.J. Watt, Joey Logano, and Serena Williams.

Given Wheel’s Up’s current financial situation, it can be safely assumed that government contracts will not be easily abandoned, particularly in a time of instability in the industry as a whole. At the same time, given the importance of Wheels Up as a brand and its VIP clientele, anything that poses a risk to its reputation would need to be handled delicately by the company.

It also remains to be seen whether Wheels Up will use its own fleet to fulfil Air Partner’s contracting work, and potentially become a supplier of deportation planes in its own right.
Top people

Air Partner has been managed by CEO #Mark_Briffa since 2010. A former milkman and son of Maltese migrants, Briffa grew up in an East Sussex council house and left school with no O or A levels. He soon became a baggage handler at Gatwick airport, eventually making his way into sales and up the ladder to management roles. Briffa is also president of the parent company, Wheels Up.

#Ed_Warner OBE is the company’s chair, which means he leads on its strategy and manages the board of directors. An Oxbridge-educated banker and former chair of UK Athletics, Warner no doubt helps Air Partner maintain its connections in the world of sport. He sits on the board of private equity fund manager HarbourVest, and has previously been chairman of BlackRock Energy and Resources Income Trust, which invests in mining and energy.

#Kenny_Dichter is founder and CEO of Air Partner’s US parent company, Wheels Up. Dichter is an entrepreneur who has founded or provided early investment to a list of somewhat random companies, from a chain of ‘wellness’ stores, to a brand of Tequila.

#Tony_Mack was chairman of the business founded by his parents for 23 years and a major shareholder, before retiring from Air Partner in 2014. Nowadays he prefers to spend his time on the water, where he indulges in yacht racing.

Some of Air Partner’s previous directors are particularly well-connected. #Richard_Everitt, CBE held the company chairmanship from 2012 until 2017. A solicitor by training, prior to joining Air Partner Everitt was a director of the British Aviation Authority (BAA) and chief executive of National Air Traffic Services (Nats), and then CEO of the Port of London Authority (PLA). Since leaving the PLA, he has continued his career on the board of major transport authorities, having twice been appointed by the Department of Transport as chair of Dover Harbour Board, a two-day per week job with an annual salary of £79,500. He also served as a commissioner of Belfast Harbour.

One figure with friends in high places was the Hon. #Rowland_John_Fromanteel_Cobbold, who was an Air Partner director from 1996 to 2004. Cobbold was the son of 1st Baron Cobbold, former Governor of the Bank of England and former Lord Chamberlain, an important officer of the royal household. He was also grandson of Victor Bulwer-Lytton, 2nd Earl of Lytton and governor of Bengal, and younger brother of 2nd Baron Cobbold, who was a crossbench peer.

#Lib_Dem peer #Lord_Lee of Trafford held significant shares in Air Partner from at least 2007 until the company was bought by Wheels Up in 2022. Lord Lee served as parliamentary undersecretary for MOD Procurement under Margaret Thatcher, as well as Minister for Tourism. In 2015 the value of his 113,500 shares totalled £446,000. His shares in the company were despite having been Lib Dem party spokesman on defence at the time. Seemingly, having large stakes in a business which benefits from major MOD contracts, whilst simultaneously advocating on defence policy was not deemed a serious conflict of interest. The former stockbroker is now a regular columnist for the Financial Times. Calling himself the “first ISA millionaire”, Lee published a book called “How to Make a Million – Slowly: Guiding Principles From a Lifetime Investing”.

The company’s recent profits have been healthy enough to ensure that those at the top are thoroughly buffered from the current cost of living crisis, as all executive and non-executive directors received a hefty pay rise. Its 2022 Annual Report reveals that CEO Mark Briffa’s pay package totalled £808,000 (£164,000 more than he received in 2021) and outgoing Chief Financial Officer Joanne Estell received £438,000 (compared with £369,000 in 2021), not to mention that Briffa and Estell were awarded a package in spring 2021 of 100% and 75% of their salary in shares. Given the surge in Air Partner’s share price just before the buyout, it’s likely that the net worth of its directors – and investors like Lord Lee – has significantly increased too.

