• #Gaza, les hantises du #génocide

    S’il faut être prudent sur la #qualification définitive de génocide, et qu’il faut être conscients que ce terme, malgré les détournements, est avant tout juridique et non pas politique, une question doit se poser aujourd’hui : « assistons-nous à un nouveau génocide ? »

    Le 16 novembre 2023, 33 experts onusiens ont signé une déclaration appelant à une réaction internationale urgente et évoquant que « les graves violations commises par Israël contre les Palestiniens au lendemain du 7 octobre, notamment à Gaza, laissent présager un génocide en devenir ». Cette position de l’#ONU sur la question d’un génocide n’est pas inédite.

    Le 2 novembre, le rapporteur spécial sur les territoires palestiniens occupés alertait déjà sur le risque de génocide. Si le mot n’est plus tabou pour qualifier ce que subit la population de Gaza, sa #définition_juridique internationale (fixée par la #Convention_sur_le_génocide et par le #Statut_de_Rome sur la CPI) commande une certaine prudence. Malgré cela, la question d’un génocide à Gaza se pose avec gravité et acuité eu égard aux circonstances de l’offensive militaire israélienne à Gaza.

    La notion de génocide est une #catégorie_juridique complexe qui a évolué au fil du temps pour devenir l’un des #crimes les plus graves de nos ordres juridiques. Il est imprescriptible et plusieurs États se reconnaissent une compétence universelle pour instruire et juger de tels agissements.

    Ce concept a, évidemment, des origines historiques importantes. En combinant les mots grec « genos » (peuple) et latin « cide » (tuer), le juriste polonais #Raphael_Lemkin en 1944 a voulu décrire et caractériser les atrocités commises pendant la Seconde guerre mondiale, en particulier l’Holocauste, qui a vu l’extermination systématique de millions de Juifs par le régime nazi. #Lemkin a plaidé pour la reconnaissance légale de ces crimes et a joué un rôle clé dans l’élaboration de la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide, adoptée par les Nations Unies en 1948.

    Cette Convention, communément appelée la « Convention sur le génocide », est l’instrument juridique principal qui définit le génocide dans le #droit ^_international en définissant en son article 2 le génocide comme : « Tout acte commis dans l’intention de détruire, en tout ou en partie, un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux, en tant que tel. ».

    De cette définition ressortent plusieurs éléments clefs : la question des actes commis, du groupe spécifiquement visé et celui de l’#intention_génocidaire. Au regard des destructions, des bombardements nourris et aveugles notamment sur des camps de réfugiés, sur des écoles gérées par l’ONU servant d’abris aux civils, sur les routes censées être sûres pour permettre aux populations civiles de fuir, mais aussi de ce ratio calculé par des observateurs selon lesquels pour un membre du Hamas tué il y aurait 10 civils massacrés, il apparaît que les premiers critères de la définition sont potentiellement remplis.

    Reste la question décisive de l’intention génocidaire. Celle-ci suppose l’identification de textes, d’ordres, d’actes et de pratiques… En l’état, une série de déclarations d’officiels israéliens interpellent tant elles traduisent une déshumanisation des Palestiniens. Le 19 novembre, point d’orgue d’une fuite en avant en termes de déclarations, l’ancien général et dirigeant du Conseil de Sécurité National israélien, #Giora_Eiland, a publié une tribune dans laquelle il appelle à massacrer davantage les civils à Gaza pour faciliter la victoire d’Israël.

    Avant cela et suite à l’attaque du 7 octobre, le ministre israélien de la Défense, #Yoav_Galant, avait déclaré : « Nous imposons un siège complet à Gaza. Pas d’électricité, pas d’eau, pas de gaz, tout est fermé […] Nous combattons des #animaux_humains et nous agissons en conséquence ».

    Dans une logique similaire, le Premier ministre #Benjamin_Netanyahu a opposé « le peuple des lumières » à celui « des ténèbres », une dichotomie bien connue dans la rhétorique génocidaire. Récemment, le ministre israélien du patrimoine a déclaré : « Le nord de Gaza est plus beau que jamais. Nous bombardons et aplatissons tout (....) au lendemain de la guerre, nous devrions donner des terres de Gaza aux soldats et aux expulsés de Gush Katif ».

    Enfin, en direct à la radio, le même #Amichay_Eliyahu a déclaré qu’il n’était pas entièrement satisfait de l’ampleur des représailles israéliennes et que le largage d’une bombe nucléaire « sur toute la #bande_de_Gaza, la raser et tuer tout le monde » était « une option ». Depuis, il a été suspendu, mais sans être démis de ses fonctions …

    Au-delà de ces déclarations politiques, il faut apprécier la nature des actes commis. Si un « plan » génocidaire en tant que tel n’est pas exigé pour qualifier de génocidaire, une certaine #organisation et ‎une #préparation demeurent nécessaires. Une politique de #colonisation par exemple, le harcèlement criminel quotidien, la #détention_arbitraire de Palestiniens, y compris mineurs, peuvent laisser entendre la mise en place de ce mécanisme.

    La Cour pénale internationale a d’ailleurs déjà ouvert des enquêtes sur ces faits-là avec des investigations qui ne progressent cependant pas notamment car Israël conteste à la Cour – dont il n’est pas membre – toute compétence. Actuellement, les pénuries impactant notamment des hôpitaux, le refus ou la limitation de l’accès de l’aide humanitaire et évidemment les #bombardements_indiscriminés, sont autant d’éléments susceptibles de matérialiser une intention génocidaire.

    Un positionnement politique pour une caractérisation juridique

    Le silence de nombreux pays est assourdissant face à la situation à Gaza. Il suffit de lire le communiqué du Quai d’Orsay sur le bombardement du camp de réfugiés Jabaliya : « La France est profondément inquiète du très lourd bilan pour les populations civiles palestiniennes des frappes israéliennes contre le camp de Jabaliya et exprime sa compassion à l’égard des victimes ».

    Aucune condamnation et, évidemment, aucune mention de la notion de génocide ni même de #crimes_de_guerre ou de #crime_contre_l’Humanité. Cela s’explique en partie par le fait que la reconnaissance du génocide a d’importantes implications juridiques. Les États signataires de la Convention sur le génocide sont tenus de prévenir et de réprimer le génocide sur leur territoire, ainsi que de coopérer entre Etats ainsi qu’avec la Cour pénale internationale pour poursuivre et punir les auteurs présumés de génocide.

    Ainsi, si un État reconnaît la volonté génocidaire d’Israël, il serait de son devoir d’intervenir pour empêcher le massacre. À défaut d’appel à un #cessez-le-feu, le rappel au respect du droit international et l’exigence de « pauses humanitaires » voire un cessez-le-feu par les Etats-Unis ou la France peuvent aussi s’interpréter comme une prévention contre une éventuelle accusation de complicité…

    S’il faut être prudent sur la qualification définitive de génocide, et qu’il faut être conscients que ce terme, malgré les détournements, est avant tout juridique et non pas politique, une question doit se poser aujourd’hui, « assistons-nous à un nouveau génocide ? » et si la réponse est « peut-être », alors il est du devoir des États signataires de la Convention de prévention des génocides de tout faire pour empêcher que le pire advienne.

    https://blogs.mediapart.fr/collectif-chronik/blog/221123/gaza-les-hantises-du-genocide
    #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie #Israël #7_octobre_2023

  • Europe’s Black Sites

    How refugees are being arbitrarily detained and tortured at secret facilities along EU borders before being illegally forced back across borders

    Despite government denials and technical arguments, the campaign of illegal pushbacks at Europe’s borders has been repeatedly shown by Lighthouse Reports and other investigative journalists to be real. And yet it continues regardless.

    The full extent of the human cost and the damage to the rule of law that this campaign inflicts is still being uncovered. Hundreds of witnesses have testified to the existence of “black sites” – clandestine detention centres – where refugees and migrants are denied the right to seek asylum and held prior to being forced back.

    Lighthouse Reports and partners can reveal that security forces along EU borders – specifically in Bulgaria, Hungary and Croatia – are using secret facilities to systematically detain people seeking refuge before illegally deporting them, in what has been denounced as a clear violation of international law.

    We have obtained visual evidence that refugees have been held in a derelict, cage-like structure in Bulgaria, sometimes for days at a time, held for hours in overcrowded and dangerously hot vans in Croatia, and held in containers and at an isolated petrol station in Hungary.

    Because they operate outside of formal detention or reception systems, they are excluded from independent scrutiny or public access.

    The existence of these sites has long been rumoured, there was no visual evidence or location data until now. During the last 11 months, we have gathered footage and collected testimonies from people who have been held in them.

    Our investigation demonstrates that these are not isolated sites, rather they are part of a system – some of which is funded by the EU and operated in plain sight of officers from Frontex, the EU border agency.

    METHODS

    In Bulgaria, we documented how asylum seekers who cross from Turkey are routinely locked in a small, cage-like structure next to a border police station in Sredets, a town around 40 kilometres from the Turkish border. They are held there for anything from several hours to up to three days. The structure resembles a disused dog kennel, with bars on one side. It has been described by asylum seekers as a “cage”. We visited the site on five separate days in the space of six weeks. Each time, we observed and recorded that people were detained.

    We gathered witness testimony from asylum seekers who had been held in the cage, who said they were denied food or water. One man can be heard in GoPro footage we captured saying his shoes had been confiscated by the police.

    During our visits to the site, we photographed Frontex branded cars parked within a few metres of the cage on three occasions. We obtained internal documents showing there are ten Frontex officers based in Sredets as part of Operation Terra, the agency’s largest land operation.

    In Hungary, we have gathered testimony indicating that refugees have been held overnight in shipping containers with no food or water, and sometimes attacked with pepper spray, before they are driven in prison buses and pushed back across the border to Serbia. We heard evidence from a medical charity (MSF) in Serbia that has documented numerous reports of people being detained in the container. We captured footage of a group being taken to a container by masked officers with batons.

    Also in Hungary, we captured photographs of asylum seekers being caught and escorted to a petrol station by civilian police officers holding batons, then forced to sit on the ground for hours, before being passed onto the official police and pushed back. We captured drone footage of routine illegal pushbacks from Hungary to Serbia.

    In Croatia, we found that people have been crowded into the back of police vans and left to bake in the sun before being pushed back to Bosnia. Video footage shows them crushed inside police vans with many other asylum seekers. In one video people are dripping with sweat from the heat. One Afghan woman told us she was held with more than 20 people, including small children, in a vehicle with capacity for eight.

    One Croatian border police officer who is active in the border region admitted that detaining people in stand-still vans in the heat could be happening, though according to him this would only occur in the event of vans getting flat tyres.
    STORYLINES

    The EU has expressed concern over illegal treatment of people crossing borders to claim asylum, but this has not stopped it from providing money to the border authorities responsible: Bulgaria has received €320m in recent years, Croatia €163m and Hungary €144m.

    By following the money trails we can link EU funding directly to the secret detention and pushbacks we have documented. The Bulgarian border forces used approximately €170,000 in EU funds to renovate Sredets police station, where the cage-like shed is located, in 2017. Two Hungarian border police prison buses, used to facilitate pushbacks, were acquired in 2017 with €1.8m from EU funds. The roads on which the Croatian vans drive the refugees to the border, apparently designed especially to facilitate pushbacks, were also financed by European taxpayers.

    On December 9, 2022 the EU Council was due to vote on accepting Croatia and Bulgaria into the Schengen area. The Commission has made clear its support for this to happen, lauding the two countries in a recent report for having “effective structures in place to guarantee access to international protection respecting the principle of non-refoulement”.

    The men and women we spoke to who have been held at black sites appeared to be traumatised by their experiences and felt that their rights had been breached. Most said they still planned to attempt to cross again, or had already succeeded in doing so, indicating that the brutal treatment does not constitute a deterrence.

    Experts told us the secret detention sites this reporting exposes are clearly illegal because they operate outside any official and legal framework and that the treatment of detainees amounts to torture. “It’s being done to punish, deter and intimidate and therefore it meets the widely recognised UN definition of torture,” said Liz Bates, lead doctor at Freedom from Torture.

    https://www.lighthousereports.nl/investigation/europes-black-sites

    #migrations #asile #réfugiés #détention_arbitraire #torture #push-backs #refoulements #black_sites #trous_noirs #frontières #Bulgarie #Hongrie #Croatie #Frontex #Sredets #Operation_Terra

  • #Latvia: Refugees and migrants arbitrarily detained, tortured and forced to ‘voluntarily’ return to their countries

    Latvian authorities have violently pushed back refugees and migrants at the country’s borders with Belarus, subjecting many to grave human rights violations, including secret detention and even torture, according to new findings published in a report by Amnesty International.

    Latvia: Return home or never leave the woods reveals the brutal treatment of migrants and refugees – including children – who have been held arbitrarily in undisclosed sites in the Latvian forest, and unlawfully and violently returned to Belarus. Many faced beatings and electric shocks with tasers, including on their genitals. Some were unlawfully forced to return ‘voluntarily’ to their home countries.

    “Latvia has given refugees and migrants a cruel ultimatum: accept to return ‘voluntarily’ to their country, or remain stranded at the border facing detention, unlawful returns and torture. In some cases, their arbitrary detention at the border may amount to enforced disappearance,” said Eve Geddie, Director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office.

    “The Latvian authorities have left men, women and children to fend for themselves in freezing temperatures, often stranded in forests or held in tents. They have violently pushed them back to Belarus, where they have no chance of seeking protection. These actions have nothing to do with border protection and are brazen violations of international and EU law.”

    On 10 August 2021, Latvia introduced a state of emergency following an increase in numbers of people encouraged to come to the border by Belarus. In contrast with EU and international law and the principle of non-refoulement, the emergency rules suspended the right to seek asylum in four border areas and allowed Latvian authorities to forcibly and summarily return people to Belarus.

    Latvian authorities have repeatedly extended the state of emergency, currently until November 2022, despite the decrease of movements over time, and their own admission that the number of attempted entries were the result of multiple crossings by the same people.

    Dozens of refugees and migrants have been arbitrarily held in tents at the border in unsanitary conditions, A small percentage of people were allowed into Latvia, the vast majority of whom were placed in detention centres and offered limited or no access to asylum processes, legal assistance or independent oversight.

    Amnesty’s report on Latvia follows and supplements similar reports focussing on abuses against refugees and migrants by Belarus, Poland and Lithuania.
    Violent pushbacks, arbitrary detention and possible enforced disappearances

    Under the state of emergency, Latvian border guards, in cooperation with unidentified “commandos”, the army and the police, repeatedly subjected people to summary, unlawful and violent forced returns. In response, Belarusian authorities would then systematically push people back to Latvia.

    Zaki, a man from Iraq who was stranded at the border for around three months, told Amnesty International that he had been pushed back more than 150 times, sometimes eight times in a single day.

    Hassan, another man from Iraq who spent five months at the border, said: “They forced us to be completely naked, sometimes they beat us when naked and then they forced us to cross back to Belarus, sometimes having to cross a river which was very cold. They said they would shoot us if we didn’t cross.”

    In between pushbacks, people were forced to spend prolonged periods stranded at the border or in tents set up by the authorities in isolated areas of the forest. Latvian authorities have so far denied using tents for anything other than providing “humanitarian assistance”, but Amnesty International’s findings show that tents were heavily guarded sites used to arbitrarily hold refugees and migrants and as outposts for illegal returns.

    Those not held in tents sometimes ended up stranded in the open at the border, as winter temperatures at times fell to -20C. Adil, a man from Iraq, who spent several months in the forest since August 2021, told Amnesty International: “We used to sleep in the forest on the snow. We used to light fire to get warm, there were wolves, bears.”

    At the border and in the tents, authorities confiscated people’s mobile phones to prevent any communication with the outside world. Some families searched for people who were last known to be in Latvia but could not be reached by phone. A Latvian NGO reported that between August and November 2021, they were contacted by the relatives of more than 30 refugees and migrants feared to have gone missing.

    Holding migrants and refugees in tents in undisclosed locations or leaving them stranded at the border without access to communication or safe alternatives to being continuously shuttled back and forth between Latvia and Belarus constitutes ‘secret detention’ and could amount to enforced disappearance.
    Forced returns, abuse and torture

    With no effective access to asylum under the state of emergency, Latvian officers coerced some people held at the border into agreeing to return ‘voluntarily’ to their countries of origin as the only way to be taken out of the forest.

    Others were coerced or misled into accepting voluntary returns in detention centres or police stations.

    Hassan, from Iraq, told Amnesty International that he tried to explain that his life would be in danger if he was returned: “The commando responded: ‘You can die here too’”.

    Another Iraqi, Omar, described how an officer hit him from behind and forced him to sign a return paper: “He held my hand and said you should do the signature, and then with force, he made me do the signature.”

