• Politiques migratoires : « Des dispositifs mortels, dont l’effet est de tuer pour dissuader »

    Les textes composant le Pacte migratoire européen devraient être votés à Bruxelles d’ici mercredi 10 avril. Ils pourraient réduire considérablement les droits des personnes en exil qui tenteraient de rejoindre l’Union européenne.

    Renforcer les contrôles aux frontières, procéder au tri des exilé·es aux portes de l’Union européenne, traiter les procédures d’asile en accéléré, expulser plus rapidement les « indésirables » ou encourager les logiques d’externalisation…

    Les textes qui composent le pacte migratoire européen sont actuellement débattus au Parlement européen et doivent être votés mercredi 10 avril. Censé répondre à la crise de l’accueil qu’a connue l’Europe en 2015, il est largement rejeté par la gauche et les ONG, mais a toutes les chances d’être adopté après plus de deux ans de tractations.

    Pourquoi a-t-il été aussi difficile d’aboutir sur un tel pacte ? Que va-t-il changer pour les personnes exilées ? Comment en contrer les potentiels effets négatifs ?

    Nos invitées pour en débattre :

    - #Rima_Hassan, candidate LFI aux élections européennes, juriste et fondatrice de l’Observatoire des camps de réfugiés ;
    - #Sophie-Anne_Bisiaux, membre du réseau Migreurop, spécialiste des questions liées à l’externalisation, notamment en Afrique du Nord ;
    - #Sophie_Djigo, philosophe, fondatrice du collectif Migraction59 dans le nord de la France, autrice de Penser avec la frontière (Éditions d’une rive à l’autre).

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/090424/politiques-migratoires-des-dispositifs-mortels-dont-l-effet-est-de-tuer-po
    #pacte_européen_sur_la_migration_et_l’asile #pacte #Europe #pacte_migratoire #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #pression_migratoire #management_migratoire #triple_win #répression #administration_des_flux #exclusion #récupération #humanité #fermeté #enfermement #tri #militarisation_des_frontières #racisme #règlement_filtrage #filtrage #frontières #frontières_extérieures #détention #enfermement #fichage #empreintes_digitales #procédure_d'asile #procédure_à_la_frontière #procédure_accélérée #pays_sûrs #fiction_juridique_de_non-entrée #non-entrée #fiction_juridique #encampement #encampement_généralisé #répartition #répartition_de_solidarité #paternalisme_colonial #externalisation #externalisation_des_frontières #refoulements #push-backs
    #vidéo

  • Au #Royaume-Uni, #Rishi_Sunak obtient l’adoption de la loi sur l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda

    Au Royaume-Uni, Rishi Sunak fait plier la Chambre des lords et obtient la mise en œuvre de la loi sur l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile au #Rwanda

    Il aura fallu quatre mois au gouvernement britannique de Rishi Sunak pour faire adopter son projet de #loi « #Safety_of_Rwanda » (« sûreté du Rwanda »), notamment pour forcer la résistance des Lords au Parlement de Westminster. Ces derniers ont fini par lâcher prise juste après minuit, mardi 23 avril, permettant dans la foulée l’adoption par le Parlement de ce texte très contesté. Il déclare que le Rwanda est un pays sûr au regard de l’asile et permet ainsi la mise en œuvre, longtemps retardée, de l’accord de sous-traitance de demandeurs d’asile signé entre Londres et Kigali en avril 2022.
    Les avions pour le Rwanda pourront décoller « d’ici dix à douze semaines », en juillet, a promis Rishi Sunak lors d’une conférence à Downing Street, lundi, en amont des ultimes débats parlementaires. Des vols sur des compagnies aériennes commerciales ont été réservés, ainsi qu’un aéroport de départ, a assuré le premier ministre, depuis le pupitre barré d’un « stop the boats » (« stoppons les bateaux ») que sort Downing Street à chaque prise de parole sur les sujets migratoires. Considéré comme une priorité, l’accord Rwanda est un des derniers espoirs du dirigeant conservateur pour tenter de rattraper les travaillistes, en avance d’environ 20 points dans les sondages, à quelques mois des élections générales (très probablement cet automne).
    L’accord signé avec le Rwanda constitue une première en Europe et sa mise en œuvre est scrutée avec intérêt sur le continent. Il s’agit pour Londres de déporter dans ce pays d’Afrique de l’Est, à l’économie dynamique mais au régime considéré par beaucoup comme autoritaire, des personnes arrivées illégalement au Royaume-Uni (sans visa, en bateau ou cachés dans des camions). Ces personnes ne pourront réclamer l’asile que depuis le sol rwandais, qui examinera leur demande : il s’agit d’une délégation totale des responsabilités du Royaume-Uni vis-à-vis de l’asile. Le Rwanda, dirigé par le président Paul Kagame, a déjà obtenu environ 500 millions de livres sterling (580 millions d’euros) de Londres dans le cadre de l’accord.
    Déposé à la Chambre des communes en décembre 2023, le projet de loi « Safety of Rwanda » contourne une décision de la Cour suprême britannique, qui avait statué à l’unanimité, le 15 novembre 2023, que l’accord Rwanda était « illégal » car le Rwanda n’était pas un pays sûr : les demandeurs d’asile y sont exposés à un risque de refoulement vers leur pays d’origine. Jugé cruel par les associations de défense des droits des migrants, inquiétant pour de nombreux juristes, qui pointent des contradictions avec la convention européenne des droits de l’homme, le texte empêche les juges de questionner la sûreté du Rwanda en cas de recours des demandeurs d’asile contre leur expulsion. Il permet même aux ministres britanniques d’ignorer des mesures provisoires que prendrait la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme pour stopper des déportations.
    « Nous sommes les seuls à avoir un plan pour stopper les “small boats” [les bateaux pneumatiques traversant la Manche] », a affirmé lundi M. Sunak, assurant que le Labour « n’en a pas » et que le parti d’opposition « a tout fait pour faire dérailler le texte de loi ». « On m’accuse de manque de compassion, mais c’est tout le contraire, nous voulons créer une dissuasion permanente (…) avec un flux régulier de vols au Rwanda [pour décourager les traversées] et casser le modèle économique des passeurs », a ajouté le dirigeant, lui-même issu de l’immigration. Sa famille, d’origine indienne, est venue d’Afrique au Royaume-Uni dans les années 1960.
    Des dizaines de Lords – pas seulement des travaillistes, des dizaines de sans-étiquettes et pas mal d’évêques, membres de droit de la Chambre haute – ont tenté jusqu’au bout d’obtenir des concessions de Downing Street, espérant notamment l’adoption d’un amendement excluant les Afghans ayant travaillé pour l’armée britannique d’être déportés au Rwanda. Le Home Office n’a donné qu’une assurance verbale que ces Afghans ne seraient pas concernés. « L’accord Rwanda est un gadget exorbitant », a fustigé Yvette Cooper, la ministre de l’intérieur du cabinet fantôme travailliste – la gauche britannique a promis d’abandonner le texte si elle arrive au pouvoir.
    A l’autre bout du spectre politique, Nigel Farage, le président du parti d’extrême droite Reform UK, a qualifié le texte de loi de « totale mascarade », doutant de la volonté de M. Sunak de défier la convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Il est vrai que l’effet dissuasif de l’accord reste à prouver : il dépendra du nombre de personnes expulsées. Le risque d’une expulsion future au Rwanda n’a en tout cas pas encore découragé les traversées de la Manche, reparties à la hausse depuis le début de l’année, avec 25 % de passages supplémentaires par rapport à la même période l’an dernier. En 2023, 29 000 personnes étaient arrivées sur les côtes du Kent en bateaux pneumatiques.
    Même si le « Safety of Rwanda bill » limite les recours contre les expulsions, des appels seront quand même probablement recevables sur des motifs personnels (maladie, orientations sexuelles par exemple). Rishi Sunak assure être prêt : 150 juges et 25 cours de justice auraient été identifiés pour examiner ces appels en urgence, 500 personnes seraient chargées d’escorter les expulsés vers les avions. Mais des syndicats de fonctionnaires menacent de saisir la justice, s’inquiétant d’avoir à exécuter des décisions du Home Office potentiellement contraires aux obligations internationales du Royaume-Uni.
    Lundi, dans une déclaration commune, trois experts de l’ONU, Siobhan Mullally, la rapporteuse sur le trafic d’êtres humains, Gehad Madi, le rapporteur spécial sur les droits humains des migrants, et Alice Jill Edwards, la rapporteuse spéciale pour la torture, ont prévenu les compagnies aériennes transportant les demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda qu’elles risquaient, elles aussi, de se rendre complices de violations des droits humains.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/04/23/au-royaume-uni-rishi-sunak-fait-plier-la-chambre-des-lords-et-obtient-la-mis
    #UK #Angleterre #adoption

    déjà signalé par @veronique_petit :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1050871

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    elle-même ajouté à la métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Migranti, sui centri in Albania il governo smentisce se stesso. Pronti non prima di novembre

    In base al bando per la gestione avrebbero dovuto aprire a maggio, il ministero della Difesa prevede la consegna dei lavori per le strutture in autunno. I costi rischiano di arrivare a un miliardo di euro

    Inizio lavori 23 marzo, consegna prevista dopo 233 giorni, cioè il 10 novembre. Così si legge nella determina del ministero della Difesa che ha affidato al Genio militare la realizzazione dei centri per migranti in Albania. Che, però, stando alle intenzioni della premier Giorgia Meloni e soprattutto al bando per la gestione degli stessi centri, avrebbero dovuto aprire i battenti il 20 maggio, giusto in tempo per incassare il risultato di quella che il governo ritiene una soluzione innovativa per alleggerire l’Italia dall’onere dell’accoglienza dei migranti.

    Cantieri appena aperti, ci vorranno mesi

    Al porto di Shengjin e nell’ex base militare di Gjader, i lavori stanno appena muovendo i primi passi, siamo ai sopralluoghi che per altro starebbero rilevando una serie di difficoltà nel territorio. Impossibile che i centri siano pronti per maggio, ci vorranno mesi, passerà tutta l’estate. E, al di là della propaganda di governo, i primi documenti svelano il bluff dell’operazione Albania, i cui costi continuano a lievitare e rischiano di arrivare a sfiorare la cifra monstre di un miliardo di euro in cinque anni. Perchè alle cifre ufficiali, già elevatissime che ammontano a circa 150 milioni di euro all’anno moltiplicati per cinque anni, devono aggiungersi i costi non quantificabili: quelli rimborsabili a piè di lista, per i trasporti e la sanità e, per quel che riguarda le strutture i subappalti «senza limiti di spesa», come si legge appunto nella determina della Difesa.