Conclusion

What really is the difference between the people smugglers vilified daily by right-wing rags, and deportation merchants like Air Partner? True, Air Partner helps cast humans away in the opposite direction, often to places of danger rather than potential safety. And true, smugglers’ journeys are generally more consensual, with migrants themselves often hiring their fixers. But for a huge fee, people smugglers and deportation profiteers alike ignore the risks and indignities involved, as human cargo is shunted around in the perverse market of immigration controls.

In October 2022, deportation airline Privilege Style announced it would pull out of the Rwanda deal following strategic campaigning by groups including Freedom from Torture and SOAS Detainee Support. This is an important development and we can learn lessons from the direct action tactics used. Yet campaigns against airlines are continuously being undermined by Air Partner – who, as the Home Office’s deportation fixer, will simply seek others to step in.

And under the flashing blue lights of a police state, news that an airline will merely be deporting refugees to their countries of origin – however dangerous – rather than to a distant African processing base, might be seen as wonderful news. It isn’t. Instead of becoming accustomed to a dystopian reality, let’s be spurred on by the campaign’s success to put an end to this cruel industry in its entirety.
Appendix: Air Partner Offices

Air Partner’s addresses, according to its most recent annual report, are as follows:

- UK: 2 City Place, Beehive Ring Road, Gatwick, West Sussex RH6 0PA.
- France: 89/91 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, 75008 Paris & 27 Boulevard Saint-Martin, 75003 Paris.
- Germany: Im Mediapark 5b, 50670 Köln.
- Italy: Via Valtellina 67, 20159 Milano.
- Turkey: Halil Rıfatpaşa Mh Yüzer Havuz Sk No.1 Perpa Ticaret Merkezi ABlok Kat.12 No.1773, Istanbul.

Footnotes

1 Aldrick, Philip. “Worth teaming up with Air Partner”. The Daily Telegraph, October 07, 2004.

2 “Air Partner makes progress in the face of some strong headwinds”. Proactive Investors UK, August 27, 2021.

3 Aldrick, Philip. “Worth teaming up with Air Partner”. The Daily Telegraph, October 07, 2004.

4 Lea, Robert. “Mark Briffa has a new partner in aircraft chartering and isn’t about to fly away”. The Times, April 29, 2022

5 Ibid.

6 “AirPartner predicts rise in demand if Gulf war begins”. Flight International, January 14 2003.

7 “Celebrity status boosts Air Partner”. Yorkshire Post, October 10, 2002.

8 Baker, Martin. “The coy royal pilot”. The Sunday Telegraph, April 11, 2004.

9 Hancock, Ciaran. “Air Partner”. Sunday Times, April 10, 2005.

10 Saker-Clark, Henry. “Repatriation and PPE flights boost Air Partner”. The Herald, May 6, 2020.

▻https://corporatewatch.org/air-partner-the-home-offices-deportation-fixer
#avions #compagnies_aériennes #Home_Office #UK #Angleterre #renvois #expulsions #business #complexe_militaro-industriel

via @isskein

EU funds border control deal in Egypt with migration via Libya on rise

The European Union signed an agreement with Egypt on Sunday (30 October) for the first phase of a €80 million border management programme, a statement from the EU delegation in Cairo said, at a time when Egyptian migration to Europe has been rising.

The project aims to help Egypt’s coast and border guards reduce irregular migration and human trafficking along its border, and provides for the procurement of surveillance equipment such as search and rescue vessels, thermal cameras, and satellite positioning systems, according to an EU Commission document published this month.

Since late 2016, irregular migration to Europe from the Egypt’s northern coast has slowed sharply. However, migration of Egyptians across Egypt’s long desert border with Libya and from Libya’s Mediterranean coast to Europe has been on the rise, diplomats say.

