#cpa_camps

#Terezín #Theresienstadt #modèle #WWII #seconde_guerre_mondiale #cpa_camps #deuxième_guerre_mondiale
ping @albertocampiphoto

Sur le sujet de Terezin, je ne saurais trop recomma

Sur le sujet de Terezin, je ne saurais trop recommander la lecture d’une Ile une forteresse d’Hélène Gaudy

Cet article du HCR, m’a fait pensé à la #forme_camps telle qu’elle est illustrée dans l’article... j’ai partagé cette réflexion avec mes collègues du comité scientifique du Centre du patrimoine arménien de Valence.

Je la reproduis ici :

Je vous avais parlé du film documentaire « #Refugistan » (►https://seenthis.net/messages/502311), que beaucoup d’entre vous ont vu.

Je vous disais, lors de la dernière réunion, qu’une des choses qui m’avait le plus frappé dans ce film, c’est ce rapprochement géographique du « camp de réfugié tel que l’on se l’imagine avec des #tentes blanches avec estampillons HCR »... cet #idéal-type de #camp on le voit dans le film avant tout en Afrique centrale, puis dans les pays d’Afrique du Nord et puis, à la fin... en Macédoine. Chez nous, donc.

J’ai repensé à cela, ce matin, en voyant cette triste nouvelle annoncée par le HCR du décès d’un jeune dans le camps de Moria à Lesbos suite à une bagarre entre jeunes qui a lieu dans le camp.

Regardez l’image qui accompagne l’article :

https://i.imgur.com/AoG3qPp.png

Des tentes blanches avec l’estampillons « UNHCR »... en Grèce, encore plus proche, en Grèce, pays de l’Union européenne...

Des pensées... que je voulais partager avec vous.

#altérité #cpa_camps #altérisation

ping @reka @isskein @karine4

Greek refugee camp unable to house new arrivals

http://www.ekathimerini.com/resources/2019-09/moria_web--3-thumb-large.jpg

Authorities on the Greek island of Lesvos say they can’t house more newly arrived migrants at a perpetually overcrowded refugee camp that now is 400 percent overcapacity.

Two officials told AP the Moria camp has a population of 12,000 and no way to accommodate additional occupants.

The officials say newcomers are sleeping in the open or in tents outside the camp, which was built to hold 3,000 refugees.

Some were taken to a small transit camp run by the United Nations’ refugee agency on the north coast of Lesvos.

The island authorities said at least 410 migrants coming in boats from Turkey reached Lesvos on Friday.

The officials asked not to be identified pending official announcements about the camp.

▻http://www.ekathimerini.com/244771/article/ekathimerini/news/greek-refugee-camp-unable-to-house-new-arrivals

Ce n’est pas sans rappeler cette nouvelle de 2015 :
"Ils veulent héberger des requérants à #Buchenwald"
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/330768#message330768

#indécence #sans_vergogne #vomi …

Quand le HCR se félicitait de la délivrance de certificats_de_naissance aux réfugiés dans le camp de Mbera (février 2018) :

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/671915

‘Some Suburb of Hell’: America’s New Concentration Camp System

https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-73862274.jpg

On Monday, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to US border detention facilities as “concentration camps,” spurring a backlash in which critics accused her of demeaning the memory of those who died in the Holocaust. Debates raged over a label for what is happening along the southern border and grew louder as the week rolled on. But even this back-and-forth over naming the camps has been a recurrent feature in the mass detention of civilians ever since its inception, a history that long predates the Holocaust.

At the heart of such policy is a question: What does a country owe desperate people whom it does not consider to be its citizens? The twentieth century posed this question to the world just as the shadow of global conflict threatened for the second time in less than three decades. The dominant response was silence, and the doctrine of absolute national sovereignty meant that what a state did to people under its control, within its borders, was nobody else’s business. After the harrowing toll of the Holocaust with the murder of millions, the world revisited its answer, deciding that perhaps something was owed to those in mortal danger. From the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians in 1949 to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international community established humanitarian obligations toward the most vulnerable that apply, at least in theory, to all nations.

The twenty-first century is unraveling that response. Countries are rejecting existing obligations and meeting asylum seekers with walls and fences, from detainees fleeing persecution who were sent by Australia to third-party detention in the brutal offshore camps of Manus and Nauru to razor-wire barriers blocking Syrian refugees from entering Hungary. While some nations, such as Germany, wrestle with how to integrate refugees into their labor force—more and more have become resistant to letting them in at all. The latest location of this unwinding is along the southern border of the United States.

So far, American citizens have gotten only glimpses of the conditions in the border camps that have been opened in their name. In the month of May, Customs and Border Protection reported a total of 132,887 migrants who were apprehended or turned themselves in between ports of entry along the southwest border, an increase of 34 percent from April alone. Upon apprehension, these migrants are temporarily detained by Border Patrol, and once their claims are processed, they are either released or handed over to ICE for longer-term detention. Yet Border Patrol itself is currently holding about 15,000 people, nearly four times what government officials consider to be this enforcement arm’s detention capacity.

On June 12, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Fort Sill, an Army post that hosted a World War II internment camp for detainees of Japanese descent, will now be repurposed to detain migrant children. In total, HHS reports that it is currently holding some 12,000 minors. Current law limits detention of minors to twenty days, though Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed expanding the court-ordered limit to 100 days. Since the post is on federal land, it will be exempt from state child welfare inspections.

In addition to the total of detainees held by Border Patrol, an even higher number is detained at centers around the country by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency: on a typical day at the beginning of this month, ICE was detaining more than 52,500 migrants. The family separation policy outraged the public in the 2018, but despite legal challenges, it never fully ended. Less publicized have been the deaths of twenty-four adults in ICE custody since the beginning of the Trump administration; in addition, six children between the ages of two and sixteen have died in federal custody over the last several months. It’s not clear whether there have been other deaths that have gone unreported.

https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-1136085170.jpg

Conditions for detainees have not been improving. At the end of May, a Department of Homeland Security inspector general found nearly 900 migrants at a Texas shelter built for a capacity of 125 people. On June 11, a university professor spotted at least 100 men behind chain-link fences near the Paso del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas. Those detainees reported sitting outside for weeks in temperatures that soared above 100 degrees. Taylor Levy, an El Paso immigration lawyer, described going into one facility and finding “a suicidal four-year-old whose face was covered in bloody, self-inflicted scratches… Another young child had to be restrained by his mother because he kept running full-speed into metal lockers. He was covered in bruises.”

If deciding what to do about the growing numbers of adults and children seeking refuge in the US relies on complex humanitarian policies and international laws, in which most Americans don’t take a deep interest, a simpler question also presents itself: What exactly are these camps that the Trump administration has opened, and where is this program of mass detention headed?

Even with incomplete information about what’s happening along the border today and what the government plans for these camps, history points to some conclusions about their future. Mass detention without trial earned a new name and a specific identity at the end of the nineteenth century. The labels then adopted for the practice were “reconcentración” and “concentration camps”—places of forced relocation of civilians into detention on the basis of group identity.

Other kinds of group detention had appeared much earlier in North American history. The US government drove Native Americans from their homelands into prescribed exile, with death and detention in transit camps along the way. Some Spanish mission systems in the Americas had accomplished similar ends by seizing land and pressing indigenous people into forced labor. During the 245 years when slavery was legal in the US, detention was one of its essential features.

Concentration camps, however, don’t typically result from the theft of land, as happened with Native Americans, or owning human beings in a system of forced labor, as in the slave trade. Exile, theft, and forced labor can come later, but in the beginning, detention itself is usually the point of concentration camps. By the end of the nineteenth century, the mass production of barbed wire and machines guns made this kind of detention possible and practical in ways it never had been before.

Under Spanish rule in 1896, the governor-general of Cuba instituted camps in order to clear rebel-held regions during an uprising, despite his predecessor’s written refusal “as the representative of a civilized nation, to be the first to give the example of cruelty and intransigence” that such detention would represent. After women and children began dying in vast numbers behind barbed wire because there had been little planning for shelter and even less for food, US President William McKinley made his call to war before Congress. He spoke against the policy of reconcentración, calling it warfare by uncivilized means. “It was extermination,” McKinley said. “The only peace it could beget was that of the wilderness and the grave.” Without full records, the Cuban death toll can only be estimated, but a consensus puts it in the neighborhood of 150,000, more than 10 percent of the island’s prewar population.

Today, we remember the sinking of the USS Maine as the spark that ignited the Spanish-American War. But war correspondent George Kennan (cousin of the more famous diplomat) believed that “it was the suffering of the reconcentrados, more, perhaps, than any other one thing that brought about the intervention of the United States.” On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war. Two weeks later, US Marines landed at Fisherman’s Point on the windward side of the entrance to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. After a grim, week-long fight, the Marines took the hill. It became a naval base, and the United States has never left that patch of land.