    In some cases, the IOM representative for Latvia ignored evidence that people transferred as part of “voluntary” return procedures had not provided their genuine consent to returning.

    “Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, continue to commit grave abuses, under the pretext of being under a ‘hybrid attack’ from Belarus. As winter approaches and movements at the border have resumed, the state of emergency continues to allow Latvian authorities to unlawfully return people to Belarus. Many more could be exposed to violence, arbitrary detention and other abuses, with limited or no independent oversight,” said Eve Geddie.

    “Latvia’s shameful treatment of people arriving at its borders presents a vital test for European institutions, which must take urgent measures to ensure that Latvia ends the state of emergency and restores the right to asylum across the country for everyone seeking safety, irrespective of their origin or how they crossed the border.”
    Background

    As pushbacks at the Belarus border with Latvia, Lithuania and Poland re-intensify, the EU Council is prioritizing the adoption of a Regulation on the “instrumentalization” of migrants and asylum seekers. This would allow member states facing situations of “instrumentalization” – as experienced by Latvia – to derogate from their obligations under EU asylum and migration law. The proposal disproportionately impacts the rights of refugees and migrants and risks undermining the uniform application of EU asylum law.

    In June, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that the Lithuanian law on asylum and migration, which limited people’s ability to make asylum applications under the state of emergency and provided for the automatic detention of asylum seekers, was incompatible with EU law.

    The Court’s analysis and conclusions should apply directly to the situation in Latvia, where, since August 2021, the state of emergency effectively prevents most people entering or attempting to enter “irregularly” from Belarus from accessing asylum.

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/10/latvia-refugees-and-migrants-arbitrarily-detained-tortured-and-forced-to-vo

    #Lettonie #réfugiés #asile #migrations #détention #détention_arbitraire #torture #retour_volontaire (sic) #renvois_forcés #pays_baltes #rapport #Amnesty #Amnesty_international #Biélorussie #forêt #push-backs #refoulements #état_d'urgence #police #gardes-frontière #armée #militarisation_des_frontières #violence #abandon #limbe #encampement #commando #milices

    ping @isskein @reka

    • Asylum seekers who claimed torture and abuse in Latvia are using the courts to fight back

      Some of the people looking to take the Latvian state to court have alleged ill-treatment including beatings, electric shocks and cigarette burns.

      Earlier this year, Sidya Sompare, 20, a Guinean man who had attempted to claim asylum in Latvia, tried to end his life in a Latvian detention centre by drinking shampoo in his toilet stall.

      Having fled Guinea in the wake of threats against his safety due to his participation in anti-government protests, Sompare arrived in Belarus in September 2021 on a quest to find a secure life in Europe, before spending six months in the forested border zone between the country and Latvia.

      There, in addition to being pushed back and forth across the border by authorities in both countries, he alleges he was severely beaten, verbally abused, and given barely any food for days on end by Latvian border guards. Sompare then spent eight months in the closed detention center after he lost his passport in the woods and his asylum efforts were denied.

      When Sompare was found on the floor of his toilet stall after his suicide attempt, detention center authorities promptly took him to a hospital.

      “I’m not sick, I’m alright,” he recalled saying to a doctor during an interview with Euronews. “Just I need to be free.”

      He was finally released from detention in April with the help of Doctors Without Borders, an NGO, and a local Latvian human rights group. But Sompare didn’t stop there — having previously filed two unsuccessful complaints against the Latvian state last year for his detention and the dehumanizing treatment he experienced in the forest along the border, he has taken his fight to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where his case was formally registered on July 5.

      Beatings and electric shocks

      Sompare is not alone in turning to legal pathways to seek justice for ill-treatment by Latvian border authorities during the migrant crisis along the Belarusian border.

      As allegations of torture and ill-treatment by Latvian authorities have continued to emerge since last year, an increasing number of migrants and refugees who say they have experienced life-altering trauma at the hands of Latvian security forces have been mounting court challenges against them over the last few months, aiming to hold their former tormentors and the Latvian state accountable.

      These cases, which are mostly taking place at the national level with the exception of Sompare’s, represent some of the first legal efforts in Latvia since the start of the border crisis in 2021 that are specifically focused on the harrowing abuse that border authorities have allegedly inflicted on people crossing the border.

      “All the Latvian institutions, even the ombudsperson of Latvia, they deny that Latvia did anything illegal with those migrants,” said Nikita Matyushchenkov, a human rights lawyer at Respect, Protect, Fulfill (RPF), the legal organisation that helped Sompare file his ECHR case. “So these will be very important judgements.”

      In addition to challenging ongoing deportation procedures against him, Sompare’s ECHR case is focused on the ill-treatment he received in Latvian custody in the forests of the border area, which he and RPF claim was illegal. RPF has also filed three cases at the national level in Latvia, two in March and one in June of this year, on behalf of individuals who claim they were abused by Latvian border authorities between August 2021 and March 2022.

      But these may not be the only cases that will be brought to bear against the Latvian state — Matyushchenkov said that RPF has identified up to 100 people who were abused in one way or another by Latvian border guards while in the forest in the border area.

      Some of Matyushchenkov’s clients have told him that they were beaten with electric shock devices — claims that are consistent with findings documented in 2022 in an Amnesty International report on Latvia’s border. In another report published this month, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment stated that it had received several claims of “severe ill-treatment” from people who were detained after crossing into Latvia, again recounting beatings and electric shocks to areas of the body “including the genitals.”

      ’I got sick physically and mentally’

      The ongoing migrant border crisis has, according to European states, been manufactured by Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, whose government has incentivised people from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia to journey to Belarus before forcing them to cross the borders of Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia illegally as a means of putting pressure on the European Union.

      After establishing a state of emergency along its border in August 2021, Latvia adopted new amendments to its border laws in June of this year that have been denounced by Amnesty International, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UNHCR as legalising internationally-condemned pushbacks. Crucially, these amendments have also enshrined into law the State Border Guard’s broadly defined use of force to prevent illegal entry into Latvia.

      Although Poland and Lithuania have both faced accusations of ill-treatment of migrants as well, Matyushchenkov said that Latvia has been much more extreme in its abuse of people crossing its border.

      In one particularly gruesome case that has previously been reported in international media, Abdulrahman Kiwan, a humanitarian worker who fled Syria following pressure from the government of Bashar al-Assad, has alleged that he not only received electric shocks from Latvian guards, but that they extinguished cigarettes in the places where he had previously been injured.

      Now, Kiwan said he is in touch with a Latvian human rights group about filing his own complaint against the Latvian state — and if it fails, he is also ready to escalate his efforts to the ECHR with the help of legal NGOs.

      “I got sick physically and mentally because of them,” Kiwan, 28, who is now based in Germany, said of the Latvian border authorities. “I want my voice to reach the world and other migrants, that the Latvian Border Guards are liars and are extremely racist.”

      A Latvian human rights group is currently working on preparing a complaint for another refugee based in Germany, Hadi, 26, from Yemen, who told Euronews that Latvian guards beat him, violently struck him in the head, and shocked him with an electric baton. In addition to seeking compensation for crimes committed against him, Hadi, who requested to use an alias due to his ongoing asylum case in Germany, also wants his experience to be a cautionary tale.

      “Legally, I want this complaint [to ensure] that no human being will be harmed after me,” he told Euronews.

      ’The government is scared of me’

      Although Matyushchenkov said the chances of success for migrant cases like these at the ECHR may be significant, the same cannot be said for complaints within the Latvian system.

      “From the way it was investigated at the national level, it seems like the authorities are not willing to investigate such complaints properly,” he said, referencing Sompare’s initial complaint procedure. “In the response to his complaint, they identified a person who allegedly beat the complainant, and they interviewed that person. That security official said he didn’t beat this person, and this was basically the end of the investigation.”

      The Latvian government, including the Latvian State Border Guard, have previously denied any claims of abuse and torture from migrants. As of the writing of this article however, the Latvian State Border Guard, together with the country’s Internal Security Bureau and Prosecution Office which handle legal complaints from people crossing the border, were unavailable for comment.

      Sompare, who is currently living in Latvia’s capital Riga, has no plans to leave Latvia anytime soon. As he fights his still ongoing deportation procedure and the traumatic abuse he suffered in the country, he can feel he is already making an impact.

      “Something is going to change in Latvia,” he said. “Right now for sure the government is scared of me.”

      Despite being severely disappointed in Europe’s capacity to help desperate people like himself, Sompare said he wants to continue his university studies after he wins his case, and hopes to find work at a human rights organization for refugees in Latvia. Until then however, he understands that he is fighting an uphill battle not only to save himself, but also many other asylum seekers who are in the same situation.

      “I want to be an example for the people [to whom] the Latvian government did something illegal,” Sompare said. “The things that I started, I will finish them in Latvia.

      https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/08/01/asylum-seekers-who-claimed-torture-and-abuse-in-latvia-are-using-the-court

      #justice #CEDH #cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l'homme

  • #Corsica_Linea accueille des Ukrainiens et expulse des Algériens

    La même compagnie de bateaux qui a accueilli des réfugiés ukrainiens à Marseille sert désormais à expulser des sans-papiers de l’autre côté de la Méditerranée. C’est ce que révèlent les témoignages de plusieurs employés de la compagnie Corsica Linea.

    La compagnie de transport maritime Corsica Linea était fière, le 23 mars 2022, d’annoncer aux côtés de la préfecture des Bouches-du-Rhône l’ouverture du premier centre d’accueil de réfugiés ukrainiens. 1.700 places au total. L’un de ses #ferries, le « Méditerranée », est mis à disposition pour héberger jusqu’à 800 Ukrainiens. Dans les Echos, on apprend que l’initiative humanitaire vient du #Club_Top_20, qui regroupe les entreprises les plus influentes du territoire marseillais.

    Une fois vidés de leurs réfugiés, début juin, les bateaux de Corsica Linea ont repris la mer. À 20 mètres de la cabine du commandant de bord, cachés de la vue des passagers lambdas : d’autres étrangers. Des #sans-papiers que la France expulse vers l’Algérie. La compagnie corse préfère cette fois rester discrète.

    Un mécano découvre le pot aux roses

    Camille (1), la quarantaine, travaille comme ouvrier mécanicien sur l’un des bateaux de la compagnie Corsica Linea. Le mardi 20 septembre, il embarque à Marseille direction Alger, à bord du ferry Danielle Casanova. Un nom donné en hommage à une résistante communiste corse. Il a l’habitude de faire ce voyage. Mais cette fois-ci, il se passe quelque chose de différent :

    « La veille, l’officier me demande de remettre en état “les cellules des gardes et des prisonniers” parce qu’on est susceptibles de rapatrier des mecs le lendemain. Je ne comprends pas de quoi il s’agit. »

    Le mardi matin avant 8 heures, il fait son boulot et retape les sanitaires. Le marin se pose des questions :

    « Je remarque que tout est arrondi pour ne pas se blesser. »

    « Je demande à mes collègues, personne ne sait rien. Je me dis que la seule chose que je peux faire, c’est de faire durer le temps. Alors un truc que je peux faire en 30 minutes, j’y passe deux heures », décrit Camille.

    Puis vient un moment de flottement. Aux alentours de 9 heures et demi, le mécano entend « des mecs arriver, c’était bruyant. Là, je vois la #police_aux_frontières (#Paf) arriver avec des migrants, ça se bouscule… Ils sont trois, la trentaine, escortés, un flic devant, un flic derrière ». Camille ajoute :

    « Ils ont les poignets menottés, des casques de boxeur sur la tête [pour ne pas se blesser le crâne]. »

    Le jeune ouvrier décide d’entamer une discussion avec les hommes de la Paf. « Ils me disent que les #expulsions ont commencé en juin sur le bateau “Méditerranée” ». Le même qui a servi d’accueil aux Ukrainiens. « Les flics me parlent d’une reconduite prévue la semaine prochaine, et lancent un : “Et ça continuera” », rapporte Camille dans son uniforme bleu marine, d’un ton qui se veut calme.

    D’après son témoignage, les cabines en inox sont surnommées : « La #prison » et surveillées par des caméras vidéo 24 heures sur 24. Elles sont fermées à clef de l’extérieur, pas de hublot. La coursive devant la prison est verrouillée par deux portes à code. Selon un rapport interne du Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté (CGLPL) sur les #éloignements en bateau vers l’Algérie, « aucune procédure d’exploitation des enregistrements n’existe et la surveillance vidéo n’est pas signalée ». Le marin confie :

    « J’ai été chialer un bon coup dans les chiottes. Moi, je n’ai pas signé pour virer des Arabes, ça non ».

    Il se met à travailler salement pour appeler un collègue nettoyeur et lui montrer ce qu’il a vu :

    « Je simule un problème de mécanique, je fais exprès de faire un taf de porc pour faire traîner les choses. »

    Son collègue Alix (1) monte de l’hôtellerie pour nettoyer ce qu’a fait Camille. Il a accepté de livrer son témoignage. « Quand je vois ces #cellules_d’isolement en métal, je suis un peu choqué. Trois hommes [les Algériens] me regardent, ils ont l’air apeurés. » Il continue :

    « C’est comme une prison. Je me suis souvenu des Ukrainiens, ils n’étaient pas au même endroit ni traités de la même façon. Je n’ai pas compris ce qui se passait, je n’avais jamais vu une cellule de ma vie, sauf à la télé ».

    Des menaces

    Le jeune marin chargé de l’entretien a été témoin d’un autre moment sur le bateau. « J’étais à la réception quand la Paf est arrivée, elle a demandé à parler au commissaire de bord », raconte Alix. « J’ai rempli pour eux la feuille des besoins spécifiques, et tout en bas, il y avait déjà deux noms inscrits pour des visas “courte durée” : c’était pour la police. On leur attribue des cabines et des tickets-repas ».

    Les agents de la Paf vont manger au self avec les marins, se promener sur le pont, et ce pendant toute la traversée en mer aller-retour, du mardi au jeudi. Le mardi soir, un matelot de garde aurait crié : « Il y a une merde en cellule avec les reconduits, j’appelle les forces de l’ordre ! ». Selon les marins, tout le monde pouvait entendre ces mots, passagers compris.

    Dans un enregistrement fourni par Camille, on entend distinctement un policier menacer un migrant de l’attacher s’il continue de crier et de gesticuler. Le jeune détenu pleure et tape sur les murs :

    « Je vais casser ma tête, comme ça le commandant, il m’emmène à l’hôpital et je pars pas ».

    Puis on entend le policier dire à ses collègues :

    « S’il nous fait trop chier, on lui fait une piqûre de calmant ».

    Il revient vers lui :

    « Prends sur toi, ça va être casse-couille pendant 20 heures, mais prends sur toi, allez. »

    On entend Camille poser une question à l’agent de la Paf, qui lui répond froidement :

    « Je ne sais pas, c’est la première fois que je viens. »

    Dans un autre enregistrement, on entend un migrant hurler : « Un être humain il est pas capable de rester là wallah ». Et un autre, d’une voix aiguë : « Monsieur, monsieur, je vous en prie, il faut ouvrir, monsieur je suis tranquille, je vous en prie… » Camille enchérit :

    « C’est intenable. Je me retiens de pleurer plusieurs fois, j’ai fait des exercices de respiration, je me sentais impuissant. »

    Il faut dire que le marin vient du militantisme « no-border », pour la libre circulation des personnes. « Je ne peux pas recevoir des migrants chez moi et en expulser ensuite, ce n’est pas possible. Et même s’ils ont été condamnés par la justice, ils n’avaient pas le choix de commettre des délits pour survivre, vu qu’ils n’ont pas le droit de travailler », pointe le mécanicien, reprenant illico sa casquette d’activiste.

    Quand ils arrivent à Alger, le débarquement dure de 9h à 14h. « C’est normal, c’est la #Hogra (dialecte algérien signifiant humiliation publique, injustice, excès de pouvoir) », sourit Alix. Il leur est interdit de sortir de l’enceinte portuaire. Puis les marins ne voient plus la Paf, jusqu’au mardi suivant. Même scénario le 27 septembre : d’autres expulsions vers Alger ont lieu. Camille simule un problème mécanique et en profite pour faire des vidéos des #cellules.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuG0MR5n1PA&feature=emb_logo

    Un bras de fer franco-algérien

    Comme l’avaient révélé StreetPress et Mediapart, Alger a pendant de longs mois refusé le retour de ses ressortissants. En guise de représailles, « l’État français [a] décidé de réduire de 50 % le nombre de #visas délivrés aux ressortissants algériens », précise l’ONG Euromed Rights, une association de défense des droits des étrangers basée au Danemark. Mais les tensions semblent s’apaiser et les expulsions auraient démarré au mois de juin avec une pause pendant l’été. « Près de 80 % des incarcérés en centre de rétention administrative (#Cra) sont des Algériens. C’est une très très forte majorité », affirme une source d’un Cra du Sud de la France. « Ils sont piochés d’un peu partout, mais principalement au Cra de Marseille. Le test PCR n’est même plus imposé ». Avant cela, les exilés pouvaient refuser et ainsi retarder l’échéance.