From1 January to 28 October this year 16,413 migrants arriving by boat in Italy declared themselves to be Egyptian, making them the second largest group behind Tunisians, according to data published by Italy’s interior ministry.

In 2021 more than 26,500 Egyptians were stopped at the Libyan border, according to the EU Commission document.

Egypt is likely to experience “intensified flows” of migrants in the medium to long term due to regional instability, climate change, demographic shifts and lack of economic opportunities, the document says.

The agreement for the first 23 million-euro phase of the project was signed during a visit to Cairo by the EU’s commissioner for neighbourhood and enlargement, Oliver Varhelyi.

It will be implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and CIVIPOL, a French interior ministry agency, and is expected to include the provision of four search and rescue vessels, Laurent de Boeck, head of IOM’s Egypt office, said.

The EU Commission document says that to date, Egypt has addressed irregular migration “predominantly from a security perspective, sometimes at the expense of other dimensions of migration management, including the rights based protection migrants, refugees and asylum seekers”.

The programme will seek to develop the capacity of the Egyptian ministry of defence and other government and civil society stakeholders to apply “rights-based, protection oriented and gender sensitive approaches” in their border management, it says.

▻https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-funds-border-control-deal-in-egypt-with-migration-via-libya-on-rise

#EU #UE #Union_européenne #migrations #asile #réfugiés #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #externalisation #Egypte #accord #border_management #aide_financière #gardes-côtes #surveillance #complexe_militaro-industriel #réfugiés_égyptiens #CIVIPOL #IOM #OIM

At the heart of Fortress Europe: A new study about Austria’s role in border externalization policies in the Balkans

https://i.imgur.com/siGqyP7.png

On the 28th of September 2020, Ayoub N. and six of his friends were chain pushed back from Austria to Slovenia, Croatia, and eventually back to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), from where Ayoub had begun his journey to Austria a few weeks earlier. Ayoub, like many others, had been stuck for years in between the EU member states, in the Balkans, and this was just another attempt to reach the Schengen Zone. He continued trying even after this push-back. In July 2022, Ayoub was still stuck inside the Balkan Circuit (Stojić Mitrović and Vilenica 2019), a region of transit with many loops, within which movement is circular, going forward and backwards because of border violence.

Exactly one year after Ayoub and his group of friends experienced the chain push-back, Austrian Interior Minister, Karl Nehammer, finished his trip to Kosovo, Albania, and Montenegro meant to coordinate joint frameworks for fighting what he calls illegal migration, terrorism, and organized crime. During the trip, he announced that a “Return Conference” would take place a few months later in Vienna. The gathering in February 2022 brought together high-ranking officials from more than 22 countries, including representatives of EU agencies and think tanks. The main focus of the event was supporting Western Balkan[1] states with effective deportation practices through the newly established “Joint Coordination Platform against irregular migration.” BiH was mentioned as one of the platform’s main partners, and during the press conference organized after the event BiH Security Minister Selmo Cikotić stated that “With the support of the EU and some proactive partners, like Austria, we could move from a crisis situation to migration management.”

It is not known to the public how the “return mechanisms” discussed would materialize and on what legal grounds the return of people would take place. In 2021, a parliamentary request for information focused specifically on Austria’s plans to return people to the Western Balkans, while another asked details about the role of BiH. In response to the queries, the interior minister emphasized that Austria is “only” providing good practice, expertise, and training, while partner countries can state their specific needs and are, in the end, responsible for ensuring that the human rights of those concerned will be upheld. This is a common rhetorical practice in the context of EU border externalization policies, with EU countries only providing knowledge and equipment, while “accession” countries in the Balkans have to fulfil the dark side of Europeanization.

Austria took over a key role in building up a network of multilateral stakeholders that enables the fortification of Europe on diplomatic and informal levels, while states and locations near and far from Central Europe face the consequences of these policies; BiH is one example.