As part of the larger victory, the US inherited the Philippines. The world’s newest imperial power also inherited a rebellion. Following a massacre of American troops at Balangiga in September 1901, during the third year of the conflict, the US established its own concentration camp system. Detainees, mostly women and children, were forced into squalid conditions that one American soldier described in a letter to a US senator as “some suburb of hell.” In the space of only four months, more than 11,000 Filipinos are believed to have died in these noxious camps.

Meanwhile, in southern Africa in 1900, the British had opened their own camps during their battle with descendants of Dutch settlers in the second Boer War. British soldiers filled tent cities with Boer women and children, and the military authorities called them refugee camps. Future Prime Minister David Lloyd George took offense at that name, noting in Parliament: “There is no greater delusion in the mind of any man than to apply the term ‘refugee’ to these camps. They are not refugee camps. They are camps of concentration.” Contemporary observers compared them to the Cuban camps, and criticized their deliberate cruelty. The Bishop of Hereford wrote to The Times of London in 1901, asking: “Are we reduced to such a depth of impotence that our Government can do nothing to stop such a holocaust of child-life?”

https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-545966581.jpg

Maggoty meat rations and polluted water supplies joined outbreaks of contagious diseases amid crowded and unhealthy conditions in the Boer camps. More than 27,000 detainees are thought to have died there, nearly 80 percent of them children. The British had opened camps for black Africans as well, in which at least 14,000 detainees died—the real number is probably much higher. Aside from protests made by some missionaries, the deaths of indigenous black Africans did not inspire much public outrage. Much of the history of the suffering in these camps has been lost.

These early experiments with concentration camps took place on the periphery of imperial power, but accounts of them nevertheless made their way into newspapers and reports in many nations. As a result, the very idea of them came to be seen as barbaric. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the first camp systems had all been closed, and concentration camps had nearly vanished as an institution. Within months of the outbreak of World War I, though, they would be resurrected—this time rising not at the margins but in the centers of power. Between 1914 and 1918, camps were constructed on an unprecedented scale across six continents. In their time, these camps were commonly called concentration camps, though today they are often referred to by the more anodyne term “internment.”

Those World War I detainees were, for the most part, foreigners—or, in legalese, aliens—and recent anti-immigration legislation in several countries had deliberately limited their rights. The Daily Mail denounced aliens left at liberty once they had registered with their local police department, demanding, “Does signing his name take the malice out of a man?” The Scottish Field was more direct, asking, “Do Germans have souls?” That these civilian detainees were no threat to Britain did not keep them from being demonized, shouted at, and spat upon as they were paraded past hostile crowds in cities like London.

Though a small number of people were shot in riots in these camps, and hunger became a serious issue as the conflict dragged on, World War I internment would present a new, non-lethal face for the camps, normalizing detention. Even after the war, new camps sprang up from Spain to Hungary and Cuba, providing an improvised “solution” for everything from vagrancy to anxieties over the presence of Jewish foreigners.

Some of these camps were clearly not safe for those interned. Local camps appeared in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, after a white mob burned down a black neighborhood and detained African-American survivors. In Bolshevik Russia, the first concentration camps preceded the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922 and planted seeds for the brutal Gulag system that became official near the end of the USSR’s first decade. While some kinds of camps were understood to be harsher, after World War I their proliferation did not initially disturb public opinion. They had yet to take on their worst incarnations.

In 1933, barely more than a month after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis’ first, impromptu camp opened in the town of Nohra in central Germany to hold political opponents. Detainees at Nohra were allowed to vote at a local precinct in the elections of March 5, 1933, resulting in a surge of Communist ballots in the tiny town. Locking up groups of civilians without trial had become accepted. Only the later realization of the horrors of the Nazi death camps would break the default assumption by governments and the public that concentration camps could and should be a simple way to manage populations seen as a threat.

However, the staggering death toll of the Nazi extermination camp system—which was created mid-war and stood almost entirely separate from the concentration camps in existence since 1933—led to another result: a strange kind of erasure. In the decades that followed World War II, the term “concentration camp” came to stand only for Auschwitz and other extermination camps. It was no longer applied to the kind of extrajudicial detention it had denoted for generations. The many earlier camps that had made the rise of Auschwitz possible largely vanished from public memory.

https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-51707546.jpg

It is not necessary, however, to step back a full century in American history to find camps with links to what is happening on the US border today. Detention at Guantánamo began in the 1990s, when Haitian and Cuban immigrants whom the government wanted to keep out of the United States were housed there in waves over a four-year period—years before the “war on terror” and the US policy of rendition of suspected “enemy combatants” made Camps Delta, X-Ray, and Echo notorious. Tens of thousands of Haitians fleeing instability at home were picked up at sea and diverted to the Cuban base, to limit their legal right to apply for asylum. The court cases and battles over the suffering of those detainees ended up setting the stage for what Guantánamo would become after September 11, 2001.

In one case, a federal court ruled that it did have jurisdiction over the base, but the government agreed to release the Haitians who were part of the lawsuit in exchange for keeping that ruling off the books. A ruling in a second case would assert that the courts did not have jurisdiction. Absent the prior case, the latter stood on its own as precedent. Leaving Guantánamo in this gray area made it an ideal site for extrajudicial detention and torture after the twin towers fell.

This process of normalization, when a bad camp becomes much more dangerous, is not unusual. Today’s border camps are a crueler reflection of long-term policies—some challenged in court—that earlier presidents had enacted. Prior administrations own a share of the responsibility for today’s harsh practices, but the policies in place today are also accompanied by a shameless willingness to publicly target a vulnerable population in increasingly dangerous ways.

I visited Guantánamo twice in 2015, sitting in the courtroom for pretrial hearings and touring the medical facility, the library, and all the old abandoned detention sites, as well as newly built ones, open to the media—from the kennel-style cages of Camp X-Ray rotting to ruin in the damp heat to the modern jailhouse facilities of Camp 6. Seeing all this in person made clear to me how vast the architecture of detention had become, how entrenched it was, and how hard it would be to close.

Without a significant government effort to reverse direction, conditions in every camp system tend to deteriorate over time. Governments rarely make that kind of effort on behalf of people they are willing to lock up without trial in the first place. And history shows that legislatures do not close camps against the will of an executive.

Just a few years ago there might have been more potential for change spurred by the judicial branch of our democracy, but this Supreme Court is inclined toward deference to executive power, even, it appears, if that power is abused. It seems unlikely this Court will intervene to end the new border camp system; indeed, the justices are far more likely to institutionalize it by half-measures, as happened with Guantánamo. The Korematsu case, in which the Supreme Court upheld Japanese-American internment (a ruling only rescinded last year), relied on the suppression of evidence by the solicitor general. Americans today can have little confidence that this administration would behave any more scrupulously when defending its detention policy.

What kind of conditions can we expect to develop in these border camps? The longer a camp system stays open, the more likely it is that vital things will go wrong: detainees will contract contagious diseases and suffer from malnutrition and mental illness. We have already seen that current detention practices have resulted in children and adults succumbing to influenza, staph infections, and sepsis. The US is now poised to inflict harm on tens of thousands more, perhaps hundreds of thousands more.

Along with such inevitable consequences, every significant camp system has introduced new horrors of its own, crises that were unforeseen when that system was opened. We have yet to discover what those will be for these American border camps. But they will happen. Every country thinks it can do detention better when it starts these projects. But no good way to conduct mass indefinite detention has yet been devised; the system always degrades.

When, in 1940, Margarete Buber-Neumann was transferred from the Soviet Gulag at Karaganda to the camp for women at Ravensbrück (in an exchange enabled by the Nazi–Soviet Pact), she came from near-starvation conditions in the USSR and was amazed at the cleanliness and order of the Nazi camp. New arrivals were issued clothing, bedding, and silverware, and given fresh porridge, fruit, sausage, and jam to eat. Although the Nazi camps were already punitive, order-obsessed monstrosities, the wartime overcrowding that would soon overtake them had not yet made daily life a thing of constant suffering and squalor. The death camps were still two years away.

The United States now has a vast and growing camp system. It is starting out with gruesome overcrowding and inadequate healthcare, and because of budget restrictions, has already taken steps to cut services to juvenile detainees. The US Office of Refugee Resettlement says that the mounting number of children arriving unaccompanied is forcing it to use military bases and other sites that it prefers to avoid, and that establishing these camps is a temporary measure. But without oversight from state child welfare inspectors, the possibilities for neglect and abuse are alarming. And without any knowledge of how many asylum-seekers are coming in the future, federal administrators are likely to find themselves boxed in to managing detention on military sites permanently.