    Fondi extrabudget dirottati dal Pnrr

    Anche i costi per realizzare i due centri, l’hotspot nel porto di Shengjin e il centro di detenzione per richiedenti asilo da 880 posti, con un’ala destinata a Cpr ( altri 144 posti) e un’altra a vero e proprio carcere ( da 20 posti), a Gjader, sono da considerarsi un extrabudget. I lavori affidati al Genio costeranno circa 65 milioni di euro. Soldi che, in parte, vengono prelevati da un disegno di legge che riguarda l’utilizzo dei fondi del Pnrr, come sottolineano i rappresentanti dell’opposizione. «Ogni giorno che passa è sempre più chiaro il bluff dell’accordo Italia Albania - dice Matteo Mauri che per il Ps ha seguito i lavori in commissione sul protocollo Albania - I costi aumentano ogni mese. In un decreto di marzo hanno aggiunto altri 65 milioni di euro, sfondando il tetto dei 700 milioni totali. Una cifra spropositata per fare una cosa completamente inutile».

    In aggiudicazione il bando per la gestione dei centri

    Nei prossimi giorni il ministero dell’Interno aggiudicherà la gara da 36 milioni di euro a base d’asta per la gestione dei centri. All’esame ci sono le offerte delle tre imprese selezionate sulle trenta partecipanti. Ancora da bandire invece quella per la fornitura dei moduli prefabbricati che saranno piazzati sulle aree quando il Genio e le imprese subappaltatrici avranno terminato di sbancarle, bonificarle, realizzare fogne e impianti, Senza limiti di spesa.

    https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2024/04/14/news/centri_migranti_albania_cpr_governo_meloni-422527456

    #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Albanie #accord #externalisation #centres

    –-

    Ajouté à la Métaliste sur l’#accord entre #Italie et #Albanie pour la construction de #centres d’accueil (sic) et identification des migrants/#réfugiés sur le territoire albanais...
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1043873

  • The pact kills : l’istituzionalizzazione della fine del diritto d’asilo nell’UE

    Un documento dell’Associazione #Open_Your_Borders di Padova sul nuovo patto europeo sulla migrazione e l’asilo.

    Il 10 aprile il Parlamento europeo ha approvato il Nuovo Patto sulla Migrazione e l’Asilo, frutto di un lungo negoziato cominciato nel 2020 tra Parlamento, Consiglio e Commissione.

    Prima di entrare in vigore, dovrà essere votato anche dal Consiglio dell’UE, l’organo in cui risiedono i rappresentanti dei governi dei 27 stati membri, la cui votazione è attesa entro la fine di aprile.

    In sintesi, questo Nuovo Patto prevede una serie di riforme del sistema di gestione dei flussi migratori e della richiesta di protezione internazionale nel territorio dell’Unione Europea e, in particolare, raccoglie al suo interno dieci proposte di legge che vanno brutalmente a rafforzare l’approccio securitario della ormai consolidata “fortezza Europa”, costituita dalle 27 nazioni, sulle 43 + 7 dell’Europa geografica.

    È evidente che i tempi e i contenuti di questa mossa hanno chiare motivazioni elettoralistiche in vista delle elezioni Europee, con il riposizionamento dei vari partiti nazionali in funzione sia della propria affermazione locale che della futura riaggregazione in probabili inedite coalizioni. Infatti “il Patto” è stato approvato trasversalmente con 301 voti favorevoli, 269 contrari e 51 astensioni.

    La coalizione di centrodestra governativa guidata da Giorgia Meloni è risultata non omogenea, con lo spostamento di Fratelli d’Italia (attualmente all’opposizione in Europa) a favore e con la Lega che ha confermato il proprio voto contrario, probabilmente perché considera la linea adottata troppo moderata e poco sovranista.

    Con motivazioni opposte, si sono schierati contrari anche il PD (che è organico dell’attuale maggioranza in UE) e il Movimento 5 stelle.

    Si rincorrono i toni trionfalistici per la “decisione storica” presa, dipinta come “un enorme risultato per l’Europa”, “un solido quadro legislativo su come affrontare la migrazione e l’asilo nell’Unione europea” e per una fantomatica e propagandistica “vittoria italiana” sottolineata da Meloni, nonostante il tanto criticato Regolamento di Dublino (per cui è il paese di primo ingresso l’unico responsabile di esaminare le richieste di protezione internazionale e di gestire e trattenere al suo interno le persone migranti) sia stato di fatto rafforzato.

    Noi, in questa giornata buia per il diritto d’asilo europeo e per la libertà di movimento internazionale, vediamo solo un consolidamento di pratiche di violazione dei diritti umani, che sono già attuate e condivise da parecchio tempo, sia alle frontiere che nei territori degli Stati dell’Unione Europea, in vista di quello che si prospetta come un inasprimento e allargamento del conflitto mediorientale e di una sempre maggiore instabilità di tutta l’area del Sahel (testimoniato da 7 colpi di Stato in pochi anni e dalla guerra solo apparentemente interna in Sudan che continua nell’indifferenza generale) dove si stanno giocando gli interessi egemonici in Africa dei due blocchi politici ed economici contrapposti, con Stati Uniti e Francia su tutti da un lato, e paesi Brics (Russia, Cina, India, ecc.) dall’altro.

    Con l’Unione Europa dal peso politico inconsistente tra le due parti e i suoi Stati membri che si percepiscono (erroneamente) come meta di approdo per tutti i movimenti di fuga delle popolazioni, i confini esterni dell’Unione diventano in primis la rappresentazione materiale da blindare assolutamente a scopo preventivo.

    Di seguito, analizziamo nello specifico le nuove norme per noi più critiche e problematiche.
    1) Procedure accelerate e sommarie per la richiesta di protezione internazionale

    Il Nuovo Patto divide in maniera importante i percorsi di richiesta di protezione internazionale, con l’applicazione di una procedura accelerata e generalizzata basata soprattutto sulla provenienza geografica legata alla classificazione dei cosiddetti “Stati sicuri” e non sulla storia individuale delle persone.

    Il testo prevede che tali procedure accelerate – che dovrebbero durare al massimo 12 settimane – siano svoltedirettamente nelle zone di frontiera, con il trattenimento di migliaia di persone in centri di detenzione posizionati ai confini degli Stati dell’Unione Europea.

    Lo svolgimento dell’esame approssimativo delle richieste sulla base della nazionalità porterà quindi ad un aumento generalizzato delle espulsioni, limitando la possibilità di richiesta di asilo, in violazione del principio internazionale del non respingimento, ma anche, ad esempio, al diritto alle cure mediche e al ricongiungimento familiare.

    Il criterio basato sullo Stato di provenienza è già stato eccezionalmente usato per velocizzare l’ingresso e l’integrazione diffusa delle persone rifugiate ucraine – però limitato a donne, bambin* e anzian*. Tale applicazione, causata dal conflitto Russia-Ucraina, che evidentemente ci tocca da vicino sia per posizione geografica che etnica, ha però contestualmente escluso l’evacuazione di tutti gli altri “non bianchi” presenti in quel territorio per motivi di lavoro, di studio o in transito migratorio. Anche per questo motivo, utilizzare solamente il criterio di provenienza geografica di origine senza considerare le specificità delle persone nelle procedure accelerate è funzionale alla negazione dell’asilo, in quanto arbitraria e strumentale da parte degli Stati.
    2) Un nuovo regolamento di screening (ovvero l’esercizio della bio-politica)

    Le persone richiedenti asilo non possono scegliere se seguire una procedura tradizionale (che richiede molti mesi) o accelerata, ma vengono divisi e indirizzati in base al loro profilo, stilato attraverso un nuovo e uniforme regolamento di screening obbligatorio inserito nell’Eurodac, creando così una enorme banca dati comune: questa “procedura di frontiera” preliminare, da farsi entro 7 giorni dall’arrivo, comprende identificazione, raccolta dei dati biometrici, controlli sanitari e di sicurezza, controllo di eventuali trasferimenti e precedenti, il tutto a partire dai 6 anni di età. Questa procedura sarà adottata principalmente per le persone richiedenti asilo che per qualche motivo vengono considerati un “pericolo” per i paesi dell’Unione, per coloro che provengono dai paesi considerati “sicuri” e per chi proviene da paesi che, anche per altri motivi, hanno un tasso molto basso (sotto il 20 per cento) di domande d’asilo accolte.
    3) Introduzione del concetto di “finzione del non ingresso”

    Il patto introduce il concetto di “finzione giuridica di non ingresso”, secondo il quale le zone di frontiera sono considerate come non parte del territorio degli Stati membri. Questo interessa in particolare l’Italia, la Grecia e la Spagna per gli sbarchi della rotta mediterranea, mentre sono più articolati “i confini” per la rotta balcanica. Durante le 12 settimane di attesa per l’esito della richiesta di asilo, le persone sono considerate legalmente “non presenti nel territorio dell’UE”, nonostante esse fisicamente lo siano (in centri di detenzione ai confini), non avranno un patrocinio legale gratuito per la pratica amministrativa e tempi brevissimi per il ricorso in caso di un primo diniego (e in quel caso rischiano anche di essere espulse durante l’attesa della decisione che li riguarda). In assenza di accordi con i paesi di origine (come nella maggioranza dei casi), le espulsioni avverranno verso i paesi di partenza.

    Tale concetto creadelle pericolose “zone grigie” in cui le persone in movimento, trattenute per la procedura accelerata di frontiera, non potranno muoversi sul territorio né tantomeno accedere a un supporto esterno. Tutto questo in spregio del diritto internazionale e della tutela della persona che, sulla carta, l’UE si propone(va) di difendere.
    4) L’istituzione di un meccanismo di “solidarietà obbligatoria” e l’esternalizzazione dei confini

    All’interno di una narrazione in cui le persone in movimento sono un onere da cui gli Stati Europei cercano di sottrarsi, viene istituito un meccanismo di “accettazione obbligatoria” di ricollocamento e trasferimento delle persone migranti, ma solo in caso di non precisate impennate di arrivi. Gli Stati potranno però scegliere se “accettare” un certo numero di migranti o, in alternativa all’accoglienza, fornire supporto operativo al paese d’arrivo, inviando del personale o mezzi, oppure pagare una quota di 20mila euro per ogni richiedente che si rifiutano di accogliere, da versare in un fondo comune dell’Unione Europea.

    I soldi versati in questo fondo comune, oltre a poter essere redistribuiti tra i paesi di frontiera (come l’Italia), potranno essere utilizzati per sostenere e finanziare «azioni nei paesi terzi o in relazione ad essi che hanno un impatto diretto sui flussi migratori verso l’UE» ossia paesi, come Libia e Tunisia da cui le persone migranti partono per raggiungere l’Europa.

    Un meccanismo disumanizzante e che trasforma le persone e le garanzie dei diritti umani in merci barattabili con un compenso economico destinabile a rafforzare i confini ancora più esternamente.

    Un ulteriore sviluppo è dato dalla delocalizzazione della zona di frontiera, attraverso la creazione di hotspot al di fuori dei confini nazionali, come nel caso dei futuri centri italiani in Albania.

    L’adozione di questo Nuovo Patto – non ancora definitivo, si ricorda – dimostra come i valori di accoglienza e “integrazione” e il diritto alla libertà di movimento, previsto dall’art. 12 della Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti Umani, vengano sgretolati di fronte ad una sempre più marcata diffidenza, chiusura e difesa della sovranità nazionale.