Lobbying for Externalization

https://i.imgur.com/yQNno1t.png

In July 1998, Austria took over the EU presidency. As its first intervention on the issue of EU-migration policy, it introduced the Strategy Document on Immigration and Asylum Policies, which was sent to the European Council for further discussion. In this document, Austria advocated for a unified approach to migration in the Schengen area, which at that moment comprised 15 countries. It proposed the “Europeanization of migration policy,” while describing the existing approach and structures dealing with migration as “relatively clumsy.” The document called for more cooperation with “third states” in exchange for economic and other benefits. The Strategy envisaged that “Fortress Europe” should be replaced by the “concentric circles of the migration policy,” which included EU neighboring countries. Further, the neighboring partners “should be gradually linked into a similar system” that would eventually be similar to the “first circle,” meaning the EU member states. As for “transit countries,” the main approach would be to “eliminate push factors” in them. The Strategy called for the “tightening of the pre-accession strategy… as far as migration policies are concerned.” In addition, it stressed the need for agreements with third countries that would allow the return of people whose asylum applications were rejected, as well as the introduction of policies that would deter migration in general. The paper also argued that the Geneva Convention was outdated and that individual rights should be replaced with “political offers” of EU membership, or other types of cooperation.

By the end of the year, this proposal had been amended twice, but in the end it was rejected. A number of non-governmental organizations, including the International Federation for Human Rights, condemned the document on account of its harsh language and the restrictive measures proposed. Even though it was never adopted, the document remains a guideline, and some of its measures were put in place, especially in Austria. Along with several Balkan neighboring countries, Austria became more involved in security-related questions in the region, establishing various organizations and groups that are visibly active in the field, including the Salzburg Forum as one key intergovernmental group. Since the early 1990s, the forum functioned as a lobbying group, not only within the framework of the EU and on a regional level between its partners, but also on an often invisible level that reaches far beyond the EU. Austria played a key role in establishing the forum and is also one of its leading members. While the forum did not always achieve its strategic goals (Müller 2016, 28), it became a testing ground for fueling anti-Muslim and anti-migrant sentiments in Europe, and spearheaded plans for the dark future of EU border externalization policies. The multilateral cooperation within the Forum was based on debate, dialogue, exchange of ideas, and strategic planning; the establishment of its operative tool, the Joint Coordination Platform, is another step in cementing the externalization of border management to the Balkans.

Coordinating “Migration Management”

The Joint Coordination Platform (JCP) is a network that coordinates political and strategic intervention outside the Schengen Area, monitoring and controlling the EU’s external borders, as well as actions in third countries. Although it was already in the planning for several years, the JCP was inaugurated in Vienna after the Return Conference in February 2022. The JCP office is led by former Frontex Vice-President Berndt Körner and by lawyer Bohumil Hnidek,[2] and will provide a hinge function for Frontex operations in the Balkans (Monroy 2022). As the Frontex agency is not allowed to organize deportations to third countries, in the future it may support deportations from different EU countries to the Balkans, while the JCP would coordinate and monitor the rest of the “local” operations. In September 2022, the first deportations from Bosnia to Morocco with the support of the JCP already took place.

The investigative journalist Matthias Monroy further links the Vienna-based think tank ICMPD, led by former Austrian Vice-Chancellor Michael Spindelegger (ÖVP), to the operational implementation of regional return mechanisms to the Balkans. As early as 2020, the JCP started training police officers from BiH for conducting deportations. The training of 50 “return specialists” was recently described by Austrian Interior Minister Karner: “We help with training, impart standards, but that doesn’t change the responsibility that remains in the respective countries. It is about observing all international standards.”