    Dans un retour de mail daté du mois de juin, la préfecture des Bouches-du-Rhône confirme utiliser plusieurs « vecteurs disponibles » – aériens, terrestres ou maritimes – pour les #reconduites_aux_frontières des étrangers en situation irrégulière sur le territoire français. Jointe à nouveau début octobre, elle ne souhaite rien commenter ou ajouter. Même si elle ne répond pas à nos questions sur ce contrat entre le ministère de l’Intérieur et Corsica Linea, elle ne dément pas. Selon la presse algérienne et Euromed Rights, la France a signé un contrat en juin avec la société privée Corsica Linea pour le retour des migrants par la mer.

    Une détention arbitraire ?

    D’après les témoignages de Camille et Alix, les reconduits ne sortent pas des cellules avant que le bateau ne soit à quai à Alger. Ils sont alors remis aux autorités algériennes, et souvent à nouveau emprisonnés pour « immigration illégale ».

    Patrick Henriot, magistrat honoraire, secrétaire général du groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (Gisti) souligne que les textes applicables à l’exécution forcée des #mesures_d’éloignement n’autorisent pas les services de police à priver les personnes de liberté pendant leur acheminement vers le pays de renvoi.

    Certes ils peuvent user d’une certaine contrainte mais elle doit être « strictement nécessaire » et en toutes circonstances rester « proportionnée ». La Paf est là pour sécuriser ces personnes. « Or le #confinement_forcé, pendant toute la durée du trajet, dans une cabine fermée qui n’est rien d’autre qu’une cellule, apparaît manifestement disproportionné » explique Patrick Henriot, qui continue :

    « Sans compter qu’il y a là une atteinte à la dignité des personnes au regard des conditions dans lesquelles se déroule cet emprisonnement qui ne dit pas son nom. »

    Le magistrat ajoute : « Sur un navire, c’est le capitaine qui est titulaire du pouvoir de police. Certes, il peut demander aux policiers de lui prêter main-forte dans l’exercice de ce pouvoir mais la contrainte doit s’exercer sous sa responsabilité, et il doit lui-même veiller à ce qu’elle reste proportionnée ». Selon nos informations, le capitaine n’accompagnait à aucun moment les policiers, leur laissant le plein pouvoir.

    Contactée plusieurs fois par mail et par téléphone, la compagnie Corsica Linea s’est refusée à tout commentaire.

    https://www.streetpress.com/sujet/1665408878-corsica-linea-accueille-ukraniens-expulse-algeriens-marseill
    #tri #catégorisation #réfugiés #réfugiés_ukrainiens #réfugiés_algériens #expulsion #bateaux #Algérie #France #détention_arbitraire

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • À l’abri des regards : l’#enfermement illégal à la frontière franco-italienne

    À l’heure de discussions autour d’une nouvelle loi sur l’immigration et l’asile en France et d’une réforme de l’espace Schengen et du Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile, un même constat s’impose : les politiques migratoires de l’Union européenne et de ses États membres sont constitutives de violations des droits fondamentaux et de la dignité des personnes en migration. Dans ce contexte, l’Anafé publie aujourd’hui un dossier sur l’enfermement illégal constaté depuis 2015 à la frontière franco-italienne, enfermement qui illustre les conséquences de ces politiques violentes.

    Ce dossier – composé d’une cartographie en ligne (https://ferme.yeswiki.net/fermons_les_zones_d-attente/?PagePrincipale), d’un guide de sensibilisation et d’une note d’analyse – décrit les lieux privatifs de liberté créés par les autorités françaises à la frontière franco-italienne depuis 2015 ainsi que les conditions indignes dans lesquelles les personnes en migration y sont enfermées, tout en démontrant le caractère ex frame, c’est-à-dire hors de tout cadre légal, de ces #lieux_d’enfermement.

    Prenant le contrepoint des autorités qui se retranchent derrière le vocabulaire d’une soi-disant « #mise_à_l’abri » pour qualifier ces locaux et des juridictions qui ne condamnent pas ces pratiques abjectes, l’Anafé entend, par ce dossier, témoigner de ces faits qui démontrent en réalité des pratiques de #détention_arbitraire à la frontière franco-italienne.

    « On n’enferme pas, on ne prive pas de liberté, de la protection de l’asile, d’eau, de nourriture, de soins ou de dignité celles et ceux que l’on entend mettre à l’abri. A l’abri de quoi ? Lorsque l’on déconstruit la sémantique des autorités policières et gouvernementales françaises, la vérité apparaît : elles mentent et enferment illégalement des centaines de femmes, d’enfants et d’hommes chaque année, en toute #impunité et parfois avec la #complicité des autorités judiciaires. », dénonce Alexandre Moreau, président de l’Anafé.

    Ce dossier entend ainsi rendre visible les logiques des politiques migratoires françaises, les violations quotidiennes des #droits_fondamentaux et mettre à jour la réalité de ce que l’administration française cherche, pour sa part, à éloigner des regards.

    « #Discrimination, #stigmatisation, #criminalisation et #déshumanisation des personnes en migration sont les fils conducteurs de politiques migratoires qui, depuis des décennies, mettent l’enfermement aux frontières au cœur de leur arsenal de mesures visant à lutter contre une soi-disant « invasion » de personnes en migration. Inefficace et violente, la privation de liberté est toujours utilisée pour empêcher les personnes d’avoir accès au territoire européen ou au sein des pays qui composent l’Union. Ce dossier vient ainsi rappeler que, pour garantir un État respectueux des droits fondamentaux, un impératif doit être respecté : la détention arbitraire des personnes en migration doit cesser. », commente Laure Palun, directrice de l’Anafé.

    Rappelant le constat de pratiques d’enfermement illégal dans les aéroports et les ports français qui, il y a 30 ans, a mené à la création de l’Anafé et au cadre légal de la zone d’attente, ce dossier s’inscrit dans la campagne menée depuis un an par l’Anafé contre l’enfermement aux frontières. Ainsi, aux côtés de la demande portée par l’Anafé de fermeture des zones d’attente, ce dossier conclut sur un seul et unique impératif : la fermeture des lieux d’enfermement ex frame à la frontière franco-italienne.

    http://www.anafe.org/spip.php?article648

    #frontière_sud-alpine #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Hautes-Alpes #Alpes_maritimes #Alpes #montagne #Italie #France #Modane #privation_de_liberté #détention #Menton #Menton_Garavan #Montgenèvre #Fréjus

  • #Libye : preuves de #crimes_de_guerre et de #crimes_contre_l’humanité, selon des experts de l’#ONU

    Parmi les exactions dénoncées par la mission onusienne : des attaques contre des écoles ou des hôpitaux ou encore les violences subies par les migrants.

    Des crimes de guerre et des crimes contre l’humanité ont été commis en Libye depuis 2016, a conclu une #mission d’#enquête d’experts de l’ONU après une enquête sur place, indique l’AFP ce lundi, confirmant des faits dénoncés de longue date.

    La mission souligne que « les civils ont payé un lourd tribut » aux #violences qui déchirent la Libye depuis cinq ans, notamment en raison des attaques contre des écoles ou des hôpitaux. « Les #raids_aériens ont tué des dizaines de familles. La destruction d’infrastructures de santé a eu un impact sur l’#accès_aux_soins et les #mines_antipersonnel laissées par des #mercenaires dans des zones résidentielles ont tué et blessé des civils », souligne le rapport.

    Par ailleurs, les #migrants sont soumis à toutes sortes de violences « dans les #centres_de_détention et du fait des trafiquants », en tentant de trouver un passage vers l’Europe en Libye, a dénoncé l’un des auteurs de l’enquête. « Notre enquête montre que les #agressions contre les migrants sont commises à une large échelle par des acteurs étatiques et non étatiques, avec un haut degré d’organisation et avec les encouragements de l’Etat - autant d’aspects qui laissent à penser qu’il s’agit de crimes contre l’humanité ».

    Les #prisons

    Les experts soulignent aussi la situation dramatique dans les prisons libyennes, où les détenus sont parfois torturés quotidiennement et les familles empêchées de visiter. La #détention_arbitraire dans des #prisons_secrètes et dans des conditions insupportables est utilisée par l’Etat et les #milices contre tous ceux qui sont perçus comme une menace.

    « La violence est utilisée à une telle échelle dans les prisons libyennes et à un tel degré d’organisation que cela peut aussi potentiellement constituer un crime contre l’humanité », a souligné Tracy Robinson.

    Les auteurs du rapport notent que la justice libyenne enquête également sur la plupart des cas évoqués par la mission de l’ONU, mais notent que « le processus pour punir les gens coupables de violations ou de #maltraitances est confronté à des défis importants ».

    La mission composée de trois experts, Mohamed Auajjar, Chaloka Beyani et Tracy Robinson, a rassemblé des centaines de documents, interviewé 150 personnes et menée l’enquête en Libye même, mais aussi en Tunisie et en Italie.

    Cette mission indépendante a toutefois décidé de ne pas publier « la liste des individus et groupes (aussi bien libyens qu’étrangers) qui pourraient être responsables pour les violations, les abus et les crimes commis en Libye depuis 2016 ». « Cette liste confidentielle le restera, jusqu’à ce que se fasse jour le besoin de la publier ou de la partager » avec d’autres instances pouvant demander des comptes aux responsables.

    Le rapport doit être présenté au Conseil des droits de l’homme à Genève - la plus haute instance de l’ONU dans ce domaine - le 7 octobre.

    https://www.liberation.fr/international/afrique/libye-preuves-de-crimes-de-guerre-et-de-crimes-contre-lhumanite-selon-des

    #torture #migrations #rapport

  • Rapport thématique – Durcissements à l’encontre des Érythréen·ne·s : actualisation 2020

    Deux ans après une première publication sur la question (https://odae-romand.ch/rapport/rapport-thematique-durcissements-a-lencontre-des-erythreen%c2%b7ne%c2%b7), l’ODAE romand sort un second rapport. Celui-ci offre une synthèse des constats présentés en 2018, accompagnée d’une actualisation de la situation.

    Depuis 2018, l’ODAE romand suit de près la situation des requérant·e·s d’asile érythréen∙ne∙s en Suisse. Beaucoup de ces personnes se retrouvent avec une décision de renvoi, après que le #Tribunal_administratif_fédéral (#TAF) a confirmé la pratique du #Secrétariat_d’État_aux_Migrations (#SEM) amorcée en 2016, et que les autorités ont annoncé, en 2018, le réexamen des #admissions_provisoires de quelque 3’200 personnes.

    En 2020, le SEM et le TAF continuent à appliquer un #durcissement, alors que la situation des droits humains en #Érythrée ne s’est pas améliorée. Depuis près de quatre ans, les décisions de renvoi tombent. De 2016 à à la fin octobre 2020, 3’355 Érythréen·ne·s avaient reçu une décision de renvoi suite à leur demande d’asile.

    Un grand nombre de requérant·e·s d’asile se retrouvent ainsi débouté·e·s.

    Beaucoup des personnes concernées, souvent jeunes, restent durablement en Suisse, parce que très peu retournent en Érythrée sur une base volontaire, de peur d’y être persécutées, et qu’il n’y a pas d’accord de réadmission avec l’Érythrée. Au moment de la décision fatidique, elles perdent leur droit d’exercer leur métier ou de se former et se retrouvent à l’#aide_d’urgence. C’est donc à la constitution d’un groupe toujours plus important de jeunes personnes, exclues mais non renvoyables, que l’on assiste.

    C’est surtout en cédant aux pressions politiques appelant à durcir la pratique – des pressions renforcées par un gonflement des statistiques du nombre de demandes d’asile – que la Suisse a appréhendé toujours plus strictement la situation juridique des requérant∙e∙s d’asile provenant d’Érythrée. Sur le terrain, l’ODAE romand constate que ces durcissements se traduisent également par une appréciation extrêmement restrictive des motifs d’asile invoqués par les personnes. D’autres obstacles limitent aussi l’accès à un examen de fond sur les motifs d’asile. Au-delà de la question érythréenne, l’ODAE romand s’inquiète pour le droit d’asile au sens large. L’exemple de ce groupe montre en effet que l’application de ce droit est extrêmement perméable aux incitations venues du monde politique et peut être remaniée sans raison manifeste.

    https://odae-romand.ch/rapport/rapport-thematique-durcissements-a-lencontre-des-erythreen%c2%b7ne%c2%b7

    Pour télécharger le rapport :
    https://odae-romand.ch/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/RT_erythree_2020-web.pdf

    #rapport #ODAE_romand #Erythrée #Suisse #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_érythréens #droit_d'asile #protection #déboutés #permis_F #COI #crimes_contre_l'humanité #service_militaire #travail_forcé #torture #viol #détention_arbitraire #violences_sexuelles #accord_de_réadmission #réadmission #déboutés #jurisprudence #désertion #Lex_Eritrea #sortie_illégale #TAF #justice #audition #vraisemblance #interprètes #stress_post-traumatique #traumatisme #trauma #suspicion #méfiance #procédure_d'asile #arbitraire #preuve #fardeau_de_la_preuve #admission_provisoire #permis_F #réexamen #santé_mentale #aide_d'urgence #sans-papiers #clandestinisation #violence_généralisée

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • #Libye : « Entre la vie et la mort ». Les personnes refugiées et migrantes prises dans la tourmente des #violences en Libye

    En Libye, les personnes réfugiées et migrantes sont piégées dans un cycle de violences caractérisé par de graves atteintes aux #droits_humains, telles que la #détention_arbitraire pendant de longues périodes et d’autres formes de privation illégale de liberté, la #torture et d’autres #mauvais_traitements, les #homicides illégaux, le #viol et d’autres formes de #violences_sexuelles, le #travail_forcé et l’#exploitation aux mains d’agents gouvernementaux et non gouvernementaux, dans un climat d’#impunité quasi totale.

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde19/3084/2020/fr
    #migrations #asile #réfugiés #violence #rapport #Amnesty_international #privation_de_liberté #droits_fondamentaux

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • Communiqué de presse : Mettre un terme à la #détention_arbitraire des migrants en Tunisie : le tribunal administratif est saisi du cas du centre d’#El_Ouardia

    Tunis, le 8 juin 2020-

    Un groupe de migrants détenus au centre d’El Ouardia viennent de saisir le tribunal administratif en urgence pour dénoncer leur détention arbitraire. Ils sont détenus depuis des semaines, voire des mois, dans un lieu considéré d’un point de vue légal comme un #centre d’hébergement et d’orientation. Un centre dont ils ne peuvent pourtant pas sortir et qui opère concrètement comme un centre de détention illégal. Les migrants y sont privés de liberté sans aucun respect de leurs #droits_fondamentaux, en l’absence de procédures judiciaires conformes à la Constitution et aux standards internationaux. Ils sont accusés par l’administration d’entrée ou de séjour irrégulier sur le territoire tunisien, mais une telle infraction ne peut suffire à justifier leur #détention en dehors de toute procédure légale et contrôle juridictionnel, d’autant que certains d’entre eux avaient déjà étaient jugés et emprisonnés pour ces faits avant d’être internés à #Ouardia.

    En Tunisie comme ailleurs, on ne peut détenir un individu sans que cette #privation_de_liberté soit strictement encadrée par une loi organique et qu’elle soit assortie de garanties procédurales à même d’assurer que la détention n’est pas illégale ou arbitraire. Or, en Tunisie, aucun texte de loi en vigueur ne permet de soumettre des migrants à une forme de #détention_administrative. Quant au respect des garanties procédurales,ils n’ont pas été notifiés par écrit du fondement juridique de leur détention, ni de la durée de leur détention, ni de leurs droits à être assisté d’un avocat et d’un interprète et à contacter leur consulat, ni de leur droit à saisir la justice pour qu’elle contrôle immédiatement la légalité de leur détention.Leurs avocats n’ont pas été autorisés à leur rendre visite et n’ont même pas pu accéder à leur dossier.Avec l’assistance d’un groupe d’avocats, plusieurs détenus saisissent aujourd’hui le tribunal administratif de Tunis afin qu’il joue son rôle de garant des droits et ordonne, sans délai, la cessation de la détention arbitraire dont ils sont victimes.