    Con la recrudescenza dei nazionalismi negli Stati Europei e la loro incapacità di agire con una lungimiranza alternativa e una visione decolonializzata nello scacchiere geopolitico, la tutela degli individui e della dignità umana viene “semplicemente” sostituita da inquietanti concetti privi di senso legati alla purezza della nazione e dell’etnia e alla difesa, in modalità securitaria e repressiva, della patria e della tradizione, che si traducono in istituzionalizzazione e normalizzazione dell’agire violento ai confini della UE e in una crescente esternalizzazione della frontiera attraverso il respingimento delle persone razzializzate nell’ultimo Paese di partenza, con l’intento dichiarato di voler scoraggiare la mobilità verso l’Europa.

    https://www.meltingpot.org/2024/04/the-pact-kills-listituzionalizzazione-della-fine-del-diritto-dasilo-nell
    #pacte #asile #migrations #réfugiés #droit_d'asile #procédure_accélérée #pays_sûrs #rétention #frontières #rétention_aux_frontières #screening #Eurodac #procédure_de_frontière #biométrie #fiction_juridique #zones_frontalières #solidarité_obligatoire #externalisation #relocalisation #fiction_légale #legal_fiction

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur #Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration_et_l’asile :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1019088

    ajouté à la métaliste autour de la Création de zones frontalières (au lieu de lignes de frontière) en vue de refoulements :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/795053

  • UK : Government considers ’Rwanda-like’ deals with four other countries

    The UK’s so-called Rwanda deal, which would see asylum seekers in the UK flown out to Rwanda to be processed, has yet to be passed into law; but already, the government is reportedly considering similar deals with four other countries.

    The UK government’s Rwanda deal, which intends to fly asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda to have their claims assessed there, may pass into law within days despite strong opposition.

    The plan has been highly contested, both within parliament and by organizations supporting migrant and refugee rights.

    But despite facing setbacks for almost two years, the British government is now reportedly also considering striking similar deals with at least four other countries, modelled after the same principle.

    The Times newspaper revealed at the weekend that it had obtained “leaked documents” from government officials, listing Armenia, Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana as potential target countries for the government to set up similar deals to process asylum seekers in third countries.

    The Daily Mail, which reported on the Times’ exclusive, adds that the British Foreign Office was also considering deals with other Latin American countries, including Paraguay, Peru, Brazil and Ecuador, adding, however, that these governments are thought to have “less interest” in signing up to such a scheme compared to the four aforementioned governments.

    According to the reports, bilateral talks on asylum pacts are being scheduled to take place in the foreseeable future.

    ’Reserve list’ of potential partners

    The Daily Mail highlights that a series of other countries are also on a “reserve list,” including Cape Verde, Senegal, Tanzania and Sierra Leone.

    According to the right-wing newspaper, these governments could be “approached, if talks with other, more favored countries didn’t succeed.”

    The leaked information also suggests that other countries such as Morocco, Tunisia and Namibia all “explicitly declined” to enter discussions about becoming third-country processing centers for the UK, and were thus ruled out by UK officials as “non-starters.”

    Some of the information reported suggests that civil servants have laid out specific “feasibility criteria” reported the Daily Mail, which included assessing “the size of the territory and its population.”

    The Daily Mail added that this had resulted in some smaller states such as Suriname and Belize being ruled out.

    ’Following the Rwanda process closely’

    These new plans have, however, reportedly been hampered by fears that the problems that have dogged the Rwanda plan for two years could put potential new partners off.

    Reports highlighting the costs of the Rwanda scheme, compared to the actual number of potential asylum seekers who might eventually be flown, there have also recently drawn increased criticism from political opposition within the UK parliament.

    Armenia, is reported to be waiting for the outcome of the current Rwanda policy to become finalized and public before it decides whether to enter talks with the UK.

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail also reported that officials working at the Home Office expressed fears about the problems the Rwanda Bill is having an impact on discussions with officials at the Foreign Office hoping to expand the model to other countries.

    According to the Daily Mail, one unnamed senior Foreign Office official was reported to have written the following in communications with the Home Office:

    “We are conscious that many potential partner countries are following the UK legal process on the partnership with Rwanda and may be cautious about engaging substantively until this process is satisfactorily resolved.”

    Although the government has not commented directly on specific countries nor confirmed or denied the reports, a government spokesperson told the Daily Mail that the UK was “continuing to work with a range of international partners to tackle global illegal migration challenges.”

    Government focus on passing Rwanda bill first

    The spokesperson continued: “Our focus right now is passing the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which builds on the Illegal Migration Act, and putting plans in place to get flights off the ground as soon as possible.”

    Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak meanwhile met with Rwandan President Paul Kagame last week in London for further talks about the bill.

    At the time, both leaders were reportedly looking forward to seeing planes taking off “in spring” — i.e. within a matter of weeks.

    The Rwanda plan was first announced in spring 2022, and has gone through several iterations under the leadership of various Home Secretaries as part of UK government efforts to actually get a plane carrying asylum seekers to take off from the UK to Rwanda to be processed there.
    From file: Stopping boats from crossing the English Channel is one of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s five main pledges - something he has so far failed to successfully accomplish | Photo: James Manning/AP/picture alliance

    Last week, as the British and Rwandan leaders met, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail also reported that some of the homes earmarked for asylum seekers in Rwanda and built with British funding in a private-public partnership in Rwanda had since been sold off to Rwandan clients.

    Government still looking for airline partner

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reported on April 15, that it is unlikely that any asylum seekers will head to Rwanda “before June” despite the UK government marking spring as the launch window of flights.

    The newspaper added that this was due to the UK government having “so far failed to secure an airline to carry out the flights.”

    In the past, campaigners have targeted airlines which had agreed to operate government deportation flights in a bid to try and stop them participating in such schemes.

    This has resulted in some airline partners withdrawing from potential agreements; others were reported to loathe to have their reputations associated with the scheme.

    In 2022, the Spain-based Privilege Style airline, which had been hired to operate government flights to Rwanda, pulled out of the deal following pressure from campaigners, reports the newspaper.

    Even Rwanda’s state-owned airline, RwandAir, reportedly turned down any involvement with the scheme, states the Daily Mail.
    Political ping-pong

    Before the Easter recess, parliament’s upper house, the House of Lords, pushed the Safety of Rwanda Bill back to the lower house, the House of Commons, with a reinsertion of a number of amendments and recommendations.

    This is part of a parliamentary process in the UK which has become known as ’political ping pong.’

    The bill, now in its final stages, has to be voted on again by the House of Commons before it is then passed to the final Royal Assent stage before it can become law. This requires the signature of the Sovereign, which currently is King Charles III, who cannot break with tradition and reject the bill.

    The divisive Bill is expected to win a majority in the parliament this week but many of the amendments suggested by the Lords have meanwhile caused further ruptures in the ruling Conservative Party, which tabled the bill and the entire Rwanda plan in the first place.

    Some right-wing members of the Conservative Party, such as former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, have declared the bill ineffective if it is allowed to pass with the current amendments.
    New bill ’seeks to respond to [court] findings’

    The British government continues to insist that the “quicker we can begin flights, the quicker we can stop the boats,” meaning migrant boats departing from the French and Belgian coasts for the UK.

    Rishi Sunak, who is currently experiencing new lows in his popularity ratings, has staked part of his and his government’s reputation on making the Rwanda bill work. “Stopping the small boats” from crossing the Channel is one of his five main pledges for this legislature.

    With mere months to go to fresh elections in the UK, it is unclear whether Sunak will succeed in achieving this as his legacy. Even if the Safety of Rwanda Bill passes as expected, it remains uncertain if and how airplanes will be cleared to take asylum seekers to the small African nation.

    According to the government fact sheet on the Safety of Rwanda Bill, the new bill does not seek to override the UK Supreme Court’s judgement which deemed that Rwanda is not safe for migrants, but rather seeks to “respond to its key findings to ensure the policy can go ahead.”

    The bill, says the government, “ensures asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda … are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened — known as refoulement.”

    The new treaty, they say, will also strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system, requiring the country to establish a new appeal body within its court system in order to hear appeals against refusals of asylum or humanitarian protection claims.

    Finally, under the new bill, the government has also set up an independent monitoring committee, which will oblige all signatories to make sure the terms and obligations of the treaty are upheld and adhered to in practice.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/56446/uk-government-considers-rwandalike-deals-with-four-other-countries

    #Arménie #Côte_d'Ivoire #Costa_Rica #Botswana #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #externalisation_de_la_procédure

    –-

    et ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • EFFECTS OF EXTERNALISATION IN TUNISIA. Racism, Ordeal of Migrants and No End in Sight

    Extreme violence and an openly racist policy against Black people have been ongoing in Tunisia for more than a year now. The already existing racism in Tunisia escalated in the beginning of 2023, catalysed by a racist and discriminatory speech against people on the move from sub-Saharan Africa, which the Tunisian President Kais Saied gave on February 21. In the days following the speech, groups of marginalised young men targeted Black people in different Tunisian cities. Black people were subjected to acts of violence, including pogroms of armed mobs. They faced several forms of institutional violence like racial profiling and arbitrary detention by security forces. Even valid residence papers did not protect Black people from violence: numerous people were arrested regardless of their residence status. Some were seriously injured, houses were set on fire and an unknown number of people disappeared. Many found themselves without shelter and food and were deprived of their right to health and transportation.

    The ongoing violence culminated in illegal mass deportations to the desert areas bordering Libya and Algeria executed by Tunisian authorities. In July 2023 alone, Al Jazeera reported in a video that about 1.200 Black people were stuck at the Libyan border without food, water, and shelter. Since then, numerous deaths have been recorded and deportation to the border areas are still ongoing. Simultaneously, departures from Tunisia to Europe increased massively in summer 2023. During the four summer months alone, more than 83,000 people crossed the sea – figures that we have not seen in this region since around the mid-2010s – and besides people from Sub-Saharan countries were Tunisians themselves. In April 2023, civil search and rescue organisations and migrant solidarity networks voiced in a joint statement that Tunisia is neither a safe country of origin nor a place of safety for those rescued at sea. Violence and insecurity remain; in the following part we aim to provide an overview of the current situation.

    In reaction to the increased number of crossings, border violence along the Tunisian route increased and means of control of migratory movements were reinforced. On the water, the number of interceptions by the Tunisian coast guard, with nearly 70,000 interceptions in 2023, doubled as compared to the year before. Reports of the violent behaviour of the Tunisian coast guard – boats being pushed away and rammed, people being beaten with sticks and intimidated with gunshots, coast guard stealing engines from rubber dinghies and leaving people adrift at sea – are piling up.

    What can be further observed is that the Tunisian coast guard is more actively involved in the EU-implemented “push-back by proxy regime” in the Central Mediterranean, which means that the EU is outsourcing interceptions at sea to non-European actors to reduce the number of crossings. A detailed analysis published by the CivilMRCC elaborates how four elements – strengthening the capacities of the Tunisian coastguard (equipment and training), setting up a coastal surveillance system, creating a functional MRCC, and declaring a Tunisian Search and Rescue Region – are used by the European Union and its member states to replicate in Tunisia the regime of refoulement by proxy set up in Libya just a few years earlier.