To understand ICMPD’s practices on the ground, it is worth reviewing the project descriptions of its Western Balkans and Turkey office in recent years. The long-standing partner of the Salzburg Forum implements migration management, border management, and capacity building in the Balkans, for example by providing the border police in Kosovo[3] with technical and biometric equipment to register people on the move; and supporting the border police in Albania[4] with equipment for land border surveillance and maritime border surveillance and control. Capacity building in Albania means in particular providing patrol boats and surveillance vehicles. The regional capacity building projects further cover information campaigns for people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and people on the move in the Western Balkans.[5] Labelled as protection and support for migrants, ICMPD invests in the enhancement of migrant information systems[6] for authorities in BiH to implement entry control, registration, and data collection mechanisms. The “electronic biometric residence permit cards,” which should be made available through such projects, point not only to the on-ground preparation but also to the implementation of what investigative journalists call “extra-European Dublin.” This includes for example “Balkandac,” a fingerprint database in the Balkans that would allow countries to deport third-country nationals to countries with readmission agreements before entering the EU Schengen area.

It is important to highlight that ICMPD has entered the Joint Coordination Platform with years of experience in implementing EU border externalization projects in Africa and the Middle East (Naceur 2021).

Another active regional partner of the Joint Coordination Platform is Hilfswerk International. Next to the 1 million Euro in Austrian Development Aid that was used as an emergency relief fund through IOM in BiH in 2021, the Upper Austrian Federal Government donated 100,000 Euro to support the construction of a water system in the Lipa camp.[7] The project was implemented by Hilfswerk International, which has been working in the Balkans and especially in BiH as a humanitarian aid organization since 1996. While the organization covers a broad range of services in BiH, it recently joined the niche of network and capacity building in the field of “migration management” in BiH, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Montenegro.

Hilfswerk International has joined the field of migration management in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a player that can offer extensive experience on the ground. Considering the top-down and dysfunctional approach implemented by IOM in the region, Hilfswerk International is an organization that is closely linked to Austria-based actors and accessible for unbureaucratic and, according to its managing director, pragmatic solutions. As Regional Director Jašarević stated in an interview about their most recent project:

… we all know, and it is not a secret, that the EU does not want migrants on their territory. And what now? Should we leave them here to suffer or to disappear? It’s not possible.

They [the JCP] can use our infrastructure here if needed, but they also organize some events themselves. They are connecting donors and infrastructure. They know what is going on at a much deeper level than we do. And we are happy to contribute. They are working very hard as far as I know. Very few people and very big plans, but very capable people. I think it will be more visible this year. But it has only just started.[8]

Balkan Route: better coordination with Austrian aid

Even at the end of the 1990s, Austria’s political landscape paved the way for defining the Western Balkans as a strategic buffer zone for Europe’s increasingly restrictive migration and asylum policies. What has been drafted as a strategy to contain migration in “concentric circles” has since developed into the full-scale implementation of land and sea border zones that legitimate legislation, control, tracking, management of, and violence against people moving in circuits while trying to reach the EU Schengen zone.

Our study can be used as a tool to further investigate Austrian-based and Austrian-initiated organizations, security corporations, and individual actors that are heavily involved in violent EU border externalization from Vienna to Sarajevo and beyond.

The full study can be accessed here.

References:

Müller, Patrick. 2016. “Europeanization and regional cooperation initiatives: Austria’s participation in the Salzburg Forum and in Central European Defence Cooperation.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 45, no. 2: 24-34.

Stojić Mitrović, Marta, and Ana Vilenica. 2019. “Enforcing
and disrupting circular movement in an EU
Borderscape: housingscaping in Serbia.” Citizenship Studies 23, no. 6: 540-55.

Stojić Mitrović, Marta, Nidzara Ahmetašević, Barbara Beznec, and Andrej Kurnik. 2020. The Dark Sides of Europeanisation: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the European Border Regime. Belgrade: Rosa-Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe; and Ljubljana: Inštitut Časopis za kritiko znanosti. ▻https://rosalux.rs/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/169_the-dark-side-of-europeanisation-_vladan_jeremic_and_wenke_christoph_rls.

[1] The authors only use the term Western Balkans in relation to the process of EU border externalization and accession plans of Albania, BiH, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. See Stojić Mitrović et al. 2020, 20-22.

[2] Bohumil Hnidek is a lawyer and the former Director for International Cooperation and EU Affairs to the Ministry of interior of the Czech Republic.