    Au-delà de la détention arbitraire des plaignants concernés par ces recours, c’est l’existence même du centre de El Ouardia comme centre de détention de facto qui doit être remise en question, de même que l’ensemble de la législation régissant le statut des étrangers nécessite d’être repensée. La dépénalisation de l’entrée et du séjour irrégulier,la revue des modalités d’octroi des titres de séjour et du traitement des demandes, l’instauration d’une procédure d’asile sont parmi les nombreuses mesures qui devraient être inscrite comme une priorité gouvernementale.Ces réformes apparaissent comme de véritables obligations au regard de la Constitution qui garantit notamment le #droit_d’asile et le droit de ne pas être détenu arbitrairement mais aussi au regard des traités internationaux relatifs aux droits de l’Homme ratifiés par la Tunisie

    Forum Tunisien pour les Droits Économiques et Sociaux FTDES

    Avocats sans frontières ASF

    Terre d’Asile Tunisie

    OMCT Tunisie

    https://ftdes.net/communique-de-presse-mettre-un-terme-a-la-detention-arbitraire-des-migrants-e
    #Tunisie #justice #rétention #migrations #asile #réfugiés
    ping @_kg_

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

    • Le business meurtrier des frontières

      Le 21ème siècle sera-t-il celui des barrières ? Probable, au rythme où les frontières nationales se renforcent. Dans un livre riche et documenté, publié aux éditions Syllepse, le géographe Stéphane Rosière dresse un indispensable état des lieux.

      Une nuit du mois de juin, dans un centre de rétention de l’île de Rhodes, la police grecque vient chercher une vingtaine de migrant·e·s, dont deux bébés. Après un trajet en bus, elle abandonne le groupe dans un canot de sauvetage sans moteur, au milieu des eaux territoriales turques. En août, le New York Times publie une enquête révélant que cette pratique, avec la combinaison de l’arrivée aux affaires du premier ministre conservateur Kyriakos Mitsotakis et de la diffusion de la pandémie de Covid-19, est devenue courante depuis mars.

      Illégales au regard du droit international, ces expulsions illustrent surtout le durcissement constant de la politique migratoire de l’Europe depuis 20 ans. Elles témoignent aussi d’un processus mondial de « pixellisation » des frontières : celles-ci ne se réduisent pas à des lignes mais à un ensemble de points plus ou moins en amont ou en aval (ports, aéroports, eaux territoriales…), où opèrent les polices frontalières.
      La fin de la fin des frontières

      Plus largement, le récent ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière, Frontières de fer, le cloisonnement du monde, permet de prendre la mesure d’un processus en cours de « rebordering » à travers le monde. À la fois synthèse des recherches récentes sur les frontières et résultats des travaux de l’auteur sur la résurgence de barrières frontalières, le livre est une lecture incontournable sur l’évolution contemporaine des frontières nationales.

      D’autant qu’il n’y a pas si longtemps, la mondialisation semblait promettre l’affaissement des frontières, dans la foulée de la disparition de l’Union soviétique et, corollairement, de la généralisation de l’économie de marché. La Guerre froide terminée annonçait la « fin de l’histoire » et, avec elle, la disparition des limites territoriales héritées de l’époque moderne. Au point de ringardiser, rappelle Stéphane Rosière, les études sur les frontières au sein de la géographie des années 1990, parallèlement au succès d’une valorisation tous azimuts de la mobilité dans le discours politique dominant comme dans les sciences sociales.

      Trente ans après, le monde se réveille avec 25 000 kilomètres de barrières frontalières – record pour l’Inde, avec plus de 3 000 kilomètres de clôtures pour prévenir l’immigration depuis le Bangladesh. Barbelés, murs de briques, caméras, détecteurs de mouvements, grilles électrifiées, les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier fleurissent en continu sur les cinq continents.
      L’âge des « murs anti-pauvres »

      La contradiction n’est qu’apparente. Les barrières du 21e siècle ne ferment pas les frontières mais les cloisonnent – d’où le titre du livre. C’est-à-dire que l’objectif n’est pas de supprimer les flux mondialisés – de personnes et encore moins de marchandises ni de capitaux – mais de les contrôler. Les « teichopolitiques », terme qui recouvre, pour Stéphane Rosière, les politiques de cloisonnement de l’espace, matérialisent un « ordre mondial asymétrique et coercitif », dans lequel on valorise la mobilité des plus riches tout en assignant les populations pauvres à résidence.

      De fait, on observe que les barrières frontalières redoublent des discontinuités économiques majeures. Derrière l’argument de la sécurité, elles visent à contenir les mouvements migratoires des régions les plus pauvres vers des pays mieux lotis économiquement : du Mexique vers les États-Unis, bien sûr, ou de l’Afrique vers l’Europe, mais aussi de l’Irak vers l’Arabie Saoudite ou du Pakistan vers l’Iran.

      Les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier sont des outils parmi d’autres d’une « implacable hiérarchisation » des individus en fonction de leur nationalité. Comme l’a montré le géographe Matthew Sparke à propos de la politique migratoire nord-américaine, la population mondiale se trouve divisée entre une classe hypermobile de citoyen·ne·s « business-class » et une masse entravée de citoyen·ne·s « low-cost ». C’est le sens du « passport index » publié chaque année par le cabinet Henley : alors qu’un passeport japonais ou allemand donne accès à plus de 150 pays, ce chiffre descend en-dessous de 30 avec un passeport afghan ou syrien.
      Le business des barrières

      Si les frontières revêtent une dimension économique, c’est aussi parce qu’elles sont un marché juteux. À l’heure où les pays européens ferment des lits d’hôpital faute de moyens, on retiendra ce chiffre ahurissant : entre 2005 et 2016, le budget de Frontex, l’agence en charge du contrôle des frontières de l’Union européenne, est passé de 6,3 à 238,7 millions d’euros. À quoi s’ajoutent les budgets colossaux débloqués pour construire et entretenir les barrières – budgets entourés d’opacité et sur lesquels, témoigne l’auteur, il est particulièrement difficile d’enquêter, faute d’obtenir… des fonds publics.

      L’argent public alimente ainsi une « teichoéconomie » dont les principaux bénéficiaires sont des entreprises du BTP et de la sécurité européennes, nord-américaines, israéliennes et, de plus en plus, indiennes ou saoudiennes. Ce complexe sécuritaro-industriel, identifié par Julien Saada, commercialise des dispositifs de surveillance toujours plus sophistiqués et prospère au rythme de l’inflation de barrières entre pays, mais aussi entre quartiers urbains.

      Un business d’autant plus florissant qu’il s’auto-entretient, dès lors que les mêmes entreprises vendent des armes. On sait que les ventes d’armes, alimentant les guerres, stimulent les migrations : un « cercle vertueux » s’enclenche pour les entreprises du secteur, appelées à la rescousse pour contenir des mouvements de population qu’elles participent à encourager.
      « Mourir aux frontières »

      Bénéfices juteux, profits politiques, les barrières font des heureux. Elles tuent aussi et l’ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière se termine sur un décompte macabre. C’est, dit-il, une « guerre migratoire » qui est en cours. Guerre asymétrique, elle oppose la police armée des puissances économiques à des groupes le plus souvent désarmés, venant de périphéries dominées économiquement et dont on entend contrôler la mobilité. Au nom de la souveraineté des États, cette guerre fait plusieurs milliers de victimes par an et la moindre des choses est de « prendre la pleine mesure de la létalité contemporaine aux frontières ».

      Sur le blog :

      – Une synthèse sur les murs frontaliers : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/01/28/lamour-des-murs

      – Le compte rendu d’un autre livre incontournable sur les frontières : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/08/03/frontieres-en-mouvement

      – Une synthèse sur les barricades à l’échelle intraurbaine : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/10/21/gated-communities-le-paradis-entre-quatre-murs

      http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/11/05/le-business-meurtrier-des-frontieres

    • How Private Security Firms Profit Off the Refugee Crisis

      The UK has pumped money to corporations turning #Calais into a bleak fortress.

      Tall white fences lined with barbed wire – welcome to Calais. The city in northern France is an obligatory stop for anyone trying to reach the UK across the channel. But some travellers are more welcome than others, and in recent decades, a slew of private security companies have profited millions of pounds off a very expensive – an unattractive – operation to keep migrants from crossing.

      Every year, thousands of passengers and lorries take the ferry at the Port of Calais-Fréthun, a trading route heavily relied upon by the UK for imports. But the entrance to the port looks more like a maximum-security prison than your typical EU border. Even before Brexit, the UK was never part of the Schengen area, which allows EU residents to move freely across 26 countries. For decades, Britain has strictly controlled its southern border in an attempt to stop migrants and asylum seekers from entering.

      As early as 2000, the Port of Calais was surrounded by a 2.8 metre-high fence to prevent people from jumping into lorries waiting at the ferry departure point. In 1999, the Red Cross set up a refugee camp in the nearby town of Sangatte which quickly became overcrowded. The UK pushed for it to be closed in 2002 and then negotiated a treaty with France to regulate migration between the two countries.

      The 2003 Le Toquet Treaty allowed the UK to check travellers on French soil before their arrival, and France to do the same on UK soil. Although the deal looks fair on paper, in practice it unduly burdens French authorities, as there are more unauthorised migrants trying to reach the UK from France than vice versa.

      The treaty effectively moved the UK border onto French territory, but people still need to cross the channel to request asylum. That’s why thousands of refugees from conflict zones like Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia have found themselves stranded in Calais, waiting for a chance to cross illegally – often in search of family members who’ve already made it to the UK. Many end up paying people smugglers to hide them in lorries or help them cross by boat.

      These underlying issues came to a head during the Syrian crisis, when refugees began camping out near Calais in 2014. The so-called Calais Jungle became infamous for its squalid conditions, and at its peak, hosted more than 7,000 people. They were all relocated to other centres in France before the camp was bulldozed in 2016. That same year, the UK also decided to build a €2.7 million border wall in Calais to block access to the port from the camp, but the project wasn’t completed until after the camp was cleared, attracting a fair deal of criticism. Between 2015 and 2018, the UK spent over €110 million on border security in France, only to top it up with over €56 million more in 2018.

      But much of this public money actually flows into the accounts of private corporations, hired to build and maintain the high-tech fences and conduct security checks. According to a 2020 report by the NGO Care4Calais, there are more than 40 private security companies working in the city. One of the biggest, Eamus Cork Solutions (ECS), was founded by a former Calais police officer in 2004 and is reported to have benefited at least €30 million from various contracts as of 2016.

      Stéphane Rosière, a geography professor at the University of Reims, wrote his book Iron Borders (only available in French) about the many border walls erected around the world. Rosière calls this the “security-industrial” complex – private firms that have largely replaced the traditional military-industrial sector in Europe since WW2.

      “These companies are getting rich by making security systems adaptable to all types of customers – individuals, companies or states,” he said. According to Rosière, three-quarters of the world’s border security barriers were built in the 21st century.

      Brigitte, a pensioner living close to the former site of the Calais Jungle, has seen her town change drastically over the past two decades. “Everything is cordoned off with wire mesh," she said. "I have the before and after photos, and it’s not a pretty sight. It’s just wire, wire, wire.” For the past 15 years, Brigitte has been opening her garage door for asylum seekers to stop by for a cup of tea and charge their phones and laptops, earning her the nickname "Mama Charge”.

      “For a while, the purpose of these fences and barriers was to stop people from crossing,” said François Guennoc, president of L’Auberge des Migrants, an NGO helping displaced migrants in Calais.

      Migrants have still been desperate enough to try their luck. “They risked a lot to get into the port area, and many of them came back bruised and battered,” Guennoc said. Today, walls and fences are mainly being built to deter people from settling in new camps near Calais after being evicted.

      In the city centre, all public squares have been fenced off. The city’s bridges have been fitted with blue lights and even with randomly-placed bike racks, so people won’t sleep under them.

      “They’ve also been cutting down trees for some time now,” said Brigitte, pointing to a patch near her home that was once woods. Guennoc said the authorities are now placing large rocks in areas where NGOs distribute meals and warm clothes, to prevent displaced people from receiving the donations. “The objective of the measures now is also to make the NGOs’ work more difficult,” he said.

      According to the NGO Refugee Rights Europe, about 1,500 men, women and minors were living in makeshift camps in and around Calais as of April 2020. In July 2020, French police raided a camp of over 500 people, destroying residents’ tents and belongings, in the largest operation since the Calais Jungle was cleared. An investigation by Slate found that smaller camps are cleared almost every day by the French police, even in the middle of winter. NGOs keep providing new tents and basic necessities to displaced residents, but they are frustrated by the waste of resources. The organisations are also concerned about COVID-19 outbreaks in the camps.

      As VICE World News has previously reported, the crackdown is only pushing people to take more desperate measures to get into the UK. Boat crossings reached record-highs in 2020, and four people have died since August 2020 while trying to cross, by land and sea. “When you create an obstacle, people find a way to get around it,” Guennoc said. “If they build a wall all the way along the coast to prevent boat departures, people will go to Normandy – and that has already started.” Crossing the open sea puts migrants at even greater risk.

      Rosière agrees security measures are only further endangering migrants.“All locks eventually open, no matter how complex they may be. It’s just a matter of time.”

      He believes the only parties who stand to profit from the status quo are criminal organisations and private security firms: “At the end of the day, this a messed-up use of public money.”

      https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8yax/how-private-security-firms-profit-off-the-refugee-crisis

      En français:
      À Calais, la ville s’emmure
      https://www.vice.com/fr/article/wx8yax/a-calais-la-ville-semmure

    • Financing Border Wars. The border industry, its financiers and human rights

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.

      Executive summary

      Migration will be one of the defining human rights issues of the 21st century. The growing pressures to migrate combined with the increasingly militarised state security response will only exacerbate an already desperate situation for refugees and migrants. Refugees already live in a world where human rights are systematically denied. So as the climate crisis deepens and intersects with other economic and political crises, forcing more people from their homes, and as states retreat to ever more authoritarian security-based responses, the situation for upholding and supporting migrants’ rights looks ever bleaker.

      States, most of all those in the richest countries, bear the ultimate responsibility to uphold the human rights of refugees and migrants recognised under International Human Rights Law. Yet corporations are also deeply implicated. It is their finance, their products, their services, their infrastructure that underpins the structures of state migration and border control. In some cases, they are directly involved in human rights violations themselves; in other cases they are indirectly involved as they facilitate the system that systematically denies refugees and migrants their rights. Most of all, through their lobbying, involvement in government ‘expert’ groups, revolving doors with state agencies, it becomes clear that corporations are not just accidental beneficiaries of the militarisation of borders. Rather they actively shape the policies from which they profit and therefore share responsibility for the human rights violations that result.

      This state-corporate fusion is best described as a Border Industrial Complex, drawing on former US President Eisenhower’s warning of the dangers of a Military-Industrial Complex. Indeed it is noticeable that many of the leading border industries today are also military companies, seeking to diversify their security products to a rapidly expanding new market.

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.
      A booming industry

      The border industry is experiencing spectacular growth, seemingly immune to austerity or economic downturns. Market research agencies predict annual growth of the border security market of between 7.2% and 8.6%, reaching a total of $65–68 billion by 2025. The largest expansion is in the global Biometrics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) markets. Markets and Markets forecasts the biometric systems market to double from $33 billion in 2019 to $65.3 billion by 2024—of which biometrics for migration purposes will be a significant sector. It says that the AI market will equal US$190.61 billion by 2025.

      The report investigates five key sectors of the expanding industry: border security (including monitoring, surveillance, walls and fences), biometrics and smart borders, migrant detention, deportation, and audit and consultancy services. From these sectors, it profiles 23 corporations as significant actors: Accenture, Airbus, Booz Allen Hamilton, Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Deloitte, Elbit, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, IBM, IDEMIA, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Mitie, Palantir, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Serco, Sopra Steria, Thales, Thomson Reuters, Unisys.

      – The border security and control field, the technological infrastructure of security and surveillance at the border, is led by US, Australian, European and Israeli firms including Airbus, Elbit, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Leonardo and Thales— all of which are among the world’s major arms sellers. They benefit not only from border contracts within the EU, US, and Australia but also increasingly from border externalisation programmes funded by these same countries. Jean Pierre Talamoni, head of sales and marketing at Airbus Defence and Space (ADS), said in 2016 that he estimates that two thirds of new military market opportunities over the next 10 years will be in Asia and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Companies are also trying to muscle in on providing the personnel to staff these walls, including border guards.

      - The Smart Borders sector encompasses the use of a broad range of (newer) technologies, including biometrics (such as fingerprints and iris-scans), AI and phone and social media tracking. The goal is to speed up processes for national citizens and other acceptable travellers and stop or deport unwanted migrants through the use of more sophisticated IT and biometric systems. Key corporations include large IT companies, such as IBM and Unisys, and multinational services company Accenture for whom migration is part of their extensive portfolio, as well as small firms, such as IDEMIA and Palantir Technologies, for whom migration-related work is central. The French public–private company Civipol, co-owned by the state and several large French arms companies, is another key player, selected to set up fingerprint databases of the whole population of Mali and Senegal.