    After being intercepted and brought back to land, the Central Mediterranean Analysis by the Alarm Phone, published in February 2024 states that “the deportation of people intercepted at sea by the Tunisian coastguards has become a systematic practice in recent months.” The situation for Black migrants is far from being safe on land as well. After the peak of deportations of Black migrants to the Libyan-Tunisian and Algerian-Tunisian border zones in July and September 2023, which we have also documented on migration-control.info, expulsions continue, as the Tunisian civil rights organisation FTDES reports. At the Libyan border, people are handed over by Tunisian authorities to Libyan militias, where they end up in detention centers run by armed groups. Deportations to the Algerian border zone also continue in Tunisia’s west. It is hard to assess the number of deportations, as most of the time the Tunisian authorities rob sub-Saharans, take their money, and confiscate their cell phones. Migrants therefore have little chance of providing evidence of these illegal deportations.

    In addition, chain deportations from Tunisia via Algeria to Niger are documented. Algeria’s long-standing illegal practice of deporting people to Niger has been well documented by the Alarm Phone Sahara. In October 2023, the APS reported that the “practice of pushbacks continues to this day, and many of the people who found themselves stranded in Niger after being deported from Algeria report that they were already in Tunisia beforehand and had been deported from there to the Algerian border.” The activist group confirmed its observations in December, drawing on an interview with a “Guinean migrant who was initially in Tunisia, pushed back to Algeria and then pushed back to Niger.” According to an article published by the Guardian in mid-March 2024, this deportation practice has led to the separation of children from their parents by the police. “Their mums and dads go out to beg and then the police catch them and take them to Algeria,” a person is quoted in the article. In 2023, almost 1,500 unaccompanied children approached the Tunisian offices of the UNHCR to seek support.

    Then there are also those who have fled their countries of origin, for whom the living conditions in Tunisia are so terrible that they would rather return than remain in Tunisia. In 2023, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) repatriated 2,557 migrants. These “voluntary returns” are occurring in a context of violence and impossibility of earning a living, without safe alternatives of staying or moving somewhere else. In fact, the returns cannot be considered “voluntary.”

    The migrants who are still waiting in Tunisia’s coastal areas for an opportunity to cross endure ongoing hardships and face police brutality. In a video posted on March 6, 2024 on X by Refugees in Tunisia, an alliance of migrants in Tunisia, one can see a person walking through olive groves, where many people waiting for a possible departure seek shelter. The video shows destroyed cabins made of plastic sheeting while a person reports that “the police came inside here today, burned our houses down, took some phones, money…They burned down all our houses. It’s not easy for us.”

    Despite these documented violations of human rights, the European Union and its member states continue trying to curb the arrivals by the sea. The big promises that von der Leyen and Meloni made on their visit in Tunis in June 2023 flopped. Tunisia is still not willing to take migrants back and is not in for externalised asylum procedures. Frontex is not welcome. The EU is picking up the pieces. In a document that migration-control.info obtained, the EU admits that apart from delivery of spare parts and equipment for the coast guard, not much else has been achieved. But instead of acknowledging the freedom of movement for all, the EU continues to control migration movements and wants to finance a control center between Libya and Tunisia to limit the mobility of migrants between these countries.

    While acknowledging the ongoing violence exercised by the border regime, 2023’s “little summer of migration” also shows how fragile the European closure is. People could make their way from North Africa to Europe within a very short period and the collective arrivals had the power to tear down institutions of the border regime. In September 2023 in Lampedusa, for example, the hotspot was opened due to the number of arrivals and people were transferred to the mainland quickly from where they could continue their journeys. The people affected, Tunisians, and migrants in Tunisia are constantly opposing the policies violating their human rights.

    In January 2024, Al Jazeera reported on protests by families whose relatives (most of whom were reported to be from the small village of El Hancha in the Sfax Governorate) went missing when trying to leave Tunisia. The families erected roadblocks and burned tires around the village to pressure the authorities to continue their search efforts, and brought their protest to the capital to criticize the “official silence about their missing relatives.” In February, Refugees in Tunisia published a video showing a group of migrants demonstrating in Zarzis, a coastal town in Tunisia’s south, demanding rights and pressuring authorities and international organizations such as the UNCHR to provide humanitarian support and protection. Their organization and protest actions are part of years of migrant and anti-racist struggles in Tunisia and North Africa as well as in the countries of origin and European diasporas.

    When the number of arrivals fell during the winter, mainly due to weather conditions, some analysts linked this to European borderwork. However, just in these days, end of March 2024, quite a few boats arrived in Lampedusa, coming from Tunisia. At the same time, there were reports on an increased number of interceptions and by-land-operations by Tunisian Coastguard and Security forces. So the race between the security forces and migrant movements has started again, in early spring 2024. Let’s support their moving and resistance, let’s continue our struggle against the violence exercised by the border regime and our struggle against the European externalisation. Freedom of Movement for all!

    Further reading:

    - Echoes, Issue 7, July 2023: A Critical Look at the Situation in Tunisia and the New EU-Tunisia Deal
    - migration-control.info, June 2023: “This is a shame for humanity” – Update on the ongoing protest of the Refugees in Tunisia
    - migration-control.info, April 2023: “If we stay here we are going to die”– Testimonies from refugees in Tunisia about their protest sit-in at the UNHCR in Tunis and its violent eviction

    https://civilmrcc.eu/political-developments/effects-of-externalisation-in-tunisia
    #Tunisie #racisme #externalisation_des_frontières #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #racisme_anti-Noirs #violence #renvois #expulsions #désert #abandon_dans_le_désert #Algérie #Libye #déportations

    via @_kg_

  • Video über die Auslagerung der europäischen Migrationspolitik
    https://migreurop.org/article3236.html

    Migreurop dokumentiert seit seiner Gründung die Externalisierung der europäischen Migrationspolitik. Diese Externalisierungspolitiken zielen darauf ab, die Exilierten so weit wie möglich vom europäischen Raum fernzuhalten, indem die Verwaltung der Migrationsbewegungen an sogenannte „Drittländer“ (Herkunfts- oder Transitländer) ausgelagert wird, unabhängig von den Folgen für die Rechte der Migrantinnen und Migranten. Durch einen Kuhhandel wälzen die EU und ihre Mitgliedstaaten so ihre Verpflichtungen (...) #Vidéos

    / #Externalisation

    https://www.gorille.co
    http://migreurop.org/article2933.html?lang_article=fr
    http://migreurop.org/article2787.html?lang_article=en

  • Sink the Boats

    The UK government is paying France to ‘Stop the Boats’. Now first-time footage reveals French police have violently intercepted dinghies sailing for Britain, risking the lives of people on board

    For decades, people have tried to reach the UK from northern France in order to claim asylum in Britain. With tightened security at French ports making it harder for stowaways, tens of thousands of people have crossed the English Channel in rubber dinghies, prompting the British government to make stopping the boats one of its top priorities.

    Last year, the UK announced that it would allocate nearly £500m to France over three years to prevent boats from leaving its shores.

    The British government has repeatedly pressured France to intercept the boats at sea. France has previously refused on the basis that it would place lives at risk.

    But in collaboration with Le Monde, The Observer and Der Spiegel, Lighthouse Reports can reveal that French police officers have carried out so-called “pullbacks” in the Channel, in moves experts say mirror the deadly and illegal tactics used in the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean by the Greek and Libyan coast guards.

    We’ve established through sources that the patrol boat used by the French police to carry out at least one of these dangerous manoeuvres was funded by the British.

    Meanwhile, over the last two years there has been a sharp increase in the number of drownings in the sea off northern France where most of the pullbacks have taken place.
    METHODS

    We obtained previously unseen footage, leaked documents and witness testimony showing French police have used aggressive methods to intercept migrant vessels at sea, including circling a small boat, causing waves to flood it; ramming into a small boat while threatening passengers with pepper spray; and puncturing boats while they are already at sea, forcing people to swim back to shore. We were able to geolocate the videos to confirm their veracity.

    We showed the videos to a number of maritime experts, UK Border Force officers and French coast guards, who said the tactics would have clearly endangered the lives of those on board and appeared to be illegal. Leaked maritime documents helped us to establish that these types of interceptions at sea are not compatible with French law.

    We then obtained an additional crucial piece of evidence: a complaint filed by a coast guard officer to the prosecutor about an incident in which French police officers had ordered a National Society of Sea Rescues (SNSM) crew to puncture a migrant dinghy that had already set sail despite the risk of drowning being “obvious and imminent”.

    To find out whether these interceptions were happening on a wider scale, we travelled to Northern France to speak to people on the ground trying to reach the UK in boats. A number of people described having their dinghies slashed by police once they had already set sail.

    We were able to link the hundreds of millions of pounds provided by Britain to France with these tactics when sources confirmed that police patrol vessels, including the exact vessel seen in one of the videos, had been bought by the French with funding provided by the British government.

    An analysis of data by charity Alarm Phone meanwhile showed a sharp increase in the number of people known to have drowned within the vicinity of the French coastline, where most of the pullbacks we documented took place – with one in 2022 compared to five already this year.
    STORYLINES

    We met Satinder* from Punjab, a predominantly Sikh region in northern India, in Calais.

    Five days earlier, he and two friends had tried to make it to Britain by boat. The dinghy was overcrowded with around 46 people, mainly Indians and Afghans, on board. “We sailed for around 10 minutes at dawn without a hitch in an overloaded boat,” he said. “Then a boat came. It was a gendarmerie boat, they had uniforms. They said: ‘Stop the boat’.

    “They went around the boat like in a circle and then they stabbed the boat and left. We had to swim for about 10 minutes […] We nearly died.”

    The two friends Satinder was with in the boat gave matching accounts. We spoke to four other people who recounted similar stories on different occasions.

    “It reminds me of the Greek and Turkish coast guards,” said French customs coast guard Rémi Vandeplanque.”And that’s shameful for the French. If the police continue to use such tactics, there is likely to be a death at some point.”

    https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/sink-the-boats
    #Manche #La_Manche #migrations #réfugiés #sauvetages #UK #Angleterre #France #stop_the_boats #externalisation #enquête #contre-enquête #pull-backs #financement #mourir_aux_Frontières #morts_aux_frontières

    • Revealed: UK-funded French forces putting migrants’ lives at risk with small-boat tactics

      Exclusive: newly obtained footage and leaked documents show how a ‘mass casualty event’ could arise from aggressive tactics employed by border forces

      French police funded by the UK government have endangered the lives of vulnerable migrants by intercepting small boats in the Channel, using tactics that search and rescue experts say could cause a “mass casualty event”.

      Shocking new evidence obtained by the Observer, Lighthouse Reports, Le Monde and Der Spiegel reveals for the first time that the French maritime police have tried physically to force small boats to turn around – manoeuvres known as “pullbacks” – in an attempt to prevent them reaching British shores.

      Newly obtained footage, leaked documents and witness testimonies show that the French authorities have used aggressive tactics including circling a migrant boat, causing waves to flood the dinghy; ramming into a small boat while threatening passengers with a large tank of pepper spray; and puncturing boats when they are already at sea, forcing migrants to swim back to shore.

      The French authorities have previously refused the UK’s requests for them to carry out interceptions at sea, stating that they contravened international maritime law. But evidence indicates there has been an escalation in the use of these tactics since last summer.