President Trump and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller appear to have purged the Department of Homeland Security of most internal opposition to their anti-immigrant policies. In doing so, that have removed even those sympathetic to the general approach taken by the White House, such as former Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, in order to escalate the militarization of the border and expand irregular detention in more systematic and punitive ways. This kind of power struggle or purge in the early years of a camp system is typical.

The disbanding of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, in February 1922 and the transfer of its commander, Felix Dzerzhinsky, to head up an agency with control over only two prisons offered a hint of an alternate future in which extrajudicial detention would not play a central role in the fledgling Soviet republic. But Dzerzhinsky managed to keep control over the “special camps” in his new position, paving the way for the emergence of a camp-centered police state. In pre-war Germany in the mid-1930s, Himmler’s struggle to consolidate power from rivals eventually led him to make camps central to Nazi strategy. When the hardliners win, as they appear to have in the US, conditions tend to worsen significantly.

Is it possible this growth in the camp system will be temporary and the improvised border camps will soon close? In theory, yes. But the longer they remain open, the less likely they are to vanish. When I visited the camps for Rohingya Muslims a year before the large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing began, many observers appeared to be confusing the possible and the probable. It was possible that the party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi would sweep into office in free elections and begin making changes. It was possible that full democracy would come to all the residents of Myanmar, even though the government had stripped the Rohingya of the last vestiges of their citizenship. These hopes proved to be misplaced. Once there are concentration camps, it is always probable that things will get worse.

The Philippines, Japanese-American internment, Guantánamo… we can consider the fine points of how the current border camps evoke past US systems, and we can see how the arc of camp history reveals the likelihood that the suffering we’re currently inflicting will be multiplied exponentially. But we can also simply look at what we’re doing right now, shoving bodies into “dog pound”-style detention pens, “iceboxes,” and standing room-only spaces. We can look at young children in custody who have become suicidal. How much more historical awareness do we really need?

https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-980378244.jpg

▻https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/06/21/some-suburb-of-hell-americas-new-concentration-camp-system

#Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez engage le bras de fer avec la politique migratoire de Donald Trump

L’élue de New York a qualifié les camps de rétention pour migrants érigés à la frontière sud des Etats-Unis de « camps de concentration ».

https://img.lemde.fr/2019/05/30/0/0/3380/2254/688/0/60/0/8eb63f4_25295452f75f465a8b11ca278494454c-25295452f75f465a8b11ca278494454c-0.jpg

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/06/19/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-engage-le-bras-de-fer-avec-la-politique-migratoire-

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

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

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

Une idée qui vient de la Hongrie...

From protest to proposal : Eastern Europe tries new migration tactic

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

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

A mettre en lien avec, notamment... mais j’oublie certainement des choses :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/665069
►https://seenthis.net/messages/703288
►https://seenthis.net/messages/701836
►https://seenthis.net/messages/471340
►https://seenthis.net/messages/471637

Et lien aussi avec cette déclaration :
Migranti, #Toninelli : « Non è detto che il posto in cui debbano sbarcare sia un porto. Può essere una nave »
►https://video.repubblica.it/dossier/immigrati-2015/migranti-toninelli-non-e-detto-che-il-posto-in-cui-debbano-sbarcare-sia-un-porto-puo-essere-una-nave/307625/308254
cc @isskein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#camps #cpa_camps

Le projet anglais : les « #zones_de_protection »

Le 25 janvier 2003, #Tony_Blair évoque, dans l’émission « BBC1’s breakfast with Frost », une possible révision de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

▻http://www.migreurop.org/article43.html
#Blair #cpa_camps

signalé par @isskein

A partir de la minute 1’30 de cette vidéo...
L’édito d’Yves Pascouau · L’aquarius et après
►https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSM_pqNi5Qk&feature=youtu.be

Europe Pushes to Outsource Asylum, Again

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

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

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

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

Key Design Questions

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

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

Where Would People Be Stopped and Processed?

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

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

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

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

Who Would Do the Processing?

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

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

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

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

What Happens Next?

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

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

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/a5gYGpG.png

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

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

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

à l’Algérie ?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/704649

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

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

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

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

EU admits no African country has agreed to host migration centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Centres de débarquement » : le Maghreb dit « non » à l’Europe

#Algérie, #Maroc et #Tunisie ont fait savoir qu’ils refusaient d’accueillir les « plateformes régionales de débarquement » préconisées par les pays membres de l’Union européenne.

▻http://www.jeuneafrique.com/586246/societe/centres-de-debarquement-le-maghreb-dit-non-a-leurope

#cpa_camps

Au lieu des plateformes de « désembarquement », probablement ce sont des #centres_contrôlés qui seront mis sur pied :
▻http://seen.li/f3gv
#cpa_camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY OF DISEMBARKATION OPTIONS

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

https://i.imgur.com/2fJLMDC.png https://i.imgur.com/QocDXDI.png https://i.imgur.com/3bv9OI7.png

Des « #centres_contrôlés » pour migrants pour ne pas dire #hotspots

L’idée de centres contrôlés pour migrants proposée dans les conclusions du Conseil européen rappelle singulièrement les hotspots de 2015.

▻https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/des-centres-controles-pour-migrants-pour-ne-pas-dire-hotspots
#cpa_camps

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

–-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

Ne dites pas que ce sont des #camps !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#shopping_de_l'asile #normalisation
#cpa_camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this relate to broader EU policies on migration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/PtWMa3G.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Austrian Presidency paper proposes:

"2.1. By 2020

By 2020 the following goals could be defined:

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

2.2. By 2025

By 2025 the following goals could be realised:

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

And includes the following statements, amongst others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libya rejects EU plan for refugee and migrant centres

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite terrorism, a ’safe country’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Les plateformes de débarquement pour migrants enterrées ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accords en négociations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redéfinitions à venir

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

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

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

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

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

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

EP lawyers back EU plans for migrant centres in Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the EU says it is pressing ahead anyway.

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

▻https://euobserver.com/migration/143513

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

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

https://i.imgur.com/2n7hNAB.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plusieurs articles abordent la question du vocabulaire. Faut-il les appeler migrants, réfugiés, sans-papiers, demandeurs d’asile, exilés...? Les avis sont partagés :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/414225

Only ’prisons’ in Libya - UNHCR (2)

Special envoy Cochetel tells ANSA of ’horrible conditions’

http://www.ansa.it/webimages/img_457x/2017/8/4/5aa41f20156a8f30f8a7468c89ccfa2f.jpg

A Tripoli con i migranti respinti dall’Europa fra #torture, umiliazioni e fame

Violenze dopo il salvataggio in mare, poi il trasferimento nei centri d’accoglienza: «I poliziotti ci portano via tutto. Ma ritenteremo il nostro viaggio»

▻http://www.lastampa.it/2017/08/12/esteri/tra-i-migranti-respinti-dalleuropa-nelle-celle-libiche-botte-e-disperazione-c2QjWrWjj9mgTgKx3flGjK/amphtml/pagina.amp.html
#refoulement #push-back

Noury (Amnesty Italia): «I centri d’accoglienza in Libia sono in realtà prigioni»

«Esatto, senza considerare poi che i centri d’accoglienza libici dove verrebbero condotti i respinti sono in realtà delle prigioni, alcune delle quali informali, magari vecchi capannoni industriali, o alberghi, o addirittura case private. Chiamarli “centri d’accoglienza” è del tutto sbagliato, sono luoghi di detenzione nei quali non c’è alcuna garanzia per l’incolumità fisica delle persone. Sappiamo che avvengono stupri e torture quotidianamente, ci sono prigionieri detenuti in ostaggio fino a quando i familiari non pagano, prigionieri venduti da una banda criminale all’altra. E, se noi contribuiamo a rafforzare questo sistema illegale, ne siamo pienamente complici.

▻https://left.it/2017/08/12/noury-amnesty-italia-i-centri-daccoglienza-in-libia-sono-in-realta-prigioni

A Tripoli con i migranti respinti dall’Europa fra torture, umiliazioni e fame

Violenze dopo il salvataggio in mare, poi il trasferimento nei centri d’accoglienza: «I poliziotti ci portano via tutto. Ma ritenteremo il nostro viaggio»

▻http://www.lastampa.it/2017/08/12/esteri/tra-i-migranti-respinti-dalleuropa-nelle-celle-libiche-botte-e-disperazione-c2QjWrWjj9mgTgKx3flGjK/pagina.html

Migranti, oltre mille intercettati dalla Guardia costiera libica e mandati in un campo di detenzione

Erano al largo di Sabratha. Gli occupanti sono stati arrestati e inviati a Zawia. La Marina di Tripoli: soccorse più di tremila persone in una settimana in dodici diverse operazioni. Sbarcati a Messina 135 intercettati nel Canale di Sicilia

▻http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2017/09/17/news/migranti_libia-175746376

Rescue ship says Libyan coast guard shot at and boarded it, seeking migrants

A Libyan coast guard vessel fired shots and boarded a humanitarian ship in the Mediterranean on Tuesday, demanding that the migrants on board be handed over to them, a spokesman for the Mission Lifeline charity said.