      – Deportation. With the exception of the UK and the US, it is uncommon to privatise deportation. The UK has hired British company Mitie for its whole deportation process, while Classic Air Charter dominates in the US. Almost all major commercial airlines, however, are also involved in deportations. Newsweek reported, for example, that in the US, 93% of the 1,386 ICE deportation flights to Latin American countries on commercial airlines in 2019 were facilitated by United Airlines (677), American Airlines (345) and Delta Airlines (266).

      - Detention. The Global Detention Project lists over 1,350 migrant detention centres worldwide, of which over 400 are located in Europe, almost 200 in the US and nine in Australia. In many EU countries, the state manages detention centres, while in other countries (e.g. Australia, UK, USA) there are completely privatised prisons. Many other countries have a mix of public and private involvement, such as state facilities with private guards. Australia outsourced refugee detention to camps outside its territories. Australian service companies Broadspectrum and Canstruct International managed the detention centres, while the private security companies G4S, Paladin Solutions and Wilson Security were contracted for security services, including providing guards. Migrant detention in third countries is also an increasingly important part of EU migration policy, with the EU funding construction of migrant detention centres in ten non-EU countries.

      - Advisory and audit services are a more hidden part of public policies and practices, but can be influential in shaping new policies. A striking example is Civipol, which in 2003 wrote a study on maritime borders for the European Commission, which adopted its key policy recommendations in October 2003 and in later policy documents despite its derogatory language against refugees. Civipol’s study also laid foundations for later measures on border externalisation, including elements of the migration deal with Turkey and the EU’s Operation Sophia. Since 2003 Civipol has received funding for a large number of migration-related projects, especially in African countries. Between 2015 and 2017, it was the fourth most-funded organisation under the EU Trust Fund. Other prominent corporations in this sector include Eurasylum, as well as major international consultancy firms, particularly Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers, for which migration-related work is part of their expansive portfolio.

      Financing the industry

      The markets for military and border control procurement are characterized by massively capital intensive investments and contracts, which would not be possible without the involvement of financial actors. Using data from marketscreener.com, the report shows that the world’s largest investment companies are also among the major shareholders in the border industry.

      – The Vanguard Group owns shares in 15 of the 17 companies, including over 15% of the shares of CoreCivic and GEO Group that manage private prisons and detention facilities.

      - Other important investors are Blackrock, which is a major shareholder in 11 companies, Capital Research and Management (part of the Capital Group), with shares in arms giants Airbus and Lockheed Martin, and State Street Global Advisors (SsgA), which owns over 15% of Lockheed Martin shares and is also a major shareholder in six other companies.

      - Although these giant asset management firms dominate, two of the profiled companies, Cobham and IDEMIA, are currently owned by the private equity firm Advent International. Advent specialises in buyouts and restructuring, and it seems likely that it will attempt to split up Cobham in the hope of making a profit by selling on the component companies to other owners.

      - In addition, three large European arms companies, Airbus, Thales and Leonardo, active in the border security market, are partly owned by the governments of the countries where they are headquartered.

      In all cases, therefore, the financing depends on our money. In the case of state ownership, through our taxes, and in terms of asset management funds, through the way individual savings, pension funds, insurance companies and university endowments are directly invested in these companies via the giant Asset Management Funds. This financing means that the border industry survives on at least the tacit approved use of the public’s funds which makes it vulnerable to social pressure as the human rights costs of the industry become ever more clear.
      Human rights and the border industry

      Universal human rights apply to every single human being, including refugees and migrants. While the International Bill of Human Rights provides the foundation, including defining universal rights that are important in the context of migration, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to freedom from torture or cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and freedom from discrimination, there are other instruments such as the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention or Geneva Convention) of 1951 that are also relevant. There are also regional agreements, including the Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that play a role relevant to the countries that have ratified them.

      Yet despite these important and legally binding human rights agreements, the human rights situation for refugees and migrants has become ever more desperate. States frequently deny their rights under international law, such as the right to seek asylum or non-refoulement principles, or more general rights such as the freedom from torture, cruel or inhumane treatment. There is a gap with regard to effective legal means or grievance mechanisms to counter this or to legally enforce or hold to account states that fail to implement instruments such as the UDHR and the Refugee Convention of 1951. A Permanent Peoples Tribunal in 2019 even concluded that ‘taken together, the immigration and asylum policies and practices of the EU and its Member States constitute a total denial of the fundamental rights of people and migrants, and are veritable crimes against humanity’. A similar conclusion can be made of the US and Australian border and immigration regime.

      The increased militarisation of border security worldwide and state-sanctioned hostility toward migrants has had a deeply detrimental impact on the human rights of refugees and migrants.

      – Increased border security has led to direct violence against refugees, pushbacks with the risk of returning people to unsafe countries and inhumane circumstances (contravening the principle of non-refoulement), and a disturbing rise in avoidable deaths, as countries close off certain migration routes, forcing migrants to look for other, often more dangerous, alternatives and pushing them into the arms of criminal smuggling networks.

      – The increased use of autonomous systems of border security such as drones threaten new dangers related to human rights. There is already evidence that they push migrants to take more dangerous routes, but there is also concern that there is a gradual trend towards weaponized systems that will further threaten migrants’ lives.

      – The rise in deportations has threatened fundamental human rights including the right to family unity, the right to seek asylum, the right to humane treatment in detention, the right to due process, and the rights of children’. There have been many instances of violence in the course of deportations, sometimes resulting in death or permanent harm, against desperate people who try to do everything to prevent being deported. Moreover, deportations often return refugees to unsafe countries, where they face violence, persecution, discrimination and poverty.

      - The widespread detention of migrants also fundamentally undermines their human rights . There have been many reports of violence and neglect by guards and prison authorities, limited access to adequate legal and medical support, a lack of decent food, overcrowding and poor and unhealthy conditions. Privatisation of detention exacerbates these problems, because companies benefit from locking up a growing number of migrants and minimising costs.

      – The building of major migration databases such as EU’s Eurodac and SIS II, VIS gives rise to a range of human rights concerns, including issues of privacy, civil liberties, bias leading to discrimination—worsened by AI processes -, and misuse of collected information. Migrants are already subject to unprecedented levels of surveillance, and are often now treated as guinea pigs where even more intrusive technologies such as facial recognition and social media tracking are tried out without migrants consent.

      The trend towards externalisation of migration policies raises new concerns as it seeks to put the human costs of border militarisation beyond the border and out of public sight. This has led to the EU, US and Australia all cooperating with authoritarian regimes to try and prevent migrants from even getting close to their borders. Moreover as countries donate money, equipment or training to security forces in authoritarian regimes, they end up expanding and strengthening their capacities which leads to a rise in human rights violations more broadly. Nowhere are the human rights consequences of border externalisation policies clearer than in the case of Libya, where the EU and individual member states (in particular Italy and Malta) funding, training and cooperation with security forces and militias have led to violence at the borders, murder, disappearances, rape, enslavement and abuse of migrants in the country and torture in detention centres.

      The 23 corporations profiled in this report have all been involved in or connected to policies and practices that have come under fire because of violations of the human rights of refugees and migrants. As mentioned earlier, sometimes the companies are directly responsible for human rights violations or concerns. In other cases, they are indirectly responsible through their contribution to a border infrastructure that denies human rights and through lobbying to influence policy-making to prioritize militarized responses to migration. 11 of the companies profiled publicly proclaim their commitment to human rights as signatories to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), but as these are weak voluntary codes this has not led to noticeable changes in their business operations related to migration.

      The most prominent examples of direct human rights abuses come from the corporations involved in detention and deportation. Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, Mitie and Serco all have faced allegations of violence and abuse by their staff towards migrants. G4S has been one of the companies most often in the spotlight. In 2017, not only were assaults by its staff on migrants at the Brook House immigration removal centre in the UK broadcast by the BBC, but it was also hit with a class suit in Australia by almost 2,000 people who are or were detained at the externalised detention centre on Manus Island, because of physical and psychological injuries as a result of harsh treatment and dangerous conditions. The company eventually settled the case for A$70 million (about $53 million) in the largest-ever human rights class-action settlement. G4S has also faced allegations related to its involvement in deportations.

      The other companies listed all play a pivotal role in the border infrastructure that denies refugees’ human rights. Airbus P-3 Orion surveillance planes of the Australian Air Force, for example, play a part in the highly controversial maritime wall that prevents migrants arriving by boat and leads to their detention in terrible conditions offshore. Lockheed Martin is a leading supplier of border security on the US-Mexico border. Leonardo is one of the main suppliers of drones for Europe’s borders. Thales produces the radar and sensor systems, critical to patrolling the Mediterrean. Elbit Systems provides surveillance technologies to both the EU and US, marketed on their success as technologies used in the separation wall in the Palestinian occupied territories. Accenture, IDEMIA and Sopra Steria manage many border biometric projects. Deloitte has been one of the key consulting companies to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency since 2003, while PriceWaterhouseCoopers provides similar consultancy services to Frontex and the Australian border forces. IBM, Palantir and UNISYS provide the IT infrastructure that underpins the border and immigration apparatus.
      Time to divest

      The report concludes by calling for campaigns to divest from the border industry. There is a long history of campaigns and movements that call for divestment from industries that support human rights violations—from the campaigns to divest from Apartheid South Africa to more recent campaigns to divest from the fossil fuel industry. The border industry has become an equally morally toxic asset for any financial institution, given the litany of human rights abuses tied to it and the likelihood they will intensify in years to come.

      There are already examples of existing campaigns targeting particular border industries that have borne fruit. A spotlight on US migrant detention, as part of former President Trump’s anti- immigration policies, contributed to six large US banks (Bank of America, BNP Paribas, Fifth Third Bancorp, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust, and Wells Fargo) publicly announcing that they would not provide new financing to the private prison industry. The two largest public US pension funds, CalSTRS and CalPERS, also decided to divest from the same two companies. Geo Group acknowledged that these acts of ‘public resistance’ hit the company financially, criticising the banks as ‘clearly bow[ing] down to a small group of activists protesting and conducting targeted social media campaigns’.

      Every company involved or accused of human rights violations either denies them or says that they are atypical exceptions to corporate behavior. This report shows however that a militarised border regime built on exclusion will always be a violent apparatus that perpetuates human rights violations. It is a regime that every day locks up refugees in intolerable conditions, separates families causing untold trauma and heartbreak, and causes a devastating death toll as refugees are forced to take unimaginable dangerous journeys because the alternatives are worse. However well-intentioned, any industry that provides services and products for this border regime will bear responsibility for its human consequences and its human rights violations, and over time will suffer their own serious reputational costs for their involvement in this immoral industry. On the other hand, a widespread exodus of the leading corporations on which the border regime depends could force states to change course, and to embrace a politics that protects and upholds the rights of refugees and migrants. Worldwide, social movements and the public are starting to wake up to the human costs of border militarisation and demanding a fundamental change. It is time now for the border industry and their financiers to make a choice.

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

      #TNI #rapport
      #industrie_frontalière #militarisation_des_frontières #biométrie #Intelligence_artificielle #AI #IA

      #Accenture #Airbus #Booz_Allen_Hamilton #Classic_Air_Charter #Cobham #CoreCivic #Deloitte #Elbit #Eurasylum #G4S #GEO_Group #IBM #IDEMIA #Leonardo #Lockheed_Martin #Mitie #Palantir #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Serco #Sopra_Steria #Thales #Thomson_Reuters #Unisys
      #contrôles_frontaliers #surveillance #technologie #Jean-Pierre_Talamoni #Airbus_Defence_and_Space (#ADS) #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes #iris #empreintes_digitales #réseaux_sociaux #IT #Civipol #Mali #Sénégal #renvois #expulsions #déportations #Mitie #Classic_Air_Charter #compagnies_aériennes #United_Airlines #ICE #American_Airlines #Delta_Airlines #rétention #détention_administrative #privatisation #Broadspectrum #Canstruct_International #Paladin_Solutions #Wilson_Security #Operation_Sophia #EU_Trust_Fund #Trust_Fund #externalisation #Eurasylum #Deloitte #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Vanguard_Group #CoreCivic #Blackrock #investisseurs #investissement #Capital_Research_and_Management #Capital_Group #Lockheed_Martin #State_Street_Global_Advisors (#SsgA) #Cobham #IDEMIA #Advent_International #droits_humains #VIS #SIS_II #P-3_Orion #Accenture #Sopra_Steria #Frontex #Australie

    • Outsourcing oppression. How Europe externalises migrant detention beyond its shores

      This report seeks to address the gap and join the dots between Europe’s outsourcing of migrant detention to third countries and the notorious conditions within the migrant detention centres. In a nutshell, Europe calls the shots on migrant detention beyond its shores but is rarely held to account for the deeply oppressive consequences, including arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearance, violence, sexual violence, and death.

      Key findings

      – The European Union (EU), and its member states, externalise detention to third countries as part of a strategy to keep migrants out at all costs. This leads to migrants being detained and subjected to gross human rights violations in transit countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, West Asia and Africa.

      – Candidate countries wishing to join the EU are obligated to detain migrants and stop them from crossing into the EU as a prerequisite for accession to the Union. Funding is made available through pre-accession agreements specifically for the purpose of detaining migrants.

      – Beyond EU candidate countries, this report identifies 22 countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and West Asia where the EU and its member states fund the construction of detention centres, detention related activities such as trainings, or advocate for detention in other ways such as through aggressively pushing for detention legislation or agreeing to relax visa requirements for nationals of these countries in exchange for increased migrant detention.

      - The main goal of detention externalisation is to pre-empt migrants from reaching the external borders of the EU by turning third countries into border outposts. In many cases this involves the EU and its member states propping up and maintaining authoritarian regimes.

      – Europe is in effect following the ‘Australian model’ that has been highly criticised by UN experts and human rights organisations for the torturous conditions inside detention centres. Nevertheless, Europe continues to advance a system that mirrors Australia’s outsourced model, focusing not on guaranteeing the rights of migrants, but instead on deterring and pushing back would-be asylum seekers at all costs.

      - Human rights are systematically violated in detention centres directly and indirectly funded by the EU and its member states, including cases of torture, arbitrary and prolonged detention, sexual violence, no access to legal recourse, humanitarian assistance, or asylum procedures, the detention of victims of trafficking, and many other serious violations in which Europe is implicated.

      - Particularly horrendous is the case of Libya, which continues to receive financial and political support from Europe despite mounting evidence of brutality, enslavement, torture, forced disappearance and death. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), implement EU policies in Libya and, according to aid officials, actively whitewash the consequences of European policies to safeguard substantial EU funding.

      - Not only does the EU deport and push back migrants to unsafe third countries, it actively finances and coercively pushes for their detention in these countries. Often they have no choice but to sign ‘voluntary’ agreements to be returned to their countries of origin as the only means of getting out of torturous detention facilities.

      - The EU implements a carrot and stick approach, in particular in its dealings with Africa, prolonging colonialist dynamics and uneven power structures – in Niger, for example, the EU pushed for legislation on detention, in exchange for development aid funding.

      – The EU envisages a greater role for migrant detention in third countries going forward, as was evidenced in the European Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      - The EU acts on the premise of containment and deterrence, namely, that if migrants seeking to reach Europe are intercepted and detained along that journey, they will be deterred from making the journey in the first place. This approach completely misses the point that people migrate to survive, often fleeing war and other forms of violence. The EU continues to overlook the structural reasons behind why people flee and the EU’s own role in provoking such migration.

      – The border industrial complex profits from the increased securitisation of borders. Far from being passive spectators, the military and security industry is actively involved in shaping EU border policies by positioning themselves as experts on the issue. We can already see a trend of privatising migrant detention, paralleling what is happening in prison systems worldwide.

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

      pour télécharger le rapport :
      https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/outsourcingoppression-report-tni.pdf

      #externalisation #rétention #détention #détention_arbitraire #violence #disparitions #disparitions_forcées #violence #violence_sexuelle #morts #mort #décès #Afrique #Europe_de_l'Est #Balkans #Asie #modèle_australien #EU #UE #Union_européenne #torture #Libye #droits_humains #droits_fondamentaux #HCR #UNHCR #OIM #IOM #dissuasion #privatisation

    • Fortress Europe: the millions spent on military-grade tech to deter refugees

      We map out the rising number of #high-tech surveillance and deterrent systems facing asylum seekers along EU borders.

      From military-grade drones to sensor systems and experimental technology, the EU and its members have spent hundreds of millions of euros over the past decade on technologies to track down and keep at bay the refugees on its borders.

      Poland’s border with Belarus is becoming the latest frontline for this technology, with the country approving last month a €350m (£300m) wall with advanced cameras and motion sensors.