      Rishi Sunak has pledged to “stop the boats” crossing the Channel and has promised hundreds of millions of pounds to France to pay for more surveillance and border guards to prevent people making the journey. Last Wednesday the government’s safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill suffered several defeats in the House of Lords, delaying the prime minister’s plan to see flights for Kigali take off until after Easter.

      Ministers claim that the bill will act as a deterrent to all those crossing the Channel from northern France to the UK. In the first video obtained and verified for this investigation, a police boat in Dunkirk harbour circles close to a dinghy holding about 25 people, creating a wake that floods the boat.

      The police vessel is seen advancing towards the dinghy at speed, before turning sharply to create waves, circling and coming back again. Migrants are seen wearing foam-packed lifejackets and attempting to bale water out using their shoes.

      Sources confirmed that the police patrol vessel used to carry out the manoeuvre seen in the video was bought by the French authorities with funding provided by the UK government under the “Sandhurst treaty”, a bilateral border security deal signed at the royal military academy in 2018.

      “This is a textbook pushback – exactly the same as we see in Greece,” said one search and rescue expert who was shown the footage. “That one manoeuvre alone could cause a mass casualty event. The water is deep enough to drown in. I’ve seen this in the central Mediterranean many times, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen anything like this happening in the Channel.”

      Previous evidence has shown how the Greek coastguard has forced boats carrying migrants back into Turkish waters in the Aegean Sea, in some cases by manoeuvring around them at high speed to create waves.

      Two senior UK Border Force sources confirmed that the tactic could lead to multiple deaths and injuries. “If the blades [of the French boat] make contact with the vessel, it will slash right through it,” said one operational Border Force official.

      “The other thing is a collision. The weight and the force of that vessel could ride straight over the top of the rib. It would knock the passengers out, knock them unconscious and into the water. It could potentially lead to death. I can’t believe any mariner could condone that.”

      Maritime experts added that they would be “very surprised” if Border Force and HM Coastguard were not aware of these tactics being used, with one adding: “One hundred per cent, someone high up will definitely be aware of this.”

      In a second video, members of the French gendarmerie drive alongside a dinghy in a speedboat about 12 miles from the French coast, threatening to use a large tank of pepper spray against a boat carrying migrants. They then proceed to ram their vessel into the dinghy. “They don’t even know who’s on board – whether there’s someone asthmatic that you’re using pepper spray against, or pregnant women,” said a Border Force official. “That could really harm people.”

      In evidence of a third attempted pullback, a complaint filed by a member of the French customs coastguard to the public prosecutor in Boulogne-sur-Mer alleges that on 11 August 2023 police officers ordered a National Society of Sea Rescues (SNSM) crew to puncture a small boat that had already set sail. In an email seen by this investigation, the complainant, Rémi Vandeplanque, states that the SNSM crew “obviously refused” to do this, adding that the risk of drowning if they had done so was “obvious and imminent”.

      Testimony from several sources who boarded small boats bound for the UK supports the claims that French police have used such tactics. “There were four of them [French gendarmes] on the boat,” said one man, who was from India. “They went round the boat in a circle and then they stabbed the boat and left. We had to swim for about 10 minutes … We nearly died.” On 9 February 2024, the man lodged a complaint with the French human rights ombudsman. The incident is under investigation.

      Sources within France’s interior ministry have described the UK government’s “enormous pressure on a daily basis” for the French maritime police to prevent small boat departures, with one French civil servant describing the pressure as “intense” and “nonstop”.

      Another senior civil servant, who was in post until the end of 2020, added: “As far as the British were concerned, the boats had to be caught at sea. They sometimes insisted on it.”

      In September last year, then immigration minister Robert Jenrick said in the House of Commons that “there is clearly more that we need the French to do for us”, pointing to a recent trip to Belgium, where he said the authorities had “been willing to intercept in the water small boats leaving its shores”. He added: “That has proven decisive. Small boats from Belgian waters are now extremely rare, so that is an approach that we encourage the French to follow.”

      In August 2021, during a visit to the Greek island of Samos, then home secretary Priti Patel went out on patrol with the Greek coastguard, which is known for its use of aggressive pushbacks in the Aegean.

      “She came back invigorated,” said a Home Office source with knowledge of the trip. “They were very aggressive, had a good success rate of detection and were swift in how they processed them [asylum seekers]. She liked their posturing of ‘protecting borders’ and working with the military, though there was recognition that a lot of this wouldn’t be lawful in the UK.”

      Britain has allocated more than £700m to France to prevent irregular migration since 2014.

      At a summit in March 2023, Sunak announced that Britain would give France £500m over three years to fund additional border guards and a new detention facility, as well as video surveillance cameras, drones and night-vision binoculars, among other equipment.

      The package was, according to several sources at the French interior ministry, a turning point. “This has really put the relationship between the two countries on a contractual footing,” said one senior official.

      Last month the UK signed a working agreement with the European border agency Frontex to bolster intelligence sharing and deploy UK Border Force officials to coordinate the Channel response.

      When contacted by this investigation, the prefecture for the north of France confirmed that a police boat had circled a dinghy and that the aim of the intervention was to “dissuade passengers” from approaching the open sea, adding: “It’s the only time we’ve been able to intercept a small boat using this manoeuvre and it was a deterrent. All the migrants were recovered and the smugglers arrested.”

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “An unacceptable number of people are crossing the Channel and we will do whatever is necessary to end these perilous and fatal journeys. We remain committed to building on the successes that saw arrivals drop by more than a third last year.

      “Not only have we introduced tougher legislation and agreements with international partners, but we continue to work closely with our French counterparts, who are working tirelessly to save lives and stop the boats.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/23/uk-funding-french-migrants-small-boat-border-forces

    • Dans la Manche, les techniques agressives de la police pour empêcher les traversées de migrants

      Officiellement, la police a interdiction formelle d’intercepter en mer les embarcations de migrants qui tentent de traverser la Manche. Après plusieurs mois d’enquête, « Le Monde » et ses partenaires de Lighthouse Reports, de « The Observer » et du « Der Spiegel » ont pourtant pu documenter différentes situations où les forces de l’ordre emploient des manœuvres dangereuses à l’encontre de ces « small boats » pourtant déjà à l’eau.

      Il pleut des cordes et la grande tonnelle blanche, sous laquelle plusieurs dizaines de personnes viennent s’abriter, a du mal à supporter le poids de l’eau qui s’accumule. Il est presque 11 heures, dans une zone périphérique de Loon-Plage Nord), ce mardi 12 mars, à l’entrée de l’un des nombreux campements de personnes migrantes présents depuis des années maintenant sur la commune, voisine de Dunkerque.

      Ziko (les personnes citées par leur prénom ont requis l’anonymat), 16 ans, vivote ici depuis cinq mois. Le jeune Somalien a déjà essayé cinq fois de gagner le Royaume-Uni. A chaque fois en bateau. A chaque fois sans succès. Systématiquement, les policiers sont intervenus pour stopper l’embarcation à bord de laquelle lui et d’autres espéraient traverser la Manche. « A chaque fois, ils ont crevé le bateau », se souvient-il.

      Il y a environ deux semaines de cela, les policiers ont fait une manœuvre au large de la plage de Gravelines (Nord) que le jeune homme n’est pas près d’oublier. Les fonctionnaires ont fait obstacle au canot alors qu’il était déjà en mer. « On était à plusieurs dizaines de mètres des côtes quand un bateau pneumatique avec cinq ou six policiers s’est approché et a crevé notre embarcation. » Ziko rapporte que lui et la cinquantaine de passagers sont tous tombés à l’eau. « J’avais de l’eau jusqu’à la poitrine, c’était très dangereux. Il y avait des enfants qui étaient portés à bout de bras par des adultes pour ne pas se noyer. »

      De ses cinq tentatives de traversée, c’est la seule au cours de laquelle le bateau de Ziko a été crevé en mer. Son témoignage, rare, vient percuter la version officielle livrée par les autorités depuis 2018 et l’explosion du phénomène des small boats, ces petites embarcations de migrants dont le but est de rejoindre le Royaume-Uni. Officiellement, la police a interdiction formelle d’intervenir lorsque les small boats sont déjà en mer. Dans une directive à diffusion restreinte du 10 novembre 2022, le préfet maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord, Marc Véran, rappelait que « le cadre de l’action des moyens agissant en mer (…) y compris dans la bande littorale des 300 mètres (…) est celui de la recherche et du sauvetage en mer » et « ne permet pas de mener des actions coercitives de lutte contre l’immigration clandestine ».

      Et ce, en dépit de la pression constante sur le littoral : alors que moins de 2 000 personnes ont traversé la Manche en 2019, elles étaient plus de 45 000 en 2022 et près de 30 000 en 2023. Un phénomène qui est devenu un irritant majeur dans la relation franco-britannique.

      Manœuvre dangereuse

      Au terme de plusieurs mois d’enquête, Le Monde, ses partenaires du collectif de journalistes Lighthouse Reports, du journal britannique The Observer et de l’hebdomadaire allemand Der Spiegel ont pourtant pu documenter différentes situations, parfois filmées, où des tactiques agressives similaires à celles que dénonce Ziko ont été employées depuis juillet 2023. D’après nos informations, elles sont même comptabilisées par le ministère de l’intérieur sous la dénomination explicite d’« interceptions en mer ». Des données d’une sensibilité telle qu’elles ne font l’objet d’aucune publicité.

      D’autres que Ziko en témoignent. La Défenseure des droits explique au Monde que quatre saisines sont en cours d’investigation portant sur des interceptions en mer en 2022 et 2023. Par ailleurs, l’inspection générale de la police nationale est saisie depuis l’automne 2023 d’une enquête préliminaire à la suite d’un signalement au parquet de Boulogne-sur-Mer (Pas-de-Calais) effectué par Rémi Vandeplanque, un garde-côte douanier et représentant du syndicat Solidaires.

      Ce dernier rapporte que, le 11 août 2023, au petit matin, un gendarme aurait demandé à un membre d’équipage de la Société nationale de sauvetage en mer (SNSM) de l’aider à percer un bateau au large de la plage de Berck-sur-Mer (Pas-de-Calais) avec une dizaine de personnes à son bord. Une manœuvre dangereuse que le sauveteur a refusé d’effectuer, tout en avisant le centre régional opérationnel de surveillance et de sauvetage (Cross) de Gris-Nez (Pas-de-Calais).

      L’échange a été entendu sur l’un des canaux radio utilisés par le Cross. « En tant que policier, on ne peut pas agir d’une manière qui met la vie d’autrui en danger, affirme Rémi Vandeplanque. On doit respecter les règles. » Sollicitée, la préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord assure que, « si elle est avérée, cette initiative ne pourrait être qu’une initiative individuelle de la personne en question et inappropriée ».

      Rares sont les images qui documentent ces pratiques, mais une vidéo inédite que nous nous sommes procurée, datée du 9 octobre 2023, montre un semi-rigide de la police nationale tourner autour d’un small boat dans le port de Dunkerque en créant à dessein des vagues qui déstabilisent la petite embarcation. A bord se trouvent pourtant une trentaine de passagers. Une partie d’entre eux se tient sur le boudin du canot. De l’eau entre dans l’embarcation au point que ceux assis au milieu sont immergés jusqu’aux genoux. Le policier semble ensuite dire aux occupants du petit bateau de retourner sur le bord. Les migrants seront finalement débarqués sains et saufs.