“The Libyan man said: ‘This is our territory,’” said Axel Steier, a spokesman for the German-based charity that performed its first rescues on Tuesday.

“After a while, they fired shots,” he said, probably into the air or sea. No one was wounded.

Afterward two Libyans boarded the Lifeline ship to try to persuade them to hand over some 70 migrants they had just taken off a wooden boat in international waters.

“We told them we don’t return migrants to Libya. After a while, they gave up,” Steier said. The two men spent about 15 minutes on board, he said.

A Libyan coast guard spokesman in Tripoli declined to comment, saying he was seeking information. Italy’s coast guard, which coordinates rescues, did not respond to repeated telephone calls.

It was the latest incident reported between the Libyan coast guard and humanitarian rescue ships operating off North Africa. Financed, trained and equipped by Italy, the Tripoli-based coastguard is intercepting a growing number of migrant boats.

▻http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-libya-ngo/rescue-ship-says-libyan-coast-guard-shot-at-and-boarded-it-seeking-migrants
#Méditerranée #gardes-côtes

https://i.imgur.com/M0PnNQL.png

Avec ce commentaire de Jeff Crisp sur twitter :

As far as the Libyan coastguard/militia are concerned, ’captured and incarcerated’ might be the most accurate phrase.

Quei campi libici sono irriformabili

Hai voglia di annunciare bandi, di investire qualche milione di euro per rendere vivibile ciò che vivibile non è. Perché i lager libici sono come il socialismo reale: irriformabili. In discussione non sono le buone intenzioni che animano il vice ministro degli Esteri con delega per la Cooperazione internazionale, Mario Giro: per lui parla il lungo impegno in favore della pace e della giustizia sociale per l’Africa e il fatto, politicamente significativo, che nell’estate dominata dalla «caccia» alle Ong e da una ondata securista, Giro è stata una delle poche voci alzatesi tra le fila del governo per ricordare a tutti che i migranti intercettati sulla rotta del Mediterraneo venivano ricacciati nell’"inferno libico".

▻http://www.huffingtonpost.it/umberto-de-giovannangeli/quei-campi-libici-sono-irriformabili_a_23225947

L’Onu vuole aprire un centro di transito per i profughi in Libia

Un contingente di 250 guardie di sicurezza nepalesi arriverà in Libia in questi giorni per garantire sicurezza alla base militare dell’Onu di Tripoli. Se tutto andrà come previsto, spiega Roberto Mignone, capomissione dell’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (Unhcr), all’inizio di novembre anche il personale internazionale dell’organizzazione, che dal 2014 si è spostato a Tunisi per ragioni di sicurezza, potrebbe tornare in Libia in pianta stabile.

▻https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2017/09/29/onu-libia-centro-profughi
#centre_de_transit

ONGI IN LIBIA, VIA ALLA GARA PER UMANIZZARE I CENTRI PROFUGHI. Mia intervista a cura di Marco Menduni su Secolo XIX.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMv4T2AWAAU3uvM.jpg

UN human rights chief: Suffering of migrants in Libya outrage to conscience of humanity

“The international community cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the unimaginable horrors endured by migrants in Libya, and pretend that the situation can be remedied only by improving conditions in detention,” Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said, calling for the creation of domestic legal measures and the decriminalisation of irregular migration to ensure the protection of migrants’ human rights.

▻http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22393&LangID=E

Libya : Detention centres and disembarkation points. Access by UNHCR and partners, June 2017

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

#cartographie #visualisation

Cet extrait tiré d’un article du Sole 24 Ore (journal italien plutôt tourné économie et finance) est quand même assez incroyable, surtout le début, ce « certo »( « certes »)...

Certes... il y a toujours le problème des centres de détention dans un pays qui n’a pas signé la convention de Genève, mais certaines ONG italiennes sont en train d’entrer dans les centres pour vérifier le respect des principes humanitaires basiques...
dit l’article... « certes »...

Certo, resta sempre il problema dei centri di detenzione in un Paese che non ha firmato la convenzione di Ginevra, ma alcune Ong italiane stanno entrando nei centri per verificare il rispetto dei più elementari principi umanitari. Sarebbero oltre 700mila i migranti identificati in Libia tra gennaio e febbraio dall’Oim, l’Organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni. Ma non ci sono numeri precisi (si parla di altri 300 o 400mila migranti) sparsi in Libia in condizioni anche peggiori dei centri. Per il 63% si tratta di giovani provenienti dall’Africa sub-sahariana, per il 29% da quella settentrionale e per l’8% da Medio Oriente e Asia.

❞
▻http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/mondo/2018-02-24/libia-e-niger-bilancio-dell-italia-e-l-eredita-il-prossimo-governo--212

A mettre en lien, comme le suggère @isskein sur FB, avec cet autre article publié l’été passé :

Italy minister sees light at the end of the tunnel on migrant flows

Italy’s interior minister said on Tuesday (15 August) he saw light at the end of the tunnel for curbing migrant flows from Libya after a slowdown in arrivals across the Mediterranean in recent months.

►https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/italy-minister-sees-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-on-migrant-flows

v. aussi : ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/680613

Campi libici, l’inferno nel deserto. La sentenza della Corte di assise di Milano

La qualità delle indagini e della loro resa dibattimentale, insieme alla ritenuta credibilità delle dichiarazioni delle persone offese, ha confermato, secondo i giudici dell’assise, un contesto di privazione della libertà dei migranti e di violenze di ogni tipo che scolpisce una realtà che per la sorte dei diritti umani è fondamentale non ignorare.

▻http://questionegiustizia.it/articolo/campi-libici-l-inferno-nel-deserto-la-sentenza-della-corte-di-ass

« Je voudrais faire comprendre qu’une fois entrée dans ce système de traite humaine et de rançonnage, une personne ne peut en sortir qu’en se jetant à la mer. Elle y est poussée. On ne passe plus par ce pays [la Libye], on en réchappe : Yacouba ne cherchait plus à se rendre en Europe, il voulait juste ne pas mourir en Libye. Les migrants qui embarquent sur les zodiacs ont été ballottés de ghetto en ghetto, placés en détention durant plusieurs mois. Maltraités, dépouillés, leurs corps épuisés sont alors portés par le seul espoir de retrouver un semblant de dignité sur le ’continent des droits de l’homme’. »

Source : Samuel GRATACAP, in Manon PAULIC, « Ce que l’Europe refuse de voir », Le 1, n°188, 7 février 2018, p.3.

Libya: Shameful EU policies fuel surge in detention of migrants and refugees

A surge in migrants and refugees intercepted at sea by the Libyan authorities has seen at least 2,600 people transferred, in the past two months alone, to squalid detention centres where they face torture and extortion, Amnesty International said today.

The global human rights organisation accuses European governments of complicity in these abuses by actively supporting the Libyan authorities in stopping sea crossings and sending people back to detention centres in Libya.

“The EU is turning a blind eye to the suffering caused by its callous immigration policies that outsource border control to Libya,” said Heba Morayef, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Director.

▻https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/libya-shameful-eu-policies-fuel-surge-in-detention-of-migrants-and-refugees

Ne dites pas que ce sont des #camps !

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

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

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

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

Libya: “Registration is a right for asylum seekers and refugees wherever they are”

Vincent Cochetel, UNHCR Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Situation, recently visited detention centers in Lybia and expressed his concerns regarding the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees and the difficulty they face to access proper documentation.

▻http://www.unhcr.org/blogs/registration-is-a-right-for-refugees

Cruel European migration policies leave refugees trapped in Libya with no way out

A year after shocking images purporting to show human beings being bought and sold in Libya caused a global outcry, the situation for migrants and refugees in the country remains bleak and in some respects has worsened, said Amnesty International.

Findings published by the organization today highlight how EU member states’ policies to curb migration, as well as their failure to provide sufficient resettlement places for refugees, continue to fuel a cycle of abuse by trapping thousands of migrants and refugees in appalling conditions in Libyan detention centres.

“One year after video footage showing human beings being bought and sold like merchandise shocked the world, the situation for refugees and migrants in Libya remains bleak,” said Heba Morayef, Middle East and North Africa Director for Amnesty International.

“Cruel policies by EU states to stop people arriving on European shores, coupled with their woefully insufficient support to help refugees reach safety through regular routes, means that thousands of men, women and children are trapped in Libya facing horrific abuses with no way out.”