      The Guardian has mapped out the result of the EU’s investment: a digital wall on the harsh sea, forest and mountain frontiers, and a technological playground for military and tech companies repurposing products for new markets.

      The EU is central to the push towards using technology on its borders, whether it has been bought by the EU’s border force, Frontex, or financed for member states through EU sources, such as its internal security fund or Horizon 2020, a project to drive innovation.

      In 2018, the EU predicted that the European security market would grow to €128bn (£108bn) by 2020. Beneficiaries are arms and tech companies who heavily courted the EU, raising the concerns of campaigners and MEPs.

      “In effect, none of this stops people from crossing; having drones or helicopters doesn’t stop people from crossing, you just see people taking more risky ways,” says Jack Sapoch, formerly with Border Violence Monitoring Network. “This is a history that’s so long, as security increases on one section of the border, movement continues in another section.”

      Petra Molnar, who runs the migration and technology monitor at Refugee Law Lab, says the EU’s reliance on these companies to develop “hare-brained ideas” into tech for use on its borders is inappropriate.

      “They rely on the private sector to create these toys for them. But there’s very little regulation,” she says. “Some sort of tech bro is having a field day with this.”

      “For me, what’s really sad is that it’s almost a done deal that all this money is being spent on camps, enclosures, surveillance, drones.”

      Air Surveillance

      Refugees and migrants trying to enter the EU by land or sea are watched from the air. Border officers use drones and helicopters in the Balkans, while Greece has airships on its border with Turkey. The most expensive tool is the long-endurance Heron drone operating over the Mediterranean.

      Frontex awarded a €100m (£91m) contract last year for the Heron and Hermes drones made by two Israeli arms companies, both of which had been used by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip. Capable of flying for more than 30 hours and at heights of 10,000 metres (30,000 feet), the drones beam almost real-time feeds back to Frontex’s HQ in Warsaw.

      Missions mostly start from Malta, focusing on the Libyan search and rescue zone – where the Libyan coastguard will perform “pull backs” when informed by EU forces of boats trying to cross the Mediterranean.

      German MEP Özlem Demirel is campaigning against the EU’s use of drones and links to arms companies, which she says has turned migration into a security issue.

      “The arms industries are saying: ‘This is a security problem, so buy my weapons, buy my drones, buy my surveillance system,’” says Demirel.

      “The EU is always talking about values like human rights, [speaking out] against violations but … week-by-week we see more people dying and we have to question if the EU is breaking its values,” she says.

      Sensors and cameras

      EU air assets are accompanied on the ground by sensors and specialised cameras that border authorities throughout Europe use to spot movement and find people in hiding. They include mobile radars and thermal cameras mounted on vehicles, as well as heartbeat detectors and CO2 monitors used to detect signs of people concealed inside vehicles.

      Greece deploys thermal cameras and sensors along its land border with Turkey, monitoring the feeds from operations centres, such as in Nea Vyssa, near the meeting of the Greek, Turkish and Bulgarian borders. Along the same stretch, in June, Greece deployed a vehicle-mounted sound cannon that blasts “deafening” bursts of up to 162 decibels to force people to turn back.

      Poland is hoping to emulate Greece in response to the crisis on its border with Belarus. In October, its parliament approved a €350m wall that will stretch along half the border and reach up to 5.5 metres (18 feet), equipped with motion detectors and thermal cameras.

      Surveillance centres

      In September, Greece opened a refugee camp on the island of Samos that has been described as prison-like. The €38m (£32m) facility for 3,000 asylum seekers has military-grade fencing and #CCTV to track people’s movements. Access is controlled by fingerprint, turnstiles and X-rays. A private security company and 50 uniformed officers monitor the camp. It is the first of five that Greece has planned; two more opened in November.

      https://twitter.com/_PMolnar/status/1465224733771939841

      At the same time, Greece opened a new surveillance centre on Samos, capable of viewing video feeds from the country’s 35 refugee camps from a wall of monitors. Greece says the “smart” software helps to alert camps of emergencies.

      Artificial intelligence

      The EU spent €4.5m (£3.8m) on a three-year trial of artificial intelligence-powered lie detectors in Greece, Hungary and Latvia. A machine scans refugees and migrants’ facial expressions as they answer questions it poses, deciding whether they have lied and passing the information on to a border officer.

      The last trial finished in late 2019 and was hailed as a success by the EU but academics have called it pseudoscience, arguing that the “micro-expressions” the software analyses cannot be reliably used to judge whether someone is lying. The software is the subject of a court case taken by MEP Patrick Breyer to the European court of justice in Luxembourg, arguing that there should be more public scrutiny of such technology. A decision is expected on 15 December.

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/dec/06/fortress-europe-the-millions-spent-on-military-grade-tech-to-deter-refu

  • Quand l’#Union_europeénne se met au #fact-checking... et que du coup, elle véhicule elle-même des #préjugés...
    Et les mythes sont pensés à la fois pour les personnes qui portent un discours anti-migrants ("L’UE ne protège pas ses frontières"), comme pour ceux qui portent des discours pro-migrants ("L’UE veut créer une #forteresse_Europe")...
    Le résultat ne peut être que mauvais, surtout vu les pratiques de l’UE...

    Je copie-colle ici les mythes et les réponses de l’UE à ce mythe...


    #crise_migratoire


    #frontières #protection_des_frontières


    #Libye #IOM #OIM #évacuation #détention #détention_arbitraire #centres #retours_volontaires #retour_volontaire #droits_humains


    #push-back #refoulement #Libye


    #aide_financière #Espagne #Grèce #Italie #Frontex #gardes-frontière #EASO


    #Forteresse_européenne


    #global_compact


    #frontières_intérieures #Schengen #Espace_Schengen


    #ONG #sauvetage #mer #Méditerranée


    #maladies #contamination


    #criminels #criminalité


    #économie #coût #bénéfice


    #externalisation #externalisation_des_frontières


    #Fonds_fiduciaire #dictature #dictatures #régimes_autoritaires

    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20190306_managing-migration-factsheet-debunking-myths-about-migration_en.p
    #préjugés #mythes #migrations #asile #réfugiés
    #hypocrisie #on_n'est_pas_sorti_de_l'auberge
    ping @reka @isskein

  • Fuir une dictature et mourir de faim en Italie, après avoir traversé la Méditerranée et passé des mois dans des centres en Libye.
    10 personnes à ses funérailles.
    Et l’Europe n’a pas honte.

    Ragusa, il funerale dell’eritreo morto di fame dopo la traversata verso l’Italia

    Il parroco di Modica: «Di lui sappiamo solo che è un nostro fratello»


    http://palermo.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/03/20/news/ragusa_il_funerale_dell_eritreo_morto_di_fame_dopo_la_traversata_
    #mourir_de_faim #faim #Libye #torture #asile #migrations #fermeture_des_frontières #Méditerranée

    • Nawal Sos a décidé de faire un travail de récolte de témoignage de personnes qui ont vécu l’#enfer libyen, suite à la saisie du bateau de l’ONG Open Arms en Méditerranée.

      Pour celles et ceux qui ne connaissent pas Nawal :
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawal_Soufi

      Voici le premier témoignage qu’elle a publié sur FB, que je copie-colle de la page web de Nawal :

      Questa e’ la testimonianza del primo rifugiato che ha dato la disponibilita’ a comparire davanti a qualsiasi corte italiana per raccontare i suoi giorni passati tra gli scafisti in Libia.

      Il 9 aprile del 2015 sono arrivato a casa dello scafista. Da casa sua sono partito via mare il 4 maggio del 2015. Erano le due di notte. In questo periodo le mie condizioni di salute erano particolari ed ero con uno/due ragazzi. Gli altri stavano peggio di me, dentro delle stanze dove la capienza era di dieci persone e in cui venivano rinchiuse settanta/ottanta/cento persone. Ci veniva dato solamente un pasto a giornata ed esso era composto da pane e acqua. L’acqua non bastava per tutti. Non c’erano servizi igienici per fare i propri bisogni. Prima dell’arrivo alla casa dello scafista viene raccontato che la situazione sarà perfetta e la casa grande in modo da garantire le migliori condizioni e che esiste un accordo con la guardia costiera. Appena si arriva a casa dello scafista si trovano altre condizioni. Una delle promesse che erano state fatte era quella di partire in poche ore, al massimo ventiquattro via mare. La verità è però che è necessario aspettare in base agli accordi con la guardia costiera: se vengono raggiunti dopo una settimana si parte dopo una settimana altrimenti è necessario aspettare fino a un mese, come è stato per me. Se una persona paga molto gli verrà fornito un salvagente altrimenti bisognerà affrontare il viaggio senza. Qualcuno portava con sé il salvagente mentre altri credevano alle parole dello scafista e non lo portavano. Anche sul salvagente cominciavano le false promesse: «Domani vi porteremo i salvagenti..». A seguito di queste promesse iniziavano a farsi strada delle tensioni con lo scafista. Le barche di legno su cui avremmo dovuto viaggiare erano a due piani: nel piano di sotto vi era la sala motore dov’è lo spazio per ogni essere umano non supera 30 x 30 cm massimo 40. Mettevano le persone una sopra l’altra. Le persone che venivano messe sotto erano le persone che pagavano di meno. Ovviamente lo scafista aveva tutto l’interesse di mettere in questo spazio il maggior numero di persone possibili per guadagnare sempre più con la scusante di usare questo guadagno per pagare la guardia costiera libica, la manutenzione della barca e altre persone necessarie per partire. Proprio nella sala motore ci sono stati vari casi di morti. La maggior parte della barche veniva comprata da Ras Agedir e Ben Gerdan, in Tunisia. Le barche arrivavano dalla Tunisia in pieno giorno, passando dalla dogana senza essere tassate né controllate. Le barche venivano portate al porto e ristrutturate davanti agli occhi di tutti. Una volta riempite le barche venivano fatte partire in pieno giorno (dalle prime ore del mattino fino alle due del pomeriggio) senza essere fermate dalla guardia costiera libica. Le uniche a essere fermate erano quelle degli scafisti che non pagavano mazzette ed esse venivano riportate indietro e i migranti arrestati. La guardia costiera chiedeva poi un riscatto allo scafista per liberare le persone. Così facendo lo obbligavano la volta dopo a pagare una mazzetta prima di far partire le sue imbarcazioni.
      In un caso molti siriani erano saliti su quella che chiamavamo «l’imbarcazione dei medici». Questi medici avevano comprato la barca per partire senza pagare gli scafisti ed erano partiti. A bordo c’erano 80/100 persone. Sono stati seguiti da individui non identificati che gli hanno sparato contro causando la morte di tutte le persone a bordo. Non si sa se siano stati degli scafisti o la guardia costiera.
      I contatti tra la guardia costiera libica e gli scafisti risultano evidenti nel momento in cui le persone fermate in mare e riportate a terra vengono liberate tramite pagamento di un riscatto da parte degli scafisti. Queste stesse persone riescono poi a partire con lo stesso scafista via mare senza essere fermate.
      In Libia, dove ho vissuto due anni, le condizioni di vita sono molto difficili. Gli stessi libici hanno iniziato a lottare per ottenere qualcosa da mangiare e per me, in quanto siriano senza possibilità di andare da qualsiasi altra parte, l’unica cosa importante era poter lavorare e vivere. Conosco molti ingegneri e molti professionisti che hanno lasciato la loro vita per venire in Libia a fare qualsiasi tipo di lavoro pur di sopravvivere. Non avevo quindi altra soluzione se non quella di partire via mare verso l’Europa. Sono partito e sono arrivato a Lampedusa e da lì ho raggiunto Catania.

      https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=580561452301350&id=100010425011901
      J’espère voir les autres témoignages aussi... mais elle les publie sur FB, du coup, je pense que je vais certainement ne pas tout voir.

    • Deuxième témoignage :

      Questa e’ la seconda persona che ha dato la sua disponibilita’ a comparire di fronte a qualsiasi Corte italiana per raccontare il suo viaggio e forse altri compagni di viaggio che erane nella stessa barca si uniranno a lui.
      Testimonianza di: Ragazzo Palestinese di Gaza
      (Per ovvi motivi non posso citare in nome qui)

      Traduzione in italiano:

      Per quanto riguarda il traffico degli esseri umani avviene tra Zebrata e Zuara in Libia. Tra i trafficanti e la guardia costiera libica c’è un accordo di pagamento per far partire le imbarcazioni. Al trafficante che non paga la guardia costiera gli viene affondata l’imbarcazione. La squadra della guardia costiera che fa questi accordi e’ quella di Al Anqaa’ العنقاء appartenente alla zona di Ezzawi. Otto mesi fa siamo partiti da Zebrata e siamo stati rapiti dalla guardia costiera libica. Dopo il rapimento abbiamo detto loro che siamo partiti tramite lo scafista che si chiama Ahmed Dabbashi. E la risposta della guardia costiera è stata: se solo ci aveste detto che eravate partiti tramite lo scafista Ahmed Debbash tutto ciò non sarebbe successo.

      Je n’arrive pas à copier-coller le link FB (arrghhh)

    • Time to Investigate European Agents for Crimes against Migrants in Libya

      In March 2011, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor of the international criminal court opened its investigation into the situation in Libya, following a referral by the UN Security Council. The investigation concerns crimes against humanity in Libya starting 15 February 2011, including the crimes against humanity of murder and persecution, allegedly committed by Libyan agents. As the ICC Prosecutor explained to the UN Security Council in her statement of 8 May 2017, the investigation also concerns “serious and widespread crimes against migrants attempting to transit through Libya.” Fatou Bensouda labels Libya as a “marketplace for the trafficking of human beings.” As she says, “thousands of vulnerable migrants, including women and children, are being held in detention centres across Libya in often inhumane condition.” The findings are corroborated by the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNMSIL) and the Panel of Experts established pursuant to Resolution 1973 (2011). Both report on the atrocities to which migrants are subjected, not only by armed militias, smugglers and traffickers, but also by the new Libyan Coast Guard and the Department for Combatting Illegal Migration of the UN-backed Al Sarraj’s Government of National Accord – established with EU and Italian support.

      https://www.ejiltalk.org/time-to-investigate-european-agents-for-crimes-against-migrants-in-libya

    • UN report details scale and horror of detention in Libya

      Armed groups in Libya, including those affiliated with the State, hold thousands of people in prolonged arbitrary and unlawful detention, and submit them to torture and other human rights violations and abuses, according to a UN report published on Tuesday.

      “Men, women and children across Libya are arbitrarily detained or unlawfully deprived of their liberty based on their tribal or family links and perceived political affiliations,” the report by the UN Human Rights Office says. “Victims have little or no recourse to judicial remedy or reparations, while members of armed groups enjoy total impunity.”

      “This report lays bare not only the appalling abuses and violations experienced by Libyans deprived of their liberty, but the sheer horror and arbitrariness of such detentions, both for the victims and their families,” said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. “These violations and abuses need to stop – and those responsible for such crimes should be held fully to account.”

      Since renewed hostilities broke out in 2014, armed groups on all sides have rounded up suspected opponents, critics, activists, medical professionals, journalists and politicians, the report says. Hostage-taking for prisoner exchanges or ransom is also common. Those detained arbitrarily or unlawfully also include people held in relation to the 2011 armed conflict - many without charge, trial or sentence for over six years.

      The report, published in cooperation with the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), summarizes the main human rights concerns regarding detention in Libya since the signing of the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) on 17 December 2015 until 1 January 2018. The implementation of provisions in the LPA to address the situation of people detained arbitrarily for prolonged periods of time has stalled, it notes.

      “Rather than reining in armed groups and integrating their members under State command and control structures, successive Libyan governments have increasingly relied on them for law enforcement, including arrests and detention; paid them salaries; and provided them with equipment and uniforms,” the report says. As a result, their power has grown unchecked and they have remained free of effective government oversight.

      Some 6,500 people were estimated to be held in official prisons overseen by the Judicial Police of the Ministry of Justice, as of October 2017. There are no available statistics for facilities nominally under the Ministries of Interior and Defence, nor for those run directly by armed groups.

      “These facilities are notorious for endemic torture and other human rights violations or abuses,” the report says. For example, the detention facility at Mitiga airbase in Tripoli holds an estimated 2,600 men, women and children, most without access to judicial authorities. In Kuweifiya prison, the largest detention facility in eastern Libya, some 1,800 people are believed to be held.

      Armed groups routinely deny people any contact with the outside world when they are first detained. “Distraught families search for their detained family members, travel to known detention facilities, plead for the help of acquaintances with connections to armed groups, security or intelligence bodies, and exchange information with other families of detainees or missing persons,” the report highlights.