      Une manœuvre dangereuse, jugent plusieurs experts maritimes, d’autant que, en cas de chavirement, les embarcations légères des forces de l’ordre ne sont pas dimensionnées pour conduire des opérations de sauvetage. « Cette vidéo m’a choqué, raconte Kevin Saunders, ancien officier de la Border Force britannique en poste à Calais jusqu’en 2016 et connu pour ses positions extrêmement critiques à l’égard de l’immigration. Elle me rappelle ce que les Grecs faisaient à la frontière maritime avec la Turquie. Je suis surpris que les Français fassent cela parce que c’est contraire à leur interprétation du droit de la mer. »

      « Les Français sont poussés à jouer le même rôle dans la Manche que celui que l’Union européenne offre aux pays africains. Paris reçoit beaucoup d’argent des Anglais pour empêcher les migrants de partir ou les arrêter en mer », renchérit de son côté le politiste autrichien Gerald Knaus, architecte de l’accord de lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière entre l’Union européenne et la Turquie, faisant référence à la pression grandissante des autorités britanniques.

      Crever des bateaux bondés

      De son côté, la préfecture de la zone de défense et de sécurité Nord relativise : « On était en journée, dans une enceinte portuaire. Le but de l’intervention est de dissuader les passagers de s’approcher de la digue du Braek [qui mène à la mer du Nord]. C’est la seule fois où on a pu intercepter un small boat par cette manœuvre et ça a été dissuasif. Toutes les personnes migrantes ont été sauvées et les passeurs interpellés. »

      Dans une seconde vidéo, diffusée sur le réseau social TikTok en juillet 2023, un semi-rigide appartenant à la vedette de gendarmerie maritime Aber-Ildut, déployée depuis 2022 dans la Manche, est filmé en train de percuter à deux reprises une embarcation de migrants à pleine vitesse, au large des côtes de Boulogne-sur-Mer. Trois gendarmes sont à bord. L’un d’entre eux brandit une bombe de gaz lacrymogène en direction du small boat et intime à ses passagers de s’arrêter. Une pratique, encore une fois, contraire au cadre opérationnel français.

      « Refusant le contrôle coopérant, aucune action de coercition n’a été réalisée et cette embarcation a librement poursuivi sa route, précise la préfecture maritime, interrogée sur cette action. Le nombre de ces contrôles reste très modeste, aucun naufrage, blessé ou procédure non conforme n’a été signalé. »

      D’autres témoignages, recueillis auprès de migrants à Calais (Pas-de-Calais) ou à Loon-Plage, décrivent des tentatives de traversées empêchées par des forces de l’ordre, qui s’avancent dans l’eau, jusqu’aux épaules parfois, pour crever des bateaux bondés de passagers. « A aucun moment de telles consignes ne sont données ni même suggérées aux équipes coordonnées, assure pourtant la préfecture maritime, bien au contraire, la préservation de la vie humaine en mer est le seul credo qui vaille. »

      La lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière franchit-elle la ligne rouge ? Le 10 mars 2023, une grappe de journalistes trépignent dans la cour de l’Elysée balayée par un vent hivernal. Tous attendent la poignée de main entre le chef de l’Etat, Emmanuel Macron, et le premier ministre britannique, Rishi Sunak, sur le perron du palais présidentiel. C’est le premier sommet bilatéral entre les deux pays depuis cinq ans. Le rapprochement qui doit être mis en scène ce jour-là va s’incarner sur un sujet : l’immigration. Londres annonce le versement sur trois ans de 543 millions d’euros à la France pour « stopper davantage de bateaux », au titre du traité de Sandhurst de 2018.

      Cet argent va permettre de financer le déploiement de réservistes et l’installation de barrières et de caméras de vidéosurveillance sur la Côte d’Opale, mais aussi la surveillance aérienne du littoral ou encore l’équipement des forces de l’ordre en drones, jumelles à vision nocturne ou semi-rigides, comme celui que l’on voit à l’œuvre dans la vidéo prise dans le port de Dunkerque. Une tranche importante d’une centaine de millions d’euros est aussi dévolue à des projets immobiliers tels que la création d’un centre de rétention administrative vers Dunkerque ou d’un lieu de cantonnement pour les CRS à Calais. Désormais, plus de 700 policiers et gendarmes sillonnent vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre heures les 150 kilomètres de littoral.

      « Pression énorme » des Britanniques

      Il n’est pas question ici de sauvetage en mer, au grand dam de certains opérateurs qui verraient bien leur flotte renouvelée alors que les naufrages d’embarcations sont récurrents et mettent à rude épreuve les équipages. Ainsi la SNSM a échoué à plusieurs reprises à bénéficier des fonds Sandhurst, « parce que son action n’est pas assimilable à de la lutte contre l’immigration illégale », justifie à regret un cadre de l’association dans un document que nous avons pu consulter.

      L’enveloppe d’un demi-milliard d’euros débloquée par les Britanniques en 2023 constitue, de l’aveu de plusieurs sources au ministère de l’intérieur, un tournant. « Cela a vraiment contractualisé la relation entre les deux pays, rapporte un cadre de la Place Beauvau, sous le couvert de l’anonymat. Les Anglais se comportent avec nous comme nous on le ferait avec un pays tiers. Ils mettent une pression énorme au quotidien sur le déblocage des crédits, si les chiffres ne s’améliorent pas. C’est non-stop et à tous les niveaux. »

      Déjà présents au sein d’un centre conjoint d’information et de coordination franco-britannique ainsi que dans une unité de renseignement à Coquelles (Pas-de-Calais), des officiers de liaison britanniques de la Border Force participent aussi, officiellement comme simples observateurs, à la réunion hebdomadaire de l’état-major de lutte contre l’immigration clandestine. « Ils sont extrêmement intrusifs, mais ils connaissent bien la zone, ils savent où on contrôle bien, où on est en difficulté », affirme un cadre de la gendarmerie.

      Pour tarir les flux de migrants, les Britanniques ne manquent pas d’idées. En octobre 2020, le gouvernement conservateur de Boris Johnson disait réfléchir à installer des machines à vagues pour repousser les small boats. En août 2021, la ministre britannique de l’intérieur d’alors, Priti Patel, est revenue enthousiasmée d’une visite en Grèce où elle a effectué des patrouilles avec les gardes-côtes helléniques en mer Egée, l’une des portes d’entrée en Europe. « Elle a dit que nous devrions apprendre des Grecs, se souvient une source au Home Office. Ils étaient très agressifs, avaient un bon taux de détection. » Et ont, à de nombreuses reprises, fait l’objet d’accusations de refoulements illégaux de demandeurs d’asile vers la Turquie.

      Toutes ces idées sont partagées avec la France lors de réunions bilatérales. « Pour les Britanniques, il fallait attraper les bateaux en mer. Ils le disaient de façon par moment insistante, lâche un haut fonctionnaire du ministère de l’intérieur, en poste jusqu’à fin 2020. Ils nous ont même expliqué comment faire, par exemple en lançant des grappins ou des filets. » A la préfecture de la zone de défense et de sécurité Nord, on reconnaît que « de nouvelles techniques sont essayées en permanence », à l’image de celle qui consiste à paralyser l’hélice d’un bateau de migrants à l’aide de filets.

      Mais « cela n’a pas été concluant », assure-t-on. « Notre stratégie, ça a été plutôt de dire qu’il fallait une forte présence sur les plages et empêcher les livraisons de bateaux, corrobore un ancien directeur de la police aux frontières. En mer, on porte secours aux personnes, on ne les intercepte pas. » D’autres croient que ce qui a freiné les autorités tient plutôt à des contingences matérielles : « Il n’y avait pas de moyens nautiques pour cela », assure l’ancien haut fonctionnaire du ministère de l’intérieur.

      Vingt-quatre noyades depuis 2023

      L’ampleur du phénomène des traversées persistant, les digues ont-elles sauté ? Les manœuvres en mer des forces de l’ordre « se comptent sur les doigts d’une main », balaye une source au ministère de l’intérieur.

      Le 10 mars 2023, tandis qu’Emmanuel Macron et Rishi Sunak enterrent à l’Elysée des années de brouille diplomatique, le préfet maritime Véran signe une nouvelle directive à diffusion restreinte. Elle précise le cadre de certaines manœuvres opérationnelles face à l’apparition du phénomène des taxis boats, ces embarcations qui longent la côte et récupèrent les migrants directement à l’eau pour éviter les interceptions sur les plages. La directive ouvre la voie à l’interception de small boats en mer par les forces de sécurité intérieure, à condition d’opérer « uniquement de jour », dans la bande côtière de 200 mètres de littoral, avant que le taxi boat n’embarque des passagers et dans le cas où « moins de trois personnes » seraient à bord.

      L’intervention est conditionnée, explique le vice-amiral, au comportement coopératif des occupants du bateau, mais aussi à l’absence de risques de mise en danger de la vie humaine. « En dehors des missions dédiées de contrôle des taxis boats, (…) le cadre juridique de la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine en mer se limite à l’exercice de pouvoirs de police à l’encontre des passeurs et non des passagers eux-mêmes », insiste M. Véran. Le préfet maritime ordonne d’éviter à tout prix des « routes de collision ».

      A la garde-côte douanière, Rémi Vandeplanque s’inquiète : « C’est une évolution choquante, mais ce n’est vraiment pas une surprise. » Un sentiment partagé par l’association d’aide aux migrants Utopia 56, présente sur le littoral et qui fustige, par la voix de son porte-parole, Nikolaï Posner, une « violence stérile et illégitime ». « Depuis octobre 2021 et la mise en place d’une maraude qui sillonne la côte, l’association est souvent la première à recueillir les témoignages de ceux qui ont tenté la traversée. »

      Sollicitée sur les différents cas de pratiques dangereuses des forces de l’ordre à l’encontre de small boats déjà à l’eau, la préfecture de la zone de défense et de sécurité Nord renvoie vers la préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord, qui est l’autorité compétente en mer. De plus, elle insiste sur la violence des réseaux de passeurs, confrontés à « la montée en puissance des saisies de bateaux en amont du littoral et sur les plages ».

      Les autorités décrivent ainsi comment « des personnes migrantes sont parfois sommées de créer des lignes de défense » et de jeter des pierres aux forces de l’ordre, pour permettre la mise à l’eau des small boats. Quarante et un policiers et gendarmes ont été blessés à cette occasion en 2023 et la préfecture a dénombré sur la même période « 160 confrontations sur les plages, c’est-à-dire avec usage de la force et de gaz lacrymogènes, alors qu’il n’y en a quasiment pas eu en 2022 ».