Migrants and refugees in Libyan detention centres are routinely exposed to torture, extortion and rape.

One year after video footage showing human beings being bought and sold like merchandise shocked the world, the situation for refugees and migrants in Libya remains bleak
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International’s Director for the Middle East and North Africa

The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) has registered 56,442 refugees and asylum seekers in Libya and has repeatedly called on European and other governments to offer resettlement to refugees stranded in Libya, including through evacuation to Niger. However, only 3,886 resettlement places have been pledged by 12 countries and in total just 1,140 refugees have been resettled from Libya and Niger so far. Italy separately evacuated 312 asylum seekers from Libya directly to Italy between December 2017 and February 2018, but no further evacuations took place until the resettlement of 44 refugees on 7 November.

Over the past two years EU member states have put in place a series of measures to block migration across the central Mediterranean, boosting the capacity of the Libyan Coast Guard to intercept sea crossings, striking deals with militias in Libya and hampering the work of NGOs carrying out search and rescue operations.

These policies have contributed to a nearly 80% drop in the numbers crossing the central Mediterranean and arriving in Italy, from 114,415 between January and November 2017 to just 22,232 so far in 2018. There are currently around 6,000 refugees and migrants being held in detention centres in Libya.

With the central Mediterranean sea route almost completely shut off, and the Libyan authorities keeping refugees in unlawful detention and refusing to release them to UNHCR’s care, the only way out of Libyan detention centres is through evacuation to another country via programmes run by the UN. For refugees, who cannot return to their home country, the lack of international resettlement places on offer has left thousands stranded in Libyan detention centres.

The opening of a long promised UNHCR processing centre in Libya that would offer safety for up to 1,000 refugees by allowing them to relocate from the abusive detention centres has been repeatedly delayed. Its opening would undoubtedly be a positive step, but it would only assist a small proportion of refugees in detention and does not offer a sustainable solution.

“At the same time as doing their utmost to stop sea crossings and helping the Libyan Coast Guard to intercept people at sea and send them back to notorious detention centres, European governments have catastrophically failed to offer other routes out of the country for those most in need,” said Heba Morayef.

“While Europe fails to extend the desperately needed lifeline to save those stuck in Libya and at risk of abuse, it is time that the Libyan authorities take responsibility for their atrocious policies of unlawful detention and protect the human rights of all people in their territory.”

Armed clashes in Tripoli between August and September this year have also made the situation for refugees and migrants more dangerous. Some of those held in detention centres have been wounded by stray bullets. There have also been instances where detention centre guards have fled to escape rocket attacks leaving thousands of inmates locked up without food or water.

The publication of Amnesty’s findings is timed to coincide with a meeting of Libyan and other world leaders in the Italian city of Palermo on 12 and 13 November. This international conference is intended to find solutions to break the political stalemate in Libya. Amnesty International is calling on all those taking part in the conference to ensure that human rights of all people in the country, including refugees and migrants, are placed at the centre of their negotiations.

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1060091274181705729/fyjTRUz0?format=jpg&name=600x314#.jpg

▻https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/11/cruel-european-migration-policies-leave-refugees-trapped-in-libya-with-no-w

UNHCR Flash Update Libya (9 - 15 November 2018) [EN/AR]

An estimated 5,400 refugees and migrants are presently held in detention centres in Libya, of whom 3,900 are of concern to UNHCR. Over the past month, UNHCR has registered 2,629 persons of concern in detention centres in and around Tripoli. So far in 2018, UNHCR conducted 1,139 visits to detention centres and distributed CRIs to 19,348 individuals. Through its partner International Medical Corps (IMC), UNHCR continues to provide medical assistance in detention centres in Libya. So far in 2018, IMC provided 20,070 primary health care consultations in detention centres and 237 medical referrals to public hospitals. In detention centres in the East, UNHCR’s partners have so far provided 1,058 primary health care consultations and distributed CRIs to 725 individuals.

►https://reliefweb.int/report/libya/unhcr-flash-update-libya-9-15-november-2018-enar

#statistiques #chiffres #2018

Libia, i minori abusati e torturati nei centri di detenzione per migranti finanziati dall’Ue

I minori bloccati nei centri di detenzione in Libia, finanziati anche dall’Unione europea tramite il Fondo per l’Africa, subiscono abusi e soffrono di malnutrizione, secondo quanto riportato dal Guardian.

I bambini hanno raccontato di essere stati picchiati e maltrattati dalla polizia libica e dalle guardie del campo, descrivendo la loro vita come “un inferno in terra”.

Secondo i dati analizzati dal Guardian, in Libia esistono 26 centri dei detenzione dei migranti, ma il numero dei minori detenuti non è chiaro in quanto non esistono registi affidabili.
Nonostante ciò, si pensa che siano più di mille i bambini presenti nei campi di detenzione in Libia.Secondo l’Unhcr, almeno 5.400 rifugiati sono detenuti in territorio libico.

Le rivelazioni dei bambini, che rischiano di essere puniti dalle guardie per aver parlato con i media, forniscono il resoconto più dettagliato della vita nei campi di detenzione.
Le denunce delle Ong – A inizio di novembre Amnesty International aveva già denunciato le condizioni insostenibili in cui i migranti erano costretti a vivere, raccontando come la tortura e i maltrattamenti fossero all’ordine del giorno.

“C’è un vero e proprio disprezzo da parte dell’Europa e di altri Stati per la sofferenza di coloro che si trovano nei centri di detenzione”, si legge nel rapporto di Amnesty.

Un ragazzo di 16 anni ha raccontato al Guardian cosa vuol dire viver nei centri di detenzione in Libia: “Sono qui da quattro mesi. Ho cercato di scappare tre volte per attraversare il mare diretto in Italia ma ogni volta sono stato catturato e riportato al centro di detenzione”.

“Stiamo morendo, ma nessuno se ne sta assumendo la responsabilità. Dobbiamo essere portati in un posto sicuro, invece siamo rinchiusi qui 24 ore al giorno. Non vediamo l’alba e non vediamo il tramonto “.

I centri sono progettati per mantenere i richiedenti asilo in Libia ed evitare che attraversino il Mediterraneo diretti verso l’Europa.

L’Ue ha investito decine di milioni di euro per cercare di impedire ai richiedenti asilo provenienti da zone di conflitto, come l’Eritrea e il Sudan, di entrare in Europa.

Le testimonianze – Un rifugiato eritreo di 13 anni rinchiuso in un campo di Tripoli ha raccontato che i detenuti ricevono solo una o due piccole porzioni di pasta in bianco al giorno.

Malattie come la tubercolosi sono diffuse e in molti possiedono solo una maglietta e un paio di pantaloncini, inadatte alle temperature nei centri.

“Non abbiamo niente qui, niente cibo, niente vestiti, niente telefoni. Mi mancano così tanto mia madre e mio padre”, ha detto il ragazzo.

Nei giorni precedenti un rifugiato di 24 anni ha cercato di impiccarsi nella toilette di uno dei campi e un altro si è dato fuoco nel campo di Triq al Sikka di Tripoli.

Un ragazzo eritreo di 17 anni che è fuggito da un centro di detenzione e ha raggiunto il Regno Unito aveva 50 cicatrici sul suo corpo, a dimostrazione delle torture subite in Libia.

“Quello che giovani, donne, bambini e neonati stanno soffrendo nei centri di detenzione in Libia è uno dei più grandi fallimenti della nostra civiltà”, ha affermato Giulia Tranchina, del Wilsons solicitors, che rappresenta il diciassettenne eritreo.

“I governi europei, a nostro nome, con il nostro denaro stanno pagando le autorità libiche, le milizie e i generali dell’esercito per continuare a detenere e torturare i profughi per assicurarsi che non arrivino in Europa”.

Una portavoce dell’UNHCR ha dichiarato: “Siamo incredibilmente preoccupati per la situazione dei profughi e dei migranti detenuti in Libia. Le condizioni di detenzione sono terribili”.

▻https://mediterraneomigrante.it/2018/11/26/libia-i-minori-abusati-e-torturati-nei-centri-di-detenzione-per
#enfants #enfance #torture #abus_sexuels #viols

Un #rapport de l’ONU met en lumière les «horreurs inimaginables» des migrants et réfugiés en Libye et au-delà

Les migrants et les réfugiés sont soumis à des « horreurs inimaginables » dès leur arrivée en Libye, tout au long de leur séjour dans le pays et - s’ils parviennent à ce résultat - lors de leurs tentatives de traverser la Méditerranée, selon un rapport publié jeudi, par la mission politique des Nations Unies en Libye (#MANUL) et le Bureau des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies (HCDH).