      There have also been consistent allegations of deaths in custody. The bodies of hundreds of individuals taken and held by armed groups have been uncovered in streets, hospitals, and rubbish dumps, many with bound limbs and marks of torture and gunshot wounds.

      “The widespread prolonged arbitrary and unlawful detention and endemic human rights abuses in custody in Libya require urgent action by the Libyan authorities, with support from the international community,” the report says. Such action needs to provide redress to victims and their families, and to prevent the repetition of such crimes.

      “As a first step, the State and non-State actors that effectively control territory and exercise government-like functions must release those detained arbitrarily or otherwise unlawfully deprived of their liberty. All those lawfully detained must be transferred to official prisons under effective and exclusive State control,” it says.

      The report calls on the authorities to publicly and unequivocally condemn torture, ill-treatment and summary executions of those detained, and ensure accountability for such crimes.

      “Failure to act will not only inflict additional suffering on thousands of detainees and their families and lead to further loss of life. It will also be detrimental to any stabilization, peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts,” it concludes.

      http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22931&LangID=E

      Lien vers le #rapport du #OHCHR :


      http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/LY/AbuseBehindBarsArbitraryUnlawful_EN.pdf
      #détention_arbitraire #torture #décès #morts #détention

    • L’inferno libico nelle poesie di #Segen

      #Tesfalidet_Tesfom è il vero nome del migrante eritreo morto il giorno dopo il suo sbarco a Pozzallo del 12 marzo dalla nave Proactiva della ong spagnola Open Arms. Dopo aver lottato tra la vita e la morte all’ospedale maggiore di Modica nel suo portafogli sono state ritrovate delle bellissime e strazianti poesie. In esclusiva su Vita.it la sua storia e le sue poesie


      http://www.vita.it/it/story/2018/04/10/linferno-libico-nelle-poesie-di-segen/210
      #poésie

      Les poésies de Segen :

      Non ti allarmare fratello mio
      Non ti allarmare fratello mio,
dimmi, non sono forse tuo fratello?

      Perché non chiedi notizie di me?
      
È davvero così bello vivere da soli,

      se dimentichi tuo fratello al momento del bisogno?
      Cerco vostre notizie e mi sento soffocare
      
non riesco a fare neanche chiamate perse,

      chiedo aiuto,
      
la vita con i suoi problemi provvisori
      
mi pesa troppo.
      Ti prego fratello, prova a comprendermi,
      
chiedo a te perché sei mio fratello,
      
ti prego aiutami,
      
perché non chiedi notizie di me, non sono forse tuo fratello?
      Nessuno mi aiuta,
      
e neanche mi consola,

      si può essere provati dalla difficoltà,
      
ma dimenticarsi del proprio fratello non fa onore,
      
il tempo vola con i suoi rimpianti,

      io non ti odio,

      ma è sempre meglio avere un fratello.
      No, non dirmi che hai scelto la solitudine,

      se esisti e perché ci sei
 con le tue false promesse,

      mentre io ti cerco sempre,
      saresti stato così crudele se fossimo stati figli dello stesso sangue?
      

Ora non ho nulla,
      
perché in questa vita nulla ho trovato,

      se porto pazienza non significa che sono sazio
      
perché chiunque avrà la sua ricompensa,
      
io e te fratello ne usciremo vittoriosi 
affidandoci a Dio.

      Tempo sei maestro
      Tempo sei maestro
      per chi ti ama e per chi ti è nemico,
      sai distiunguere il bene dal male,
      chi ti rispetta
      e chi non ti dà valore.
      Senza stancarti mi rendi forte,
      mi insegni il coraggio,
      quante salite e discese abbiamo affrontato,
      hai conquistato la vittoria
      ne hai fatto un capolavoro.
      Sei come un libro, l’archivio infinito del passato
      solo tu dirai chi aveva ragione e chi torto,
      perché conosci i caratteri di ognuno,
      chi sono i furbi, chi trama alle tue spalle,
      chi cerca una scusa,
      pensando che tu non li conosci.
      Vorrei dirti ciò che non rende l’uomo
      un uomo
      finché si sta insieme tutto va bene,
      ti dice di essere il tuo compagno d’infanzia
      ma nel momento del bisogno ti tradisce.
      Ogni giorno che passa, gli errori dell’uomo sono sempre di più,
      lontani dalla Pace,
      presi da Satana,
      esseri umani che non provano pietà
      o un po’ di pena,
      perché rinnegano la Pace
      e hanno scelto il male.
      Si considerano superiori, fanno finta di non sentire,
      gli piace soltanto apparire agli occhi del mondo.
      Quando ti avvicini per chiedere aiuto
      non ottieni nulla da loro,
      non provano neanche un minimo dispiacere,
      però gente mia, miei fratelli,
      una sola cosa posso dirvi:
      nulla è irragiungibile,
      sia che si ha tanto o niente,
      tutto si può risolvere
      con la fede in Dio.
      Ciao, ciao
      Vittoria agli oppressi

    • Vidéo : des migrants échappent à l’enfer libyen en lançant un appel sur #WhatsApp

      Un groupe de migrants nigérians enfermés dans un centre de détention à #Zaouïa, en Libye, est parvenu à filmer une vidéo montrant leurs conditions de vie et appelant à l’aide leur gouvernement en juillet 2018. Envoyée à un ami sur WhatsApp, elle est devenue virale et a été transmise aux Observateurs de France 24. L’organisation internationale pour les migrations a ensuite pu organiser un vol pour les rapatrier au Nigéria. Aujourd’hui sains et saufs, ils racontent ce qu’ils ont vécu.


      http://observers.france24.com/fr/20180928-libye-nigeria-migrants-appel-whatsapp-secours-oim-video
      #réseaux_sociaux #téléphone_portable #smartphone

      Commentaire de Emmanuel Blanchard via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Au-delà du caractère exceptionnel et « spectaculaire » de cette vidéo, l’article montre bien en creux que les Etats européens et l’#OIM cautionnent et financent de véritables #geôles, sinon des centre de tortures. Le #centre_de_détention #Al_Nasr n’est en effet pas une de ces prisons clandestines tenues par des trafiquant d’êtres humains. Si les institutions et le droit ont un sens en Libye, ce centre est en effet « chapeauté par le gouvernement d’entente nationale libyen – soutenu par l’Occident – via son service de combat contre l’immigration illégale (#DCIM) ». L’OIM y effectue d’ailleurs régulièrement des actions humanitaires et semble y organiser des opérations de retour, telles qu’elles sont préconisées par les Etats européens voulant rendre hermétiques leurs frontières sud.
      Quant au DCIM, je ne sais pas si son budget est précisément connu mais il ne serait pas étonnant qu’il soit abondé par des fonds (d’Etats) européens.

      #IOM

    • ’He died two times’: African migrants face death in Libyan detention centres

      Most of those held in indefinite detention were intercepted in the Mediterranean by EU-funded Libyan coastguard.

      Four young refugees have died in Libya’s Zintan migrant detention centre since mid-September, according to other detainees, who say extremely poor conditions, including a lack of food and medical treatment, led to the deaths.

      The fatalities included a 22-year-old Eritrean man, who died last weekend, according to two people who knew him.

      Most of the refugees detained in centres run by Libya’s #Department_for-Combatting_Illegal_Immigration (#DCIM) were returned to Libya by the EU-backed coastguard, after trying to reach Europe this year.

      The centre in #Zintan, 180 km southwest of Tripoli, was one of the locations the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) moved refugees and migrants to after clashes broke out in the capital in August. Nearly 1,400 refugees and migrants were being held there in mid-September, according to UNHCR.

      “At this detention centre, we are almost forgotten,” detainee there said on Wednesday.

      Other aid organisations, including Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), criticised the decision to move detainees out of Tripoli at the time.

      “Transferring detainees from one detention centre to another within the same conflict zone cannot be described as an evacuation and it is certainly not a solution,” MSF Libya head of mission Ibrahim Younis said. “The resources and mechanisms exist to bring these people to third countries where their claims for asylum or repatriation can be duly processed. That’s what needs to happen right now, without delay. This is about saving lives.”

      UNHCR couldn’t confirm the reports, but Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean, Vincent Cochetel, said: “I am saddened by the news of the alleged death of migrants and refugees in detention. Renewed efforts must be made by the Libyan authorities to provide alternatives to detention, to ensure that people are not detained arbitrarily and benefit from the legal safeguards and standards of treatment contained in the Libyan legislation and relevant international instruments Libya is party to.”

      The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which also works in Libya, did not respond to a request for confirmation or comment. DCIM was not reachable.

      Tens of thousands of refugees and migrants have been locked in indefinite detention by Libyan authorities since Italy and Libya entered into a deal in February 2017, aimed at stopping Africans from reaching Europe across the Mediterranean.

      People in the centres are consistently deprived of food and water, according to more than a dozen detainees in touch with The National from centres across Tripoli. One centre holding more than 200 people has gone the last eight days without food, according to a man being held there.

      Sanitation facilities are poor and severe overcrowding is common. Though the majority of detainees are teenagers or in their twenties, many suffer from ongoing health problems caused or exacerbated by the conditions.

      Aid agencies and researchers in Libya say the lack of a centralised registration system for detainees makes it impossible to track the number of deaths that are happening across “official” Libyan detention centres.

      Earlier this month, a man in his twenties died in Triq al Sikka detention centre in Tripoli, Libya, from an illness that was either caused or exacerbated by the harsh conditions in the centre, as well as a lack of medical attention, according to two fellow detainees.

      One detainee in Triq al Sikka told The National that six others have died there this year, two after being taken to hospital and the rest inside the centre. Four were Eritrean, and three, including a woman, were from Somalia.

      Another former detainee from the same centre told The National he believes the death toll is much higher than that. Earlier this year, the Eritrean man said he tried to tell a UNHCR staff member about the deaths through the bars of the cell he was being held in, but he wasn’t sure if she was listening. The National received no response after contacting the staff member he named.


      https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/he-died-two-times-african-migrants-face-death-in-libyan-detention-centre

    • Migranti torturati, violentati e lasciati morire in un centro di detenzione della polizia in Libia, tre fermi a Messina

      A riconoscere e denunciare i carcerieri sono state alcune delle vittime, arrivate in Italia con la nave Alex di Mediterranea. Per la prima volta viene contestato il reato di tortura. Patronaggio: «Crimini contro l’umanità, agire a livello internazionale». Gli orrori a #Zawiya, in una struttura ufficiale gestita dalle forze dell’ordine di Tripoli

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/09/16/news/migranti_torture_sui_profughi_in_libia_tre_fermi_a_messina-236123857
      #crimes_contre_l'humanité #viols #justice

    • Torture, rape and murder: inside Tripoli’s refugee detention camps

      Europe poured in aid to help migrants in Libya – but for thousands, life is still hellish and many prefer to risk staying on the streets

      Men press anxious faces against the chicken-wire fence of Triq-al-Sikka migrant detention camp in downtown Tripoli as I enter. “Welcome to hell,” says a Moroccan man, without a smile.

      Triq-al-Sikka is home to 300 men penned into nightmare conditions. Several who are sick lie motionless on dirty mattresses in the yard, left to die or recover in their own time. Three of the six toilets are blocked with sewage, and for many detainees, escape is out of the question as they have no shoes.

      It wasn’t supposed to be this way. After reports of torture and abuse in detention centres, and wanting to stop the flow of people across the Mediterranean, the European Union has since 2016 poured more than £110m into improving conditions for migrants in Libya. But things are now worse than before.

      Among the inmates is Mohammed, from Ghana. In July, he survived an air strike on another centre, in Tajoura on the capital’s south-western outskirts, that killed 53 of his fellow migrants. After surviving on the streets, last month he got a place on a rickety smuggler boat heading for Europe. But it was intercepted by the coastguard. Mohammed fell into the sea and was brought back to this camp. His blue jumper is still stained by sea salt. He is desperate to get word to his wife. “The last time we spoke was the night I tried to cross the sea,” he says. “The soldiers took my money and phone. My wife does not know where I am, whether I am alive or dead.”

      Triq-al-Sikka’s conditions are harsh, but other centres are worse. Inmates tell of camps where militias storm in at night, dragging migrants away to be ransomed back to their families. Tens of thousands of migrants are spread across this city, many sleeping in the streets. Dozens bed down each night under the arches of the city centre’s freeway. Since April, in a sharp escalation of the civil war, eastern warlord Khalifa Haftar has been trying to batter his way into the city in fighting that has left more than 1,000 dead and left tens of thousands of citizens homeless.

      Libya has known nothing but chaos since the 2011 revolution that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. In 2014, a multi-sided civil war broke out. Taking advantage of this chaos, smugglers transformed Libya into a hub for migrants from three continents trying to reach Europe. But after more than half a million arrivals, European governments have tightened the rules.

      This clampdown is obvious at the gates of a nondescript fenced compound holding white shipping containers in the city centre. It is the UN’s refugee Gathering and Departure Facility, nicknamed Hotel GDF by the migrants. From here, a select few who qualify for asylum get flights via Niger and Rwanda to Europe. But there are 45,000 registered migrants, and in the past year only 2,300 seats on flights for migrants – which have now stopped altogether, with Europe offering no more places. Yet dozens line up outside each day hoping for that magical plane ticket.

      Among those clustered at the fence is Nafisa Saed Musa, 44, who has been a refugee for more than half her life: In 2003, her village in Sudan’s Darfur region was burned down. Her husband and two of her three sons were killed and she fled. After years spent in a series of African refugee camps with her son Abdullah, 27, she joined last year with 14 other Sudanese families, pooling their money, and headed for Libya.

      In southern Libya, Abdullah was arrested by a militia who demanded 5,000 dinars (£2,700) to release him. It took two months to raise the cash, and Abdullah shows marks of torture inflicted on him, some with a branding iron, some with cigarettes. They all left a charity shelter after local residents complained about the presence of migrants, and now Nafisa and her son sleep on the street on dirty mattresses, scrounging cardboard to protect from the autumnal rains, across the street from Hotel GDF. “I have only one dream: a dignified life. I dream of Europe for my son.”

      Nearby is Namia, from Sudan, cradling her six-month-old baby daughter, clad in a pink and white babygrow. Her husband was kidnapped by a militia in February and never seen again and she makes frequent trips here asking the UN to look for him. “I hope he is in a detention centre, I hope he is alive.”

      Last week, 200 migrants, kicked out of a detention camp in the south of Tripoli, marched on Hotel GDF and forced their way inside, joining 800 already camped there, in a base designed to hold a maximum of 600.

      The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which administers the centre, says it has no more flights, unless outside states offer asylum places: “We cannot reinforce the asylum systems there because it is a country at war,” says UNHCR official Filippo Grandi.

      Meanwhile, escape by sea is being closed off, thanks to a controversial deal Italy made with Libya two years ago, in which Rome has paid €90m to train the coastguard. The deal has drastically cut arrivals in Italy from 181,000 in 2016 to 9,300 so far this year, with the coastguard intercepting most smuggling craft and sending migrants on board to detention camps.

      “We have collected testimonies of torture, rape and murder in detention camps,” says Oxfam’s Paolo Pezzati. “The agreement the Italian government signed with Libya in February 2017 has allowed these untold violations.”

      Rome has faced criticism because among the coastguard leaders whose units it funds is Abd al-Rahman Milad, despite his being accused by the UN of being involved in sinking migrant boats and collaborating with people-smugglers. Tripoli says it issued an arrest warrant against him in April, but this is news to Milad. Bearded, well-built and uniformed, he tells me he is back at work and is innocent: “I have nothing to do with trafficking, I am one of the best coastguards in Libya.”

      For migrants and Libyans alike, the outside world’s attitude is a puzzle: it sends aid and scolds Libya for mistreatment, yet offers no way out for migrants. “You see [UN officials] on television, shouting that they no longer want to see people die at sea. I wonder what is the difference between seeing them dying in the sea and letting them die in the middle of a street?” says Libyan Red Crescent worker Assad al-Jafeer, who tours the streets offering aid to migrants. “The men risk being kidnapped and forced to fight by militias, the women risk being taken away and sexually abused.”

      Recent weeks have seen nightly bombing in an air war waged with drones. Women, fearing rape, often sleep on the streets close to police stations for safety, but this brings new danger. “They think 50 metres from a police base is close enough to protect themselves,” says al-Jafeer. “But they are the first targets to be bombed.”

      Interior ministry official Mabrouk Abdelahfid was appointed six months ago and tasked with closing or improving detention centres, but admits reform is slow. He says many camps are outside government control and that the UN has provided no alternative housing for migrants when camps close: “We have already closed three [detention] centres. We believe that in the nine centres under our formal control there are more or less 6,000 people.”