      C’est ce qui s’est notamment passé le 15 décembre 2023, à Sangatte, dans le Pas-de-Calais. D’après les éléments partagés par le parquet de Boulogne-sur-Mer, un groupe de migrants aurait fait barrage à des policiers pour permettre à un bateau de partir. Les policiers auraient essuyé des jets de projectiles et fait usage de gaz lacrymogènes en retour. Un récit en substance corroboré par plusieurs témoins présents sur place ce jour-là. Parvenu à prendre la mer, le small boat aurait rapidement subi une avarie de moteur et voulu regagner le rivage.

      Un migrant somalien parmi les passagers assure que, à bord du bateau, un jeune homme de 25 ans a par ailleurs été victime d’un malaise. La police aurait continué d’user de gaz lacrymogènes et se serait avancée pour crever le bateau avant qu’il n’ait pu atteindre le rivage. « Une personne de nationalité soudanaise se retrouve inanimée sur la plage », selon le parquet, et décède peu de temps après d’un arrêt cardio-respiratoire, en dépit des tentatives de le réanimer. « Depuis août 2023, on observe une recrudescence des événements dramatiques », dit le procureur de Boulogne-sur-Mer, Guirec Le Bras. Sans parvenir à expliquer cette particularité, il note que sa juridiction a recensé dix-neuf décès par noyade, survenus pour « la plupart au bord de l’eau ».

      Au total, selon l’estimation de la préfecture du Nord, vingt-quatre personnes sont décédées par noyade depuis 2023. Les autorités incriminent des « embarcations beaucoup plus chargées et une dégradation de la qualité des bateaux ». Dans un rapport publié en janvier, le réseau d’activistes Alarm Phone alertait sur ces morts près des côtes : « L’augmentation des fonds alloués à la France s’est traduite par un renforcement de la police, une augmentation de la violence sur les plages et, par conséquent, une augmentation des embarquements dangereusement surpeuplés et chaotiques au cours desquels des personnes perdent la vie. »

      « Nous avons dû nager »

      C’est peu ou prou ce que rapportent des migrants après une tentative de traversée échouée dans la nuit du 2 au 3 mars. Un exilé syrien de 27 ans, Jumaa Alhasan, s’est noyé dans le canal de l’Aa, un fleuve côtier qui se jette dans la mer du Nord. Plusieurs témoins, interrogés par Le Monde, assurent l’avoir vu tomber dans l’eau lors d’une intervention des forces de l’ordre qui aurait provoqué la panique des passeurs et poussé le Syrien à s’élancer depuis les rives de l’Aa pour tenter de sauter sur le canot en marche, là où le bateau était censé accoster et embarquer tout le monde. « Pour moi, il ne serait pas mort si les policiers français n’avaient pas été là », ne décolère pas Youssef, témoin de la scène. Le corps de Jumaa Alhasan a été retrouvé dans le chenal de l’Aa mardi 19 mars.

      Il est près de midi sur un des campements de Calais, ce 22 janvier. Sous le crachin habituel, un homme débite du bois pour alimenter un brasero autour duquel viennent se masser une demi-douzaine d’hommes. La plupart viennent du Pendjab, une région à majorité sikhe du nord de l’Inde. Tous sont arrivés il y a quelques semaines dans le nord de la France.

      Cinq jours plus tôt, Satinder, Paramjit et Gurfateh ont tenté une traversée. Ils ont longé l’autoroute qui mène jusqu’au port de Calais pour arriver au pied des dunes. « On a mis le bateau sur la plage, on l’a gonflé, tout se passait bien », rappelle Satinder, grand gaillard barbu, emmitouflé dans un cache-cou. Les trois hommes naviguent une petite dizaine de minutes au petit jour sans anicroche. Ils sont quarante-six à bord, la plupart avec des gilets de sauvetage. La météo n’est pas mauvaise, la mer presque plate.

      Ils entendent finalement une voix qui semble les poursuivre : « Stop the boat. » Un bateau s’approche du leur. La voix répète : « Stop the boat. » Satinder aperçoit une embarcation de la gendarmerie qui arrive par l’ouest. Le conducteur panique, remet les gaz sans parvenir à distancer les gendarmes. « Ils étaient quatre sur le bateau. Ils ont tourné autour de nous et ils nous ont dit que les conditions météorologiques étaient trop dangereuses, qu’ils ne pouvaient pas nous laisser partir », explique Satinder. L’un des gendarmes sort alors un « click-knife [un couteau d’attaque] », raconte Gurfateh, et assène un coup dans l’embarcation. L’air s’échappe du boudin. Le bateau s’affaisse.

      Le conducteur met alors le cap sur la terre ferme, mais le bateau coule avant de rejoindre la plage. « Nous avons dû nager une dizaine de minutes. Heureusement qu’il n’y avait presque que des adultes. Il y avait juste une petite fille de 4 ans », complète Satinder. Sur la plage, le groupe, hébété, reprend ses esprits avant de regagner la route du campement. Les trois hommes n’ont pas abandonné l’idée de traverser. Le 9 février, ils ont saisi la Défenseure des droits. « Ce jour-là, nous avons failli mourir. »

      https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/03/23/dans-la-manche-les-techniques-agressives-de-la-police-pour-empecher-les-trav

  • Migranti, nei centri italiani in Albania un rotolo di carta igienica a persona a settimana

    I paradossi del #bando da 34 milioni di euro pubblicato dal Viminale per la gestione delle strutture. Applicata la procedura di estrema urgenza, negoziazione tra tre soli operatori economici, una sola settimana di tempo per la manifestazione d’interesse.

    Un appalto da 34 milioni di euro e un rotolo di carta igienica a settimana per migrante. Basterebbe questo paradosso a bollare come frettoloso e sommario il bando per l’affidamento dei servizi per i centri di accoglienza e trattenimento dei richiedenti asilo che il governo Meloni prevede di aprire in Albania entro il 20 maggio. Una improbabile corsa contro il tempo per un’operazione che ancora manca del requisito di legittimità giuridico fondamentale ma che la premier intende giocarsi in vista della campagna elettorale per le Europee del 9 giugno.

    Misteriose ragioni di estrema urgenza

    E dunque ecco il ricorso a «#ragioni_di_estrema_urgenza» ( che non si sa quali siano visto che gli sbarchi sono nettamente diminuiti) per giustificare la procedura negoziale riservata a tre soli concorrenti che, nel giro di soli sette giorni, dovrà aggiudicare l’affidamento dei servizi di accoglienza e di gestione dei tre centri previsti dove i lavori non sono neanche cominciati: quello nel porto di Shengjin, adibito allo screening sanitario, all’identificazione e alla raccolta delle richieste di asilo, e i due di Gjader, la struttura di accoglienza da 880 posti dove i migranti resteranno (teoricamente) per un mese in attesa di conoscere l’esito della procedura accelerata di frontiera, e il Cpr da 144 posti dove verranno trasferiti quelli destinati al rimpatrio.

    Si risparmia sull’igiene dei migranti

    Il bando è stato pubblicato il 21 marzo, con avviso di manifestazione di interesse che si concluderà nel tempo record di una settimana. Un appalto da 34 milioni di euro a cui si aggiungono i rimborsi ( non quantificabili) di servizi di trasporto, utenze, raccolta dei rifiuti, manutenzione ordinaria e straordinaria, e dell’assistenza sanitaria. Non proprio quattro spiccioli, a fronte dei quali, però, spulciando il bando si trovano vere e proprie “perle”. Sull’igiene personale dei migranti, tanto per cominciare, chi si aggiudicherà l’appalto, potrà risparmiare: un solo rotolo di carta igienica a settimana a testa dove i richiedenti asilo attenderanno ( in detenzione amministrativa) l’esito della richiesta di asilo. Rotoli che, chissà poi perchè, diventeranno sei a settimana per gli sfortunati che, a fronte del diniego, verranno trasferiti nell’ala destinata a Cpr.

    Solo un cambio di abiti a stagione

    Nel kit di primo ingresso nei centri solo un paio di mutande e un paio di calze e, più in generale, un solo cambio di abiti a stagione.E dunque, a differenza dei centri di accoglienza italiani dove i migranti sono liberi e possono procurarsi altri abiti, i richiedenti asilo portati in Albania saranno detenuti e costretti ad indossare sempre gli stessi. Avranno il detersivo per lavarli due volte a settimana, nel frattempo evidentemente staranno in pigiama. Almeno si consoleranno con il cibo che prevede persino la pizza e il dolce due volte a settimana.

    Per raccontare la loro storia alla commissione d’asilo che deciderà il loro destino o per comparire davanti ai giudici di Roma, competenti sui ricorsi, dovranno accontentarsi di un collegamento da remoto, con tutte le limitazioni in tema di diritti che nascono dalle difficoltà di espressione e comprensione.

    Magi: “Un gigantesco spot elettorale”

    «Una bella photo-opportunity elettorale - commenta Riccardo Magi di Più Europa - Giorgia Meloni vuole allestire questi centri in fretta e furia e usarli come un gigantesco spot a pochi giorni dal voto a spese degli italiani».

    https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2024/03/23/news/migranti_centri_albania_bando_viminale-422362144

    #Albanie #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #coût #urgence #gestion #appel_d'offre #externalisation

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur l’#accord entre #Italie et #Albanie pour la construction de #centres d’accueil (sic) et identification des migrants/#réfugiés sur le territoire albanais...
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1043873

    • Protocollo Italia-Albania: il Viminale avvia la gara milionaria per la gestione dei centri

      Dal bando pubblicato il 21 marzo dalla prefettura di Roma emergono i primi dettagli dell’accordo contro i migranti: solo per le spese vive e il personale delle strutture, due hotspot e un Centro di permanenza per il rimpatrio, sono assicurati al gestore privato quasi 40 milioni di euro all’anno. I tempi sono strettissimi, le europee incombono

      Il ministero dell’Interno ha pubblicato i bandi di gara per la gestione delle nuove strutture per i migranti in Albania che diventeranno operative, documenti alla mano, entro il 20 maggio 2024. Un primo passo concreto verso la messa in pratica del protocollo annunciato dal Governo Meloni con Tirana lo scorso 6 novembre 2023 -poi ratificato dal Parlamento a fine febbraio 2024- e che prevede di dislocare i naufraghi soccorsi in operazioni di salvataggio in mare sul territorio albanese. Più precisamente in tre strutture con una capienza totale che supera i mille posti disponibili: due hotspot, ovvero i centri di identificazione, che in Italia troviamo nei cosiddetti “punti di crisi”, principali punti di sbarco (Lampedusa, Pozzallo e Taranto tra gli altri), più un Centro di permanenza per il rimpatrio (Cpr) dove trattenere coloro che sono in attesa di essere espulsi nel proprio Paese d’origine. La spesa annuale stimata è pari a quasi 40 milioni di euro, calcolando esclusivamente il costo a persona (pro-capite pro-die), che però esclude diverse spese vive (dal trasporto all’assistenza sanitaria fino alle utenze).

      La gara è stata pubblicata il 21 marzo e individua nella prefettura di Roma la stazione appaltante, la quale ha scelto di attivare una procedura negoziata con cui consulterà un “numero congruo di operatori economici” per aggiudicare i servizi all’ente gestore. Un bando di questo genere può essere giustificato solo in casi di estrema urgenza. E secondo il ministero l’affidamento in oggetto, essendo un presupposto fondamentale per “l’attuazione del Protocollo tra Italia e Albania in conformità ai tempi ed agli adempimenti che risultano necessari per rispettare, alle scadenze previste, gli impegni assunti dal Governo della Repubblica Italiana”, rientra tra quelle procedure basate proprio su “ragioni di estrema urgenza”.