« Il y a un échec local et international à gérer cette calamité humaine cachée qui continue de se produire en Libye », a déclaré Ghassan Salamé, qui dirige la MINUS.

Assassinats illégaux, détention arbitraire et tortures, viols collectifs, esclavage et traite des êtres humains, le rapport couvre une période de 20 mois jusqu’en août 2018 et détaille une terrible litanie de violations et d’exactions commises par divers agents de l’État, armés contrebandiers et trafiquants contre les migrants et les réfugiés.

Les conclusions reposent sur 1 300 témoignages de première main recueillis par le personnel des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies en Libye, ainsi que sur des migrants qui sont rentrés au Nigéria ou ont réussi à atteindre l’Italie, retraçant tout le parcours des migrants et des réfugiés de la frontière sud de la Libye, à travers le désert jusqu’à la côte nord.

Le climat d’anarchie en Libye fournit un terrain fertile pour les activités illicites, laissant les migrants et les réfugiés « à la merci d’innombrables prédateurs qui les considèrent comme des marchandises à exploiter et à extorquer », indique le rapport, notant que « l’écrasante majorité des femmes et des adolescentes »ont déclaré avoir été« violées par des passeurs ou des trafiquants ».
Trafic d’êtres humains

De nombreuses personnes sont vendues par un groupe criminel à un autre et détenues dans des centres non officiels et illégaux gérés directement par des groupes armés ou des gangs criminels.

« D’innombrables migrants et réfugiés ont perdu la vie en captivité tués par des passeurs, après avoir été abattus, torturés à mort ou tout simplement avoir été laissés mourir de faim ou de négligence médicale », indique le rapport.

« Dans toute la Libye, des corps non identifiés de migrants et de réfugiés portant des blessures par balle, des marques de torture et des brûlures sont fréquemment découverts dans des poubelles, des lits de rivière asséchés, des fermes et le désert. »

Ceux qui réussissent à survivre aux abus et à l’exploitation, et à tenter la traversée périlleuse de la Méditerranée, sont de plus en plus interceptés - ou « sauvés » comme certains le prétendent - par les garde-côtes libyens. Depuis le début de 2017, les quelque 29 000 migrants renvoyés en Libye par les garde-côtes ont été placés dans des centres de détention où des milliers de personnes restent indéfiniment et arbitrairement, sans procédure régulière ni accès à un avocat ou à des services consulaires.

Des membres du personnel de l’ONU se sont rendus dans 11 centres de détention où sont détenus des milliers de migrants et de réfugiés. Ils ont constaté des cas de torture, de mauvais traitements, de travaux forcés et de viols commis par les gardes. Les migrants retenus dans les centres sont systématiquement soumis à la famine et à des passages à tabac sévères, brûlés avec des objets chauds en métal, électrocutés et soumis à d’autres formes de mauvais traitements dans le but d’extorquer de l’argent à leurs familles par le biais d’un système complexe de transferts d’argent.
Surpeuplement des centres de détention

Les centres de détention se caractérisent par un surpeuplement important, un manque de ventilation et d’éclairage, et des installations de lavage et des latrines insuffisantes. Outre les exactions et les actes de violence perpétrés contre les personnes détenues, beaucoup d’entre elles souffrent de malnutrition, d’infections cutanées, de diarrhée aiguë, d’infections du tractus respiratoire et d’autres affections, ainsi que de traitements médicaux inadéquats. Les enfants sont détenus avec des adultes dans les mêmes conditions sordides.

Le rapport signale l’apparente « complicité de certains acteurs étatiques, notamment de responsables locaux, de membres de groupes armés officiellement intégrés aux institutions de l’État et de représentants des ministères de l’Intérieur et de la Défense, dans le trafic illicite ou le trafic de migrants et de réfugiés ».

Nils Melzer, expert indépendant des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies sur la torture, estime que, compte tenu des risques de violations des droits de l’homme dans le pays, les transferts et les retours en Libye peuvent être considérés comme une violation du principe juridique international du « non-refoulement », qui protège les demandeurs d’asile et les migrants contre le retour dans des pays où ils ont des raisons de craindre la violence ou la persécution.

« La situation est abominablement terrible », a déclaré jeudi Michelle Bachelet, Haut-Commissaire des Nations Unies aux droits de l’homme. « Combattre l’impunité généralisée non seulement mettrait fin aux souffrances de dizaines de milliers de femmes, d’hommes et d’enfants migrants et réfugiés, à la recherche d’une vie meilleure, mais saperait également l’économie parallèle et illégale fondée sur les atteintes à ces personnes et contribuerait à l’instauration de l’état de droit et des institutions nationales ».

Le rapport appelle les États européens à reconsidérer les coûts humains de leurs politiques et à veiller à ce que leur coopération et leur assistance aux autorités libyennes soient respectueuses des droits de l’homme et conformes au droit international des droits de l’homme et du droit des réfugiés, de manière à ne pas, directement ou indirectement, aboutir à ce que des hommes, des femmes et des enfants soient enfermés dans des situations de violence avec peu d’espoir de protection et de recours.

▻https://news.un.org/fr/story/2018/12/1032271

Libya: Nightmarish Detention for Migrants, Asylum Seekers

EU and Italy Bear Responsibility, Should Condition Cooperation

(Brussels) – European Union policies contribute to a cycle of extreme abuse against migrants in Libya, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The EU and Italy’s support for the Libyan Coast Guard contributes significantly to the interception of migrants and asylum seekers and their subsequent detention in arbitrary, abusive detention in Libya.

The 70-page report, “‘No Escape from Hell’: EU Policies Contribute to Abuse of Migrants in Libya,” documents severe overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, and lack of adequate health care. Human Rights Watch found violent abuse by guards in four official detention centers in western Libya, including beatings and whippings. Human Rights Watch witnessed large numbers of children, including newborns, detained in grossly unsuitable conditions in three out of the four detention centers. Almost 20 percent of those who reached Europe by sea from Libya in 2018 were children.

“Migrants and asylum seekers detained in Libya, including children, are trapped in a nightmare, and what EU governments are doing perpetuates detention instead of getting people out of these abusive conditions,” said Judith Sunderland, associate Europe director at Human Rights Watch. “Fig-leaf efforts to improve conditions and get some people out of detention do not absolve the EU of responsibility for enabling the barbaric detention system in the first place.”

In a letter to Human Rights Watch as the report went to print, the European Commission indicated that its dialogue with Libyan authorities has focused on respect for the human rights of migrants and refugees, that the EU’s engagement in Libya is of a humanitarian nature, and that concrete improvements have been achieved though challenges remain.

Human Rights Watch visited the #Ain_Zara and #Tajoura detention centers in Tripoli, the al-Karareem detention center in Misrata, and the Zuwara detention center in the city of the same name in July 2018. All are under the nominal control of the Directorate to Counter Illegal Migration (DCIM) of the Government of National Accord (GNA), one of two competing authorities in Libya. Human Rights Watch spoke with over 100 detained migrants and asylum seekers, including 8 unaccompanied children, and each center’s director and senior staff. Researchers also met with the head of DCIM; senior officials of Libya’s Coast Guard, which is aligned with the GNA; and representatives of international organizations and diplomats.

Abdul, an 18-year-old from Darfur, was intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard in May 2018, when he attempted to reach Europe to apply for asylum. He was subsequently detained in abysmal, overcrowded, and unsanitary conditions in the al-Karareem center. He said that guards beat him on the bottom of his feet with a hose to make him confess to helping three men escape. Abdul’s experience encapsulates the struggle, dashed hopes, and suffering of so many migrants and asylum seekers in Libya today, Human Rights Watch said.

Senior officials in EU institutions and member countries are aware of the situation. In November 2017, EU migration commissioner, Dimitri Avramopoulos, said: “We are all conscious of the appalling and degrading conditions in which some migrants are held in Libya.” Yet since 2016, the EU and particular member states have poured millions of euros into programs to beef up the Libyan Coast Guard’s capacity to intercept boats leaving Libya, fully aware that everyone is then automatically detained in indefinite, arbitrary detention without judicial review.

Italy – the EU country where the majority of migrants departing Libya have arrived – has taken the lead in providing material and technical assistance to the Libyan Coast Guard forces and abdicated virtually all responsibility for coordinating rescue operations at sea, to limit the number of people arriving on its shores. The increase in interceptions in international waters by the Libyan Coast Guard, combined with obstruction by Italy and Malta of rescue vessels operated by nongovernmental organizations, has contributed to overcrowding and deteriorating conditions in Libyan detention centers.

Enabling the Libyan Coast Guard to intercept people in international waters and return them to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in Libya can constitute aiding or assisting in the commission of serious human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said. EU and member state support for programs for humanitarian assistance to detained migrants and asylum seekers and for evacuation and repatriation schemes have done little to address the systemic problems with immigration detention in Libya, and serve to cover up the injustice of the EU containment policy.