      A common theme among migrants here is a crushing sense of being unwanted and of no value, seen even by aid agencies as an inconvenience. For now, migrants can only endure, with no end in sight for the war. Haftar and Tripoli’s defenders continue slugging it out along a front line snaking through the southern suburbs and few diplomats expect a breakthrough at peace talks being hosted in Berlin later this month.

      Outside Hotel GDF, dusk signals the end of another day with no news of flights and the migrants trudge away to sleep on the streets. To the south, the flashes from the night’s bombardment light up the sky.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/03/libya-migrants-tripoli-refugees-detention-camps?CMP=share_btn_tw

    • Torture nei campi di detenzione: le nuove immagini choc

      Donna appesa a testa in giù e presa a bastonate: le cronache dell’orrore dal lager di #Bani_Walid, in Libia. Sei morti in due mesi. Spuntano i nomi degli schiavisti: «Ci stuprano e ci uccidono»

      Una giovane eritrea appesa a testa in giù urla mentre viene bastonata ripetutamente nella «#black_room», la sala delle torture presente in molti centri libici per migranti. Il video choc - di cui riportiamo solo alcuni fermo immagine - è stato spedito via smartphone ai familiari della sventurata che devono trovare i soldi per riscattarla e salvarle la vita.
      È quello che accade a Bani Walid, centro di detenzione informale, in mano alle milizie libiche. Ma anche nei centri ufficiali di detenzione, dove i detenuti sono sotto la «protezione» delle autorità di Tripoli pagata dall’Ue e dall’Italia: la situazione sta precipitando con cibo scarso, nessuna assistenza medica, corruzione. In Libia l’Unhcr ha registrato 40mila rifugiati e richiedenti asilo, 6mila dei quali sono rinchiusi nel sistema formato dai 12 centri di detenzione ufficiali, il resto in centri come Bani Walid o in strada. In tutto, stima il «Global detention project», vi sarebbero 33 galere. Vi sono anche detenuti soprattutto africani non registrati la cui stima è impossibile.

      La vita della ragazza del Corno d’Africa appesa, lo abbiamo scritto sette giorni fa, vale 12.500 dollari. Ma nessuno interviene e continuano le cronache dell’orrore da Bani Walid, unanimente considerato il più crudele luogo di tortura della Libia. Un altro detenuto eritreo è morto qui negli ultimi giorni per le torture inferte con bastone, coltello e scariche elettriche perché non poteva pagare. In tutto fanno sei morti in due mesi. Stavolta non siamo riusciti a conoscere le sue generalità e a dargli almeno dignità nella morte. Quando si apre la connessione con l’inferno vicino a noi, arrivano sullo smartphone con il ronzio di un messaggio foto disumane e disperate richieste di aiuto, parole di angoscia e terrore che in Italia e nella Ue abbiamo ignorato girando la testa o incolpando addirittura le vittime.

      «Mangiamo un pane al giorno e uno alla sera, beviamo un bicchiere d’acqua sporca a testa. Non ci sono bagni», scrive uno di loro in un inglese stentato. «Fate in fretta, aiutateci, siamo allo stremo», prosegue. Il gruppo dei 66 prigionieri eritrei che da oltre due mesi è nelle mani dei trafficanti libici si è ridotto a 60 persone stipate nel gruppo di capannoni che formano il mega centro di detenzione in campagna nel quartiere di Tasni al Harbi, alla periferia della città della tribù dei Warfalla, situata nel distretto di Misurata, circa 150 chilometri a sud-est di Tripoli. Lager di proprietà dei trafficanti, inaccessibile all’Unhcr in un crocevia delle rotte migratorie da sud (Sebha) ed est (Kufra) per raggiungere la costa, dove quasi tutti i migranti in Libia si sono fermati e hanno pagato un riscatto per imbarcarsi. Lo conferma lo studio sulla politica economica dei centri di detenzione in Libia commissionato dall’Ue e condotto da «Global Initiative against transnational organized crime» con l’unico mezzo per ora disponibile, le testimonianze dei migranti arrivati in Europa.

      I sequestratori, ci hanno più volte confermato i rifugiati di Eritrea democratica contattati per primi dai connazionali prigionieri, li hanno comperati dal trafficante eritreo Abuselam «Ferensawi», il francese, uno dei maggiori mercanti di carne umana in Libia oggi sparito probabilmente in Qatar per godersi i proventi dei suoi crimini. Bani Walid, in base alle testimonianze raccolte anche dall’avvocato italiano stanziato a Londra Giulia Tranchina, è un grande serbatoio di carne umana proveniente da ogni parte dell’Africa, dove i prigionieri vengono separati per nazionalità. Il prezzo del riscatto varia per provenienza e sta salendo in vista del conflitto. Gli africani del Corno valgono di più per i trafficanti perché somali ed eritrei hanno spesso parenti in occidente che sentono molto i vincoli familiari e pagano. Tre mesi fa, i prigionieri eritrei valevano 10mila dollari, oggi 2.500 dollari in più perché alla borsa della morte la quotazione di chi fugge e viene catturato o di chi prolunga la permanenza per insolvenza e viene più volte rivenduto, sale. Il pagamento va effettuato via money transfer in Sudan o in Egitto.

      Dunque quello che accade in questo bazar di esseri umani è noto alle autorità libiche, ai governi europei e all’Unhcr. Ma nessuno può o vuole fare niente. Secondo le testimonianze di alcuni prigionieri addirittura i poliziotti libici in divisa entrano in alcune costruzioni a comprare detenuti africani per farli lavorare nei campi o nei cantieri come schiavi.
      «Le otto ragazze che sono con noi – prosegue il messaggio inviato dall’inferno da uno dei 60 prigionieri eritrei – vengono picchiate e violentate. Noi non usciamo per lavorare. I carcerieri sono tre e sono libici. Il capo si chiama Hamza, l’altro si chiama Ashetaol e del terzo conosciamo solo il soprannome: Satana». Da altre testimonianze risulta che il boia sia in realtà egiziano e abbia anche un altro nome, Abdellah. Avrebbe assassinato molti detenuti.

      Ma anche nei centri di detenzione pubblici in Libia, la situazione resta perlomeno difficile. Persino nel centro Gdf di Tripoli dell’Acnur per i migranti in fase di ricollocamento gestito dal Ministero dell’Interno libico e dal partner LibAid dove i migranti lasciati liberi da altri centri per le strade della capitale libica a dicembre hanno provato invano a chiedere cibo e rifugio. Il 31 dicembre l’Associated Press ha denunciato con un’inchiesta che almeno sette milioni di euro stanziati dall’Ue per la sicurezza, sono stati intascati dal capo di una milizia e vice direttore del dipartimento libico per il contrasto all’immigrazione. Si tratta di Mohammed Kachlaf, boss del famigerato Abd Al-Rahman Al-Milad detto Bija, che avrebbe accompagnato in Italia nel viaggio documentato da Nello Scavo su Avvenire. È finito sulla lista nera dei trafficanti del consiglio di sicurezza Onu che in effetti gli ha congelato i conti.

      Ma non è servito a nulla. L’agenzia ha scoperto che metà dei dipendenti di LibAid sono prestanome a libro paga delle milizie e dei 50 dinari (35 dollari) al giorno stanziati dall’Unhcr per forniture di cibo a ciascun migrante, ne venivano spesi solamente 2 dinari mentre i pasti cucinati venìvano redistribuiti tra le guardie o immessi nel mercato nero. Secondo l’inchiesta i danari inoltre venivano erogati a società di subappalto libiche gestite dai miliziani con conti correnti in Tunisia, dove venivano cambiati in valuta locale e riciclati. Una email interna dell’agenzia delle Nazioni Unite rivela come tutti ne fossero al corrente, ma non potessero intervenire. L’Acnur ha detto di aver eliminato dal primo gennaio il sistema dei subappalti.

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/torture-libia

  • #Cambodia: Appeal Court should overturn unfair conviction of land rights defender #TepVanny, say international CSOs

    We, the undersigned, call on the Court of Appeal to overturn the unjust conviction of Ms. #Tep_Vanny on charges of intentional violence with aggravating circumstances based on her peaceful activism at a 2013 protest, for which she received a draconian sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment on 23 February 2017. The Court of Appeal will hear Ms. Tep Vanny’s appeal against conviction tomorrow, 27 July 2017. On 15 August 2017, Ms. Tep Vanny will have spent one year in detention; her imprisonment is a clear attempt to silence one of Cambodia’s most fearless and outspoken defenders of human rights ahead of the national elections in July 2018.
    Tomorrow’s appeal is one of three previously dormant years-old cases punitively reactivated against Ms. Tep Vanny. In August 2016 the prosecutor of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court reactivated the long-
    dormant charges of intentional violence with aggravating circumstances against Ms. Tep Vanny while she was in pre-trial detention prior to her spurious conviction on other charges for taking part in a “#Black_Monday” protest to call for the release of the “#Freethe5KH” detainees,1 who were being held in arbitrary
    pre-trial detention at the time.2 The case under appeal dates back to Ms. Tep Vanny’s participation in a 2013 peaceful protest in front of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s house, during which a group of #Boeung_Kak_Lake activists called for the release of a detained fellow community member. This protest had ended in violence against protesters at the hands of Daun Penh security guards, in which Ms. Tep Vanny herself was injured.
    On 23 February 2017, Ms. Tep Vanny was convicted on these charges and sentenced to 30 months in prison and a fine of five million riel (about US$1,250), as well as being ordered to pay compensation totaling nine million riel (about US$2,250) to the plaintiffs, two Daun Penh security guards.
    Ms. Tep Vanny’s trial did not comply with international standards for fair trial rights: no credible evidence was presented to justify the charges against her and neither the plaintiffs nor any prosecution witnesses gave live testimony at either of the two hearings; instead only written statements were provided, preventing cross-examination. Community members outside the court faced unprovoked violence from para-police and, following delivery of the verdict, riot police entered the court room and physically restrained a number of defense witnesses.3
    The re-opening of these charges appears to be a politically motivated attempt to restrict and punish Ms. Tep Vanny’s work as a land activist and human rights defender, as part of the Cambodian authorities’
    ongoing crackdown on dissenting voices. Peaceful assembly and free expression are not crimes, and human rights defenders should not be penalized for peacefully exercising their fundamental freedoms. We call on the Court of Appeal to exercise its independence and rectify the injustice of Ms. Tep Vanny’s flawed trial by overturning her conviction and sentence. We call on the Cambodian authorities to cease their judicial harassment of Ms. Tep Vanny, as well as other Boeung Kak Lake activists, and to release her from prison.


    http://cchrcambodia.org/index_old.php?title=-CSOs-call-on-Appeal-Court-to-overturn-the-unjust-conviction-of-land-activist-and-human-rights-defender-Tep-Vanny&url=media/media.php&p=press_detail.php&prid=668&id=5&lang=eng
    #Cambodge #droits_humains #détention #détention_arbitraire #répression #résistance

  • Final report of the Panel of Experts on Libya established pursuant to resolution 1973 (2011)

    The Panel’s monitoring of the political transition in Libya has focused on the incomplete implementation of the Libyan Political Agreement in the absence of its endorsement by the House of Representatives. This has undermined the legitimacy of the Government of National Accord, nominated by the Presidency Council. The rival Prime Ministers, Abdallah al-Thinni and Khalifa al-Ghweil, continue to challenge the leadership of the country by the Chair of the Presidency Council, Fayez al-Serraj. The Presidency Council has also had great difficulty in implementing social and economic policies, further strengthening the armed and unarmed opposition to its authority.

    To overcome the political stalemate, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya drafted a new road map in October 2016 to amend the Libyan Political Agreement. This led to a regional dialogue initiative sponsored by Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia. However, regional divisions continue to constitute an obstacle to a political solution in Libya.

    The political crisis has been further exacerbated by escalating armed conflict. In spite of the liberation of Sirte and segments of Benghazi from Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, the overall security situation in Libya has deteriorated. Indicative of the insecurity is the growing competition in Tripoli between Misratah- and Tripoli-affiliated armed groups, which has undermined the authority of the Presidency Council and threatened the safety of the capital’s residents.

    Military operations by the Libyan National Army, the Benghazi Defence Brigades and Misratan armed groups in the south and the oil crescent have exposed local populations to increasing violence, including through air strikes. Further threats to security documented by the Panel have included the recruitment of foreign mercenaries by armed groups and the persistent activity of extremist movements.

    Armed groups, some of which have received a mandate or at least recognition from the House of Representatives or the Presidency Council, have not been subject to any meaningful judicial control. This has further increased their involvement in violations of human rights, including kidnappings, arbitrary detentions and summary executions. Cases investigated by the Panel include abuses against Libyan residents of Tripoli and Benghazi, prisoners of war and migrants.

    The Panel documented several instances in which armed groups were involved in actual or potential violations of the arms embargo. These groups’ continuing access to military equipment and related material is also reflected in the escalation of armed conflicts, notably through air strikes. In that respect, the Panel has documented how armed groups from eastern Libya and Misratah have multiplied their air force capacity through transfers of materiel, the refurbishment of previously unserviceable aircraft and the expansion of military airbases. The foreign support for both factions is also highlighted.

    Furthermore, the Panel found evidence of several deliveries, in violation of the arms embargo, of what is often described as non-lethal materiel. The deployment and use of such materiel in the Libyan context has significantly increased insecurity and has undoubtedly led to additional casualties. This is notably the case for (armoured) vehicles and electronic interception equipment.

    In the absence of arms and ammunition management capacity, the risk of diversion remains a major concern, justifying the need for a robust arms embargo. Libyan armed groups engage in arms trafficking both within the country and across its borders, and Libya remains an important hub for illicit arms flows to neighbouring countries. The Panel has documented arms seizures in the Niger and Tunisia, while the lack of access to seizures in other countries remains a problem.

    The Panel finds that the key financial and economic institutions of Libya remain divided and suffer from a lack of oversight and cases of misappropriation. The Presidency Council has been divided over the organization of and appointments in several institutions, and its decisions have been challenged. As a consequence, the loyalty of staff is still divided between the competing authorities, which have each tried to make their own appointments. The divisions continue to threaten the stability of Libya, as shown by the controversy over Central Bank of Libya policies in Tripoli and several unilateral actions taken by its eastern branch.

    The Panel has identified rival managements and their political backers, who continue to attempt to strengthen their position through various strategies, including legal action and support from armed groups. In Tripoli, the interference of armed groups with the management and finances of institutions such as the Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Post, Telecommunication and Information Technology Company is worrying and untenable.

    In contrast to these negative developments, the country’s oil sector has stabilized. The warring parties in the oil crescent have largely refrained from damaging oil installations, and they have consistently given authority over the terminals to the National Oil Corporation management, even though control over the region has changed hands repeatedly. Unfortunately, and despite significant efforts by both their managements, the implementation of an agreement to reunite the eastern and western National Oil Corporations failed. Nevertheless, the efforts have resulted in increased oil production.

    The continuing division of the National Oil Corporation will likely lead to renewed attempts to illicitly export crude oil. Sanctions under resolution 2146 (2014) were successfully implemented on one occasion. Meanwhile, the eastern National Oil Corporation has made a first attempt to smuggle a shipment of oil derivatives out of Libya.

    Armed groups and criminal networks continue to exploit different sources of financing, such as the smuggling of migrants and fuel. The Panel has identified networks along the western coastline, which are active in both.

    Several investigations on the asset freeze show the complexity of the finances available to some listed individuals, the beneficiary ownership of which is hidden behind numerous front men and front companies. They also show that transactions in favour of listed individuals are sometimes handled through large sums of cash. In addition, the Panel investigated stolen Libyan assets that were under the control of a listed individual, or at risk of misappropriation, or both. The identification and possible recovery of all these funds will require significant resources and a dedicated effort. This will require the empowerment of Libyan investigators through an indisputable mandate from an uncontested authority.

    http://reliefweb.int/report/libya/final-report-panel-experts-libya-established-pursuant-resolution-1973-201
    #rapport #Libye #détention #détention_arbitraire #prisonniers_de_guerre #armes #commerce_d'armes #pétrole

    Ici un article sur les paragraphes du rapport qui concernent les #migrations :
    https://migrantsatsea.org/2017/06/14/un-report-documents-extensive-and-grave-human-rights-violations-by-li
    #gardes-côtes #Zawiya #asile #réfugiés #smugglers #passeurs

  • #Ukraine : #torture et #détention_secrète utilisées par les deux camps

    Dans l’est de l’Ukraine, les autorités ukrainiennes et les séparatistes soutenus par la Russie soumettent des civils à une #détention_arbitraire, prolongée et parfois secrète, ainsi qu’à la torture.

    http://www.amnesty.fr/Nos-campagnes/Crises-et-conflits-armes/Actualites/Ukraine-torture-et-detention-secrete-utilisees-par-les-deux-camps-18841