      La prima struttura è sita nella città portuale di Shenjin e sarà a tutti gli effetti un hotspot. “Una struttura dimensionata per l’accoglienza, senza pernottamento, dei migranti condotti in porto e destinati alle procedure di screening sanitario, identificazione e raccolta delle eventuali domande di asilo, all’esito delle quali i migranti saranno trasferiti presso le strutture di Gjader”. Gjader è la seconda località coinvolta dove saranno costruite le altre due strutture: un centro destinato “all’accertamento dei presupposti per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale” con un’accoglienza massima a regime di 880 migranti, e un altro, sempre nella stessa città albanese che sarà invece un Centro di permanenza per il rimpatrio, che ricalca quelli presenti sul territorio italiano, con una capienza fino a 144 persone. A Gjader saranno disponibili poi 168 posti per alloggi di servizio, di cui 60 riservati al personale dell’ente gestore.

      Come detto, i corrispettivi riconosciuti pro-capite pro-die, secondo la tipologia di centro ed il relativo numero degli ospiti presenti, ammontano “presuntivamente a complessivi 33.950.139 euro annui”. La gara d’appalto ha una durata di due anni, prorogabili fino ad un massimo di altri due. Sono esclusi dai quasi 40 milioni di euro, invece, i costi di trasporto, le utenze idriche, elettriche, del servizio di raccolta rifiuti, la connessione wifi e la manutenzione ordinaria e straordinaria. Così come quelli per la “predisposizione e manutenzione dei presidi antincendio” e quelli “relativi all’assistenza sanitaria”.

      Proprio questo è uno degli aspetti paradossali affrontati dal bando. Per la struttura sita nel porto di Shenjin si prevede “un ambulatorio medico dedicato per assistenza sanitaria, inclusa la stabilizzazione di condizioni cliniche ai fini del trasferimento” con “una sala per visite ambulatoriali, una stanza per osservazioni brevi con tre posti letto e una stanza di isolamento con due posti”.

      Invece nel sito di Gjader verrà di fatto allestito un vero e proprio “mini ospedale”. Vengono previste “tre sale per visite ambulatoriali, due stanze per osservazioni brevi (ognuna dotata di tre posti letto), una medicheria, una sala operatoria e una recovery room, un laboratorio analisi, una stanza per diagnostica per immagini (rx ed ecografia), una per visite psicologiche/psichiatriche all’uopo utilizzabile anche per consulenze in telemedicina e due stanze di isolamento”. Una struttura in cui opererà un elevatissimo numero di personale sanitario. Oltre a medici e infermieri per l’attività standard, viene prevista una équipe operativa 24 ore al giorno formata rispettivamente da: “medico specialista in anestesia-rianimazione, medico specialista in chirurgia generale, medico specialista in ortopedia con competenze chirurgiche, personale medico specialista in psichiatria, un infermiere strumentista, un operatore socio-sanitario (in caso di attivazione della sala operatoria), un tecnico di laboratorio, un tecnico di radiologia, un personale medico specialista in radiologia”.

      L’ente gestore, oltre a fornire kit di primo ingresso, sia igienici sia vestiari e a garantire la fornitura dei pasti e l’informativa legale, dovrà garantire la predisposizione di “appositi locali e strumenti tecnici che assicurino la connessione alla rete e il collegamento audio-visivo nel rispetto della privacy e della libertà di autodeterminazione del beneficiario per l’eventuale audizione da remoto davanti alle Commissioni territoriali, nonché davanti al Tribunale ordinario e ad altri uffici amministrativi”. In altri termini: saranno implementate delle stanze per svolgere le audizioni di chi, una volta richiesto asilo, dovrà affrontare l’iter per vedersi o meno riconosciuto il permesso di soggiorno. Tutto inevitabilmente online. Dovrà esserci anche un locale “al fine di tutelare la riservatezza della persona nei colloqui con il proprio legale” o favorire l’incontro con “eventuali visitatori ammessi”. La prefettura di Roma, dovrà essere messa a conoscenza “di ogni notizia di rilievo inerente la regolare conduzione della convivenza e le condizioni del centro e tenuta di un registro con gli eventuali episodi che hanno causato lesioni a ospiti od operatori”, nonché la consegna della certificazione di idoneità al trattenimento.

      La gara è aperta fino al 28 marzo. La prefettura valuterà le offerte pervenute da imprese o cooperative già attive nel settore con un fatturato complessivo, negli ultimi tre esercizi disponibili, non inferiore a cinque milioni di euro. Non certo piccole realtà dell’accoglienza. L’avvio dell’operatività dei centri è prevista non oltre il 20 maggio 2024. Quindici giorni prima di quella data, il ministero dell’Interno potrà confermare o meno l’effettivo avvio a pieno regime oppure anche con “una ricettività progressiva rispetto a quella massima prevista nelle more del completamento degli eventuali lavori di allestimento”. L’importante è partire: le elezioni europee di inizio giugno incombono.

      https://altreconomia.it/protocollo-italia-albania-il-viminale-avvia-la-gara-milionaria-per-la-g

    • Albania-Italy migrant deal moves ahead as Rome publishes tender for processing centre

      As of 20 May 2024, camps in Albania that will process the asylum applications of individuals rescued by the Italian authorities will be up and running, as a recently published tender document reveals more details about the deal and how the site will function.

      In November 2023, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni signed a deal that would see migrants rescued in Italian territorial waters or by Italian authorities sent to Albania for their asylum applications to be processed. The deal has divided opinion on both sides of the Adriatic from the outset, but both governments remain adamant about it going ahead.

      The tender notifications, published by the Rome prefect’s department, invite bidders to submit their offers before 28 March with the deadline of 20 May as the start of operations.

      According to the tender details, worth €34 million, the site will consist of three structures able to accommodate a total of around 3000 people.

      One structure will be built at the port of Shengjin, where landing and identification procedures will be carried out.

      The other two sites will be located in Gjader. One will be dedicated to ascertaining the prerequisites for the recognition of international protection, while the other will serve as a repatriation detention centre.

      According to the Italian government, the site will process individuals rescued by the Italian authorities involved in maritime rescue, such as the coast guard, financial police, or navy, and explicitly exclude those rescued by NGOs. It will also not include disabled people, women, children, or other vulnerable individuals.

      The tender states that the facility in Shengjin will have a medical clinic, including a room for outpatient visits, an isolation room, and a three-bed ward. In Gjader, there will be three outpatient rooms, two wards, an operating theatre, a laboratory, an x-ray and ultrasound room, and a space for psychological and psychiatric visits.

      Medical specialists on site will include a doctor specialising in anaesthesia and resuscitation, a doctor specialising in general surgery, a doctor specialising in orthopaedics with surgical skills, medical staff specialising in psychiatry, an instrumental nurse, a social doctor, a health worker, a laboratory technician, a radiology technician, and a health worker specialising in radiology.

      Upon arrival, welcome kits will also be presented to each individual, including an undershirt, T-shirt, pair of pyjamas, three pairs of shorts, and three pairs of socks. They will also be given one roll of toilet paper a week, one toothbrush and 100ml tube of toothpaste per week, and one bottle of shampoo and liquid soap per week.

      The Italian Interior Ministry will conduct spot checks on the site to ensure compliance with the tender.

      During their stay in Albania, estimated at around three months for each person, individuals will not be able to leave the centre, which is to be guarded by Italian and Albanian authorities. If they do, the Albanian police will return them. Once their application has been processed, whatever the outcome, they will be removed from Albania’s territory.

      While on-site, individuals can access legal assistance from representatives of international organisations, including the EU, which aims to provide legal aid to all asylum seekers as required by Italian, Albanian and EU law.

      The agreement caused controversy in Italy and Albania, with the Constitutional Court in Tirana narrowly ruling that it did not violate the laws of the land earlier this year. Meanwhile, despite claims from international law experts that it is not compliant with EU law, European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson said it did not break the law as it is “outside of it”.

      Work has not yet begun at the sites in Shengjin and Gjader, leading to questions about whether they can be operational by spring.

      Shengjin was also home to hundreds of Afghan refugees that Albania took in after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan led to the takeover of the Taliban. While the US promised to take responsibility for them, asking Albania to keep them while it processed their visas, a number still remain with no news or idea if they will ever leave.

      As for the migrant deal, several other EU countries have hinted they may look at similar deals to deal with their immigration issues, a move likely to score votes from the conservative parts of society, ahead of EU elections.

      https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/albania-italy-migrant-deal-moves-ahead-as-rome-publishes-tender-for-proces

    • #Medihospes, #Consorzio_Hera, #Officine_sociali: chi gestirà i centri per migranti in Albania

      La prefettura di Roma ha reso noti i tre partecipanti selezionati tra le trenta proposte pervenute per gestire i due hotspot e il Cpr previsti dall’accordo tra Roma e Tirana. Entro il 20 maggio la gara verrà aggiudicata per un importo che supera i 150 milioni di euro. Ma i lavori di adeguamento alle strutture non sono ancora completati

      Medihospes, Consorzio Hera e Officine sociali. Sono le tre cooperative in corsa per la gestione dei centri italiani in Albania selezionate per le “esperienze contrattuali pregresse afferenti a questi servizi” tra le trenta che hanno manifestato alla prefettura di Roma la propria volontà di partecipare alla gara. Un appalto da oltre 151 milioni di euro (per quattro anni) che verrà aggiudicato, nelle prossime settimane, all’operatore economico che ha presentato l’offerta economicamente più vantaggiosa.

      Alle tre cooperative in corsa una certa “esperienza” non manca. Officine sociali, con sede legale a Siracusa, gestisce attualmente il Centro di permanenza per il rimpatrio (Cpr) di Palazzo San Gervasio a Potenza e l’hotspot di Taranto in Puglia. Attualmente è in gara anche per l’aggiudicazione della gestione del Cpr di Gradisca d’Isonzo, dove sta correndo al fianco di Martinina Srl, finita sotto indagine della Procura di Milano per le condizioni disumane in cui versavano i trattenuti al Cpr di via Corelli di Milano. Il legame tra le due società, come già raccontato su Altreconomia, perdura da tempo: insieme hanno partecipato anche alla gara pubblica per la gestione del Cpr di Torino.


      Consorzio Hera, invece, con sede legale a Castelvetrano, in provincia di Trapani, gestisce attualmente il Cara e il Cpr di Brindisi e quello di Trapani, in cordata con la cooperativa Vivere Con. Inoltre la cooperativa ha “vinto” anche l’hotspot di Pozzallo e Ragusa di cui è l’attuale ente gestore.

      Poi c’è Medihospes, è un colosso da 126 milioni di euro di fatturato nel 2022 che si occupa di assistenza ad anziani, alle persone con disabilità, servizi alberghieri e accoglienza ai migranti. Gestisce attualmente l’ex caserma Cavarzerani di Udine -