Libyan authorities should end arbitrary immigration detention and institute alternatives to detention, improve conditions in detention centers, and ensure accountability for state and non-state actors who violate the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. The authorities should also sign a memorandum of understanding with UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency, to allow it to register anyone in need of international protection, regardless of nationality, in full respect of its mandate.

EU institutions and member states should impose clear benchmarks for improvements in the treatment of migrants and conditions in detention centers in Libya and be prepared to suspend cooperation if benchmarks are not met. The EU should also ensure and enable robust search-and-rescue operations in the central Mediterranean, including by nongovernmental groups, and significantly increase resettlement of asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants out of Libya.

“EU leaders know how bad things are in Libya, but continue to provide political and material support to prop up a rotten system,” Sunderland said. “To avoid complicity in gross human rights abuses, Italy and its EU partners should rethink their strategy to truly press for fundamental reforms and ending automatic detention.”

▻https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/21/libya-nightmarish-detention-migrants-asylum-seekers

L’odissea degli ultimi. Libia, nuove cronache dall’orrore

Ancora foto choc dai campi di detenzione di #Bani_Walid, dove i trafficanti torturano e ricattano le vittime Prigionieri di criminali efferati, 150 profughi subiscono violenza da mesi.

Le immagini provengono direttamente dall’inferno di Bani Walid, distretto di #Misurata, circa 150 chilometri a sud-est di Tripoli. Sono state mandate ai familiari dai trafficanti di esseri umani per indurli al pagamento del riscatto per rilasciarli. Da sei mesi ogni giorno i detenuti subiscono minacce, percosse, torture e le donne spesso vengono stuprate dai guardiani. Tutti hanno cicatrici e bruciature per la plastica fusa gettata su arti e schiena. Ma la cifra chiesta dai libici – 4 o 5mila dollari – è troppo alta perché i parenti hanno già dovuto pagare le diverse tappe del viaggio e ora stanno chiedendo aiuto ai conoscenti. Come ha scritto di recente anche il Corriere della Sera, nel caos libico lo scontro tra il governo centrale di Serraj e quello di Haftar, l’uomo forte della Cirenaica, ha lasciato senza paghe i dipendenti pubblici, tra cui i guardiani delle galere.

https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/wp-content/uploads/IMG20190125.jpg https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/wp-content/uploads/IMG20190125_1.jpg

Torture and shocking conditions: the human cost of keeping migrants out of Europe

It’s been heralded as the start of a new dialogue. The first summit between the League of Arab States and EU member states ended with a lofty statement of shared values.

European leaders shook hands with their Arab counterparts and discussed issues such as Syria, Yemen and nuclear proliferation. They agreed to tackle the “common challenge” of migration.

Tonight, we’ve new evidence of how Libyan authorities are tackling that challenge.

Footage from inside camps in Libya shows migrants living in shocking conditions. And there are disturbing signs that some migrants are being tortured by people traffickers. This report contains images that some viewers will find distressing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1100143721637654528/On6J6I7M?format=jpg&name=600x314#.jpg

Des migrants détenus en Libye, torturés pour s’être rebellés

L’affaire est révélée par la télévision al-Jazeera. Le sort des migrants et des réfugiés bloqués en Libye ne cesse de se dégrader. Le 26 février 2019, plus d’une centaine se sont révoltés dans le centre de Triq al-Sikka à Tripoli, pour dénoncer leurs conditions de détention. La répression a été terrible. Une trentaine de ces détenus auraient été torturés.

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1102680454031904768/a_UaF7x2?format=jpg&name=600x314#.jpg

Libia: rifugiati “torturati” per essere evasi dal centro di detenzione

All’inizio di questa settimana circa 150 detenuti sono evasi dalle proprie celle del centro di detenzione #Triq_al_Sikka di Tripoli in segno di protesta contro i maltrattamenti subiti.

▻https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/libia-rifugiati-torturati-per-essere-evasi-dal-centro
#Triq_al-Sikka

L’incapacité européenne face à la #maltraitance des réfugiés en Libye

#Matteo_de_Bellis, chercheur d’Amnesty International sur les migrations, revient sur les tortures et les violences contre les réfugiés et les migrants en Libye et l’incapacité honteuse de l’Europe à y mettre fin.

Farah, un jeune homme somalien, sa femme et leur fille qui venait de naître avaient passé 12 heures en mer quand les gardes-côtes libyens ont intercepté leur canot. Le couple avait fui la Libye après plusieurs mois de torture dans un hangar dans lequel Farah était battu et sa femme était violée par des bandes criminelles libyennes essayant d’obtenir une rançon de leurs proches.

Lorsqu’il a réalisé qu’il allait être renvoyé en Libye, le jeune homme de 24 ans a été pris de nausées. « Je savais qu’il valait mieux mourir que retourner en Libye, mais ils nous ont menacés avec des armes. »

Farah, sa femme et son bébé ont passé les sept mois suivants dans deux centres de détention de Tripoli. « Il n’y avait pas de nourriture ou de soins pour mon bébé. Elle est morte à huit mois. Elle s’appelait Sagal. »

Leur histoire n’est que l’une des nombreuses histoires déchirantes de violence et de cruauté inimaginable que j’ai pu entendre le mois dernier à Médenine, une petite ville du sud de la Tunisie, qui a accueilli un nombre limité mais constant de réfugiés et de migrants franchissant la frontière pour échapper à l’enfer de la Libye.

Ce weekend, de nouveaux témoignages faisant état de torture dans le centre de détention de Triq al Sikka ont été recueillis. D’après ces informations, plus de 20 réfugiés et migrants, dont des enfants, ont été conduits dans une cellule en sous-sol et torturés individuellement, à tour de rôle, à titre de punition pour avoir protesté contre leur détention arbitraire dans des conditions déplorables et l’absence de solution. En réponse à cette contestation, plus d’une centaine d’autres personnes détenues ont été transférées vers d’autres centres de détention, notamment celui d’#Ain_Zara, dans lequel Sagal est morte.

Ces témoignages de violences correspondent à ce que j’ai pu entendre en Tunisie. Un autre homme somalien, Abdi, a décrit l’extorsion et les violences qu’il a subies aux mains des gardiens des centres de détention. Comme Farah, Abdi a été arrêté en mer par les gardes-côtes libyens et renvoyé en Libye où il est passé d’un centre de détention à un autre.

Parfois, les gardes boivent et fument, puis frappent des gens. Ils demandent aussi aux gens de leur donner de l’argent en échange de leur libération, et ceux qui ne paient pas sont frappés. On voyait les gardes, tant des membres des milices que de la police, venir et frapper des gens qui n’avaient pas payé.

La plupart des personnes actuellement détenues dans les centres de détention de Libye ont été interceptées en mer par les gardes-côtes libyens, qui ont bénéficié de tout un éventail de mesures de soutien de la part des gouvernements européens en échange de leur coopération en vue d’empêcher les réfugiés et les migrants d’atteindre les côtes européennes.

L’argent des contribuables européens a été utilisé pour fournir des bateaux, créer une zone de recherche et sauvetage libyenne et construire des centres de coordination, entre autres mesures, en vue de renforcer les capacités de la Libye à empêcher ces personnes de fuir le pays et à les maintenir en détention illégale. Et ces aides ont été accordées sans la moindre condition associée, même si une telle coopération entraîne de graves violations des droits humains, comme des actes de torture.

Si les États membres de l’Union européenne veulent cesser d’être complices des violences, des viols et de l’exploitation que subissent des femmes, des hommes et des enfants, ils doivent exiger la fermeture de tous les centres de détention pour migrants en Libye et la libération des quelque 5 000 personnes qui y sont actuellement détenues.

Les gouvernements européens qui, depuis des années, prennent des mesures frénétiques, faisant adopter des politiques destinées à empêcher les arrivées en Europe quel qu’en soit le coût humain, doivent revenir à la raison, surtout maintenant que le nombre de traversées est très faible. Au-delà de mesures en vue de remédier à la crise des droits humains en Libye qui touche tant des Libyens que des ressortissants d’autres pays, la réponse doit prévoir un mécanisme rapide et fiable de débarquement en Europe des personnes en quête d’asile et des migrants secourus en Méditerranée, ainsi qu’un système équitable de partage des responsabilités en matière d’assistance entre les États membres de l’Union européenne.