[3] MIK: Manage increased influx of migrants in Kosovo, April, March 2021 (Fact Sheet ICMPD, 4).

[4] EU4SAVEALB: EU Support for the Effective Management of Green and Blue Borders in Albania, February 2019-April 2022 (Fact Sheet ICMPD, 7-8).

[5] IKAM: Information and capacity building on asylum, legal and irregular migration in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Western Balkans, March 2021-March 2022 (ICMPD Fact Sheet, 9).

[6] MiS BiH: Enhancement of Migration Information System for Strengthening Migration, Asylum and Border Management in Bosnia and Herzegovina, November 2021-March 2023 (ICMPD Fact Sheet, 9-10).

[7] In mid-June 2022, people living in Lipa reached out to local volunteers in BiH to inform them that for a week they did not have running water. At that moment, the temperatures were over 40 degrees. Even though less than 400 people were in the camp (capacity is 1,500), people were crammed in containers (six in each) with one small fan, and were receiving a gallon of water per person a day. Every day, one cistern was used. According to the testimony, there was no water in the bathrooms and toilets, either. After the information was published on social media, people in the camp told local volunteers that the employees in the camp threatened some of the residents, warning them that they cannot talk about the camp and saying that if they did not like the place they could leave.

[8] Interview Suzana Jašarević online, 15 March 2022.

▻https://lefteast.org/fortress-europe-austria-border-externalization

#Autriche #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Balkans #route_des_Balkans #push-backs #refoulements #refoulements_en_chaîne #Slovénie #Croatie #migrerrance #violence #Balkan_Circuit #Return_Conference #Joint_Coordination_Platform_against_irregular_migration #renvois #expulsions #Joint_Coordination_Platform (#JCP) #Frontex #ICMPD #Michael_Spindelegger #return_specialists #spécialistes_du_retour #Salzburg_Forum #Kosovo #militarisation_des_frontières #complexe_militaro-industriel #Albanie #surveillance #surveillance_des_frontières #biométrie #Balkandac #empreintes_digitales #réadmission #Hilfswerk_International #Lipa #Bosnie #Bosnie_et_Herzégovine #Serbie #Macédoine_du_Nord #Monténégro

EU mulls more police powers for west Africa missions

The EU wants to further prop up anti-terror efforts at its overseas civilian missions in places like #Niger.

Although such missions already seek to counter terrorism, the latest proposal (framed as a “mini-concept” by the EU’s foreign policy branch, the #European_External_Action_Service, #EEAS), entails giving them so-called “semi-executive functions.”

Such functions includes direct support to the authorities by helping them carry out investigations, as well as aiding dedicated units to prosecute and detain suspected terrorist offenders.

The concept paper, drafted over the summer, points towards a European Union that is willing to work hand-in-glove with corrupt and rights-abusing governments when it comes to issues dealing security and migration.

This includes getting EU missions to seal cooperation deals between EU member state intelligence and security services with the host governments.

And although the paper highlights the importances of human rights and gender equality, the terms are couched in policy language that clearly aims to boost policing in the countries.

From helping them develop systems to collect biometric data to preserving and sharing “evidence derived from the battlefield”, the 14-page paper specifically cites the EU missions in Niger, Mali, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Kosovo as prime examples.

In Niger, the EU recently handed its mission a €72m budget and extended its mandate until September 2024.

That budget includes training staff to drive armoured vehicles and piloting drones.

Another EU internal document on Niger, also from over the summer, describes its mission there as “the main actor in the coordination of international support to Niger in the field of security.”

It says Niger’s capacity to fight terrorism, organised crime and irregular migration has improved as a direct result of the mission’s intervention.

The country was given €380m in EU funding spread over 2014 to 2020.

In Mali, the EU mission there already supports the country’s dedicated units to intervene and investigate terror-related cases.

But it had also temporarily suspended in April the operational training of formed units of the Malian armed forces and National Guard.
Clash with Wagner in Mali

The suspension followed reports that EU security trained forces in Mali were being co-opted by the Kremlin-linked Russian mercenary group Wagner, which was also operating in the Central African Republic.

Mali has since withdrawn from the G5 Sahel, an anti-jihad grouping of countries in the region currently composed of Niger, Burkina, Mauritania, and Chad.

And an internal EU paper from May posed the question of whether Malian authorities even want to cooperate with the EU mission.

The EU’s mission there was also recently extended until 2024 with a €133.7m purse.

The EU’s mini-concept paper on fighting terrorism, follows another idea on using specialised teams at the missions to also tackle migration.

Part of those plans also aims to give the missions “semi-executive functions”, enabling them to provide direct support to police and carry out joint investigations on migration related issues.

▻https://euobserver.com/world/156143

#sécurité #migrations #asile #réfugiés #EU #UE #Union_européenne #externalisation #anti-terrorisme (toujours la même rhétorique) #Mali #mini-concept #semi-executive_functions #services_secrets #coopération #biométrie #données #collecte_de_données #Somalie #Libye #Kosovo #Irak #drones #complexe_militaro-industriel #G5_Sahel #budget #coût #police #collaboration

ping @rhoumour @isskein @_kg_

#INTERPOL présente une nouvelle #base_de_données mondiale d’identification des personnes disparues grâce à l’#ADN familial

Dotée d’une technologie de pointe, #I-Familia pourra aider la police à élucider des affaires non résolues, et des familles à se reconstruire

En 2004, la police croate découvrait le cadavre d’un homme dans l’Adriatique.

L’état du corps ne permettant pas le recours aux techniques de la comparaison des empreintes digitales ou de la reconnaissance faciale, l’identité de cet homme est demeurée inconnue pendant plus d’une décennie.

C’est là qu’intervient I-Familia, une nouvelle base de données révolutionnaire lancée officiellement ce mois-ci. Fruit de travaux de recherche scientifique de pointe, elle permet l’identification de personnes disparues ou de restes humains non identifiés dans le monde entier au moyen d’ADN familial.

Fin 2020, l’ADN des enfants d’un Italien porté disparu depuis 2004 a été ajouté à la base I-Familia et comparé aux ADN de l’ensemble des restes humains non identifiés enregistrés dans le système.

Une concordance a été mise en évidence entre l’ADN des enfants et celui du corps retrouvé dans l’Adriatique, ce qui a permis de mettre un terme à une affaire restée sans réponse 16 ans plus tôt.

Base de données mondiale de recherche en parentalité

La recherche en parentalité à partir des données génétiques permet de comparer les profils d’ADN de membres d’une famille avec celui d’un cadavre non identifié ou de restes humains. On a souvent recours à cette méthode en l’absence d’échantillon d’ADN provenant directement de la personne disparue (échantillon prélevé lors d’un examen médical antérieur ou sur un objet personnel comme une brosse à dents).

Cependant, des calculs complexes sont nécessaires pour confirmer une concordance car les proches biologiques ont en commun des pourcentages d’ADN différents. Au niveau international, cette complexité est plus importante encore en raison des variations génétiques entre les populations du globe.

I-Familia est la première base de données mondiale qui gère automatiquement ces différences sans qu’il soit nécessaire de connaître l’ascendance génétique de la personne disparue, et qui propose des lignes directrices normalisées sur les éléments constituant une concordance.

« À l’échelle internationale, il a toujours été difficile d’identifier les personnes disparues en raison de l’absence de procédures d’échange des données et de la complexité scientifique de l’interprétation statistique », a déclaré Arnoud Kal, directeur de recherche en criminalistique à l’Institut de police scientifique des Pays-Bas (NFI) – l’un des laboratoires de police scientifique les plus réputés au monde.

« Nous estimons par conséquent que le développement de I-Familia par INTERPOL offre aux pays membres de nouvelles perspectives qui auront des répercussions positives sur l’efficacité des enquêtes internationales concernant les personnes disparues », a ajouté M. Kal.
La disparition de personnes et ses conséquences sur les familles

Un nombre incalculable de personnes disparaissent chaque année dans le monde à la suite d’actes de criminalité, de conflits, d’accidents ou de catastrophes naturelles. Fin 2020, plus de 12 000 notices jaunes – avis internationaux de recherche de personnes disparues – publiées par le Secrétariat général d’INTERPOL étaient actives.

Pour les familles qui, parfois pendant des années, ne savent pas si leurs proches sont morts ou en vie, les effets sur le plan émotionnel peuvent être catastrophiques. L’absence de certificat de décès peut également avoir d’importantes conséquences administratives et économiques.

« Tous les pays font face à des enquêtes non résolues sur des personnes disparues ou à l’impossibilité d’identifier des restes humains du fait de l’utilisation de leurs seuls systèmes nationaux », a déclaré le Secrétaire Général d’INTERPOL, Jürgen Stock.

« I-Familia est un outil humanitaire qui, en raison de la dimension mondiale d’INTERPOL, ouvre de nombreuses nouvelles perspectives pour ce qui est d’identifier des personnes disparues et d’apporter des réponses aux familles », a ajouté le Secrétaire Général Stock.
Fonctionnement de I-Familia

Dans le cadre d’une procédure qui s’appuie sur la longue expérience réussie d’INTERPOL en matière de comparaison directe de profils ADN, les 194 pays membres de l’Organisation soumettent des profils génétiques afin de permettre l’établissement de liens entre des personnes disparues et des affaires portant sur des restes humains.

I-Familia se compose de trois éléments :

- une base de données mondiale spécialisée dans laquelle sont stockés les profils ADN fournis par des membres des familles, et où ils sont maintenus séparés de toute donnée criminelle ;
– le logiciel de comparaison de profils ADN, appelé Bonaparte, développé par l’entreprise néerlandaise SMART Research ;
- des lignes directrices pour l’interprétation élaborées par INTERPOL, à suivre pour identifier et signaler efficacement les concordances potentielles.

La technologie Bonaparte a recours à des algorithmes statistiques perfectionnés pour calculer la probabilité d’une concordance par rapport à un tableau d’interprétation. Ce logiciel puissant peut effectuer en peu de temps des millions de calculs. Les résultats sont ensuite analysés par les spécialistes de l’ADN des services de police scientifique du Secrétariat général d’INTERPOL.

Protection des données

Le traitement des données génétiques par INTERPOL s’effectue via des canaux de communication sécurisés et conformément aux règles en matière de protection des données, très strictes, de l’Organisation ainsi qu’à la Politique d’INTERPOL relative à l’utilisation des profils ADN de membres de la famille de personnes disparues en vue de recherche en parentalité.

Les membres de la famille doivent donner leur consentement pour que leurs données puissent être utilisées à des fins de recherches internationales. Le profil ADN ne contient pas de données nominatives. Il est communiqué sous forme de code alphanumérique.

En cas de concordance, des notifications sont envoyées au pays qui a transmis le profil ADN provenant du cadavre non identifié et à celui qui a transmis les profils ADN familiaux. Des vérifications supplémentaires (avec les dossiers dentaires et les objets personnels) peuvent être effectuées pour confirmer la concordance potentielle.

La base de données I-Familia a été réalisée grâce au soutien du NFI et de SMART Research. Pour plus d’informations sur I-Familia, veuillez consulter le site Web d’I-Familia.

▻https://www.interpol.int/fr/Actualites-et-evenements/Actualites/2021/INTERPOL-presente-une-nouvelle-base-de-donnees-mondiale-d-identification-d

Le site web de I-Familia :
▻https://www.interpol.int/fr/Notre-action/Police-scientifique/I-Familia

#identification #décès #morts #personnes_disparues #restes_humains #Bonaparte #SMART_Research #technologie #business #complexe_militaro-industriel #logiciel