Ces mesures permettraient de contribuer à éviter les événements désastreux qui se sont enchaînés l’année dernière : des bateaux de sauvetage bloqués en mer pendant des semaines face au refus des pays de l’Union européenne d’ouvrir leurs ports et de les accueillir. Non seulement ces événements aggravent les souffrances des personnes qui viennent de fuir des traitements épouvantables, mais ils découragent également les navires marchands de porter secours à des personnes en détresse et de veiller à ce que ces personnes puissent débarquer dans un lieu sûr, où elles ne pourront pas être renvoyées en Libye.

Emmanuel, un réfugié de 28 ans qui a fui le conflit au Cameroun, a décrit sa dérive en mer à bord d’un canot non loin d’une autre embarcation qui prenait l’eau, et sa stupéfaction lorsqu’un bateau a refusé de leur porter secours.

Depuis le gros bateau, ils ont passé des appels, mais nous ont dit : “Désolé, nous ne pouvons pas vous accueillir, ce n’est pas de ma faute, nous avons ordre de laisser les Libyens venir vous chercher.” Pendant ce temps, je voyais les gens mourir sur l’autre bateau. Des bouts de bateau et des corps flottaient. [Quand] un petit bateau libyen est venu nous chercher... toutes les personnes à bord de l’autre canot étaient mortes. »

Alors que des informations selon lesquelles des réfugiés de pays comme l’Érythrée retournent dans leur pays en dépit des risques bien connus pesant sur leur vie émergent, l’Europe ne peut pas se permettre d’ignorer les conséquences catastrophiques de ses politiques irresponsables destinées à freiner l’immigration en Méditerranée.

Les départs depuis la Libye sont en déclin, c’est donc le moment d’exiger des changements, notamment la fermeture des centres de détention pour migrants en Libye, la mise en place d’un système de débarquement et de relocalisation équitable en Europe et des voies sûres et légales qui n’obligent pas les personnes qui cherchent la sécurité à passer par des traversées en mer.

Cela permettrait à de nombreux enfants et adultes de sortir de ce calvaire et de quitter les centres de détention atroces dans lesquels ils sont actuellement détenus arbitrairement en Libye. Les gouvernements européens, qui ont fermé la route de la Méditerranée centrale et donc abandonné des milliers de personnes prises au piège en Libye, ne doivent pas perdre de temps.

Nous pourrions aider à sauver des dizaines d’autres Sagal, de pères et de mères.

▻https://www.amnesty.fr/refugies-et-migrants/actualites/lincapacite-europeenne-face-a-la-maltraitance-des

Dentro la Libia, l’inchiesta continua

Il reportage di Adib Fateh Ali e Nello Trocchia ha svelato atrocità, violenze e un regime di schiavitù all’interno dei centri di detenzione in Libia. L’inchiesta si arricchisce ora di nuove immagini e nuove testimonianze.

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

▻http://www.la7.it/piazzapulita/video/dentro-la-libia-l%E2%80%99inchiesta-continua-14-03-2019-265975
#Zintan

Refugees report brutal and routine sexual violence in Libya

Abuse often filmed and sent to victims’ relatives, Women’s Refugee Commission finds.
Refugees and migrants trying to reach Europe from Africa are being subjected to horrific and routine sexual violence in Libyan detention centres, a survey has found.

People arriving at the centres are “often immediately raped by guards who conduct violent anal cavity searches, which serves the dual purpose of retrieving money, as well as humiliation and subjugation”, the report by the Women’s Refugee Commission says. Many of the victims have been forcibly returned to the country by the Libyan coastguard under policies endorsed by the European Union.

The level of psychological treatment for victims of sexual violence who reach Italy is woefully inadequate, the report adds.

Sarah Chynoweth, the lead researcher on the report, said: “Profoundly cruel and brutal sexual violence and torture are perpetrated in official detention centers and clandestine prisons, during random stops and checkpoints, and in the context of forced labor and enslavement. The fact that refugees and migrants crossing the Mediterranean are intercepted and forced back into this violence is untenable.”

The report, released at the Swedish mission in Geneva, is based on surveys and focus groups of people who have reached Italy. Much of the sexual violence it describes is too graphic to detail, but the authors make the broad point that “during the course of this research, almost all refugees, migrants, and key informants emphasised that sexual violence against male and female migrants along the entire central Mediterranean route was exceptionally high”.

A UN officer estimated that 90% of male refugees and migrants being hosted in the Italian reception system had experienced sexual violence during their journey. A local government official said that, among refugee and migrant boys, “although there are no real numbers, we know that a huge number of the minors have experienced sexual violence on the journey [to Italy]”.

The extent of sexual violence perpetrated against refugees appears in part to be contingent on their financial resources, their connections, and the year that they travelled – those traveling in recent years are seemingly more likely to have experienced sexual violence.

In many cases, sexual violence and torture are filmed on Skype and used to try to extract ransom money from the victims’ relatives, the report by the Swedish-funded, US-based commission says.

Refugees, migrants and informants told researchers that sexual violence was commonplace throughout the journey to Italy. “All along the journey they experienced sexual violence,” a health provider reported. “The whole journey is traumatic. Libya is just [the] icing on the cake.”

It had been thought that the dominance of young males in the Libyan refugee trail would reduce the risk of sexual violence. It is estimated 72% of sea arrivals in Italy were men and 18% were children, mainly unaccompanied boys.

In response to questions about sexual violence in Libya, refugees and migrants variously told the researchers that it “happened to everyone”, “is normal in Libya”, “happened to all people inside Libya” and “happened to many, many of my friends”.

Only two refugees among those surveyed explicitly reported that they had not been exposed to sexual violence, due to their ability to pay large sums in exchange for relatively safe passage.

A mental health provider in Italy working with refugees and migrants said that most of the men he spoke to had been raped in centres in Libya. A protection officer commented: “It is so widespread. Everyone knows when a man says”: ‘I’ve gone through Libya’ it is a euphemism for rape.”

Among the forms of sexual violence described to researchers was anal and oral rape, forced rape of others including corpses, castration and forced incest.

Much of the sexual violence described by research participants contained elements of profound psychological torture and cruelty.

Violence against detainees is frequently perpetrated in front of others or recorded on mobile phones, compounding the humiliation and reinforcing the experience of subjugation, the researchers found. “Perpetrators send (or threaten to send) the video footage to detainees’ family members for extortion purposes,” the report says.

A commonly reported torture technique involved forcing men to stand in a circle to watch the rape and sometimes murder of women; men who moved or spoke out were beaten or killed.

Health and mental health providers who had treated male survivors frequently reported electroshock burns to the genitals. Other genital violence included beating, burning, tying and “pulling of the penis and scrotum”.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/940c1e0473d59483d61953088e331a6e7afc9ba4/0_59_3300_1981/master/3300.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=8b9a05ac86783332a5eb1c51c384f59d#.jpg

In February 2017, Italy made a deal, backed by the EU, to spend tens of millions of euros funding the Libyan coastguard, which intercepts boats heading for Italy and returns those onboard to Libya.

From January 2017 to September 2018, the Libyan coastguard intercepted and forcibly returned more than 29,000 people. Many ended up in detention centres or disappeared altogether.

▻https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/25/refugees-face-routine-sexual-violence-in-libyan-detention-centres-repor
#viols

Et ce chiffre...

A UN officer estimated that 90% of male refugees and migrants being hosted in the Italian reception system had experienced sexual violence during their journey.

v. aussi :

Il 90% dei migranti visitati nelle cliniche del Medu ha parlato di violenza estrema e torture

►https://seenthis.net/messages/598508#message599359

A l’opposé, voici :

http://images2.corriereobjects.it/methode_image/2017/08/10/Sette/Foto%20Sette%20-%20Trattate/flussi-kBLG-U43350717135180ZsC-593x443@Corriere-Web-Sezioni.jpg?v=20170810103544#.jpg

#mots #terminologie #vocabulaire #campement #réfugiés #asile #migrations

A Calais on parle de « jungle » car tout fait penser au désordre et à la perdition. Abus de langage, erreur d’aiguillage. Les migrants de Calais tentent, c’est vrai, de reconstituer un milieu de vie et s’ils parvenaient à reconstituer la jungle-milieu d’équilibre, ils pourraient espérer vivre. On ne leur laissera pas le temps de vivre. Il faut les chasser puisqu’ils viennent d’ailleurs. Ils n’ont pas le droit de vivre. Ils doivent mourir ou partir. Pour l’administration des frontières (de la guerre, de l’argent et du jeu), cela revient au même : ils doivent disparaître.

La Jungle de Calais n’est pas la jungle de la nature. C’est un camp transitoire de chair humaine, disqualifiée par les humains eux-mêmes, à jeter à la mer ou encore à brader au plus offrant des joueurs dont les jetons de poker se heurtent aux frontières.

#cpa_camps

#vocabulaire

#camps_de_réfugiés #terminologie #mots #Calais #jungle
#cpa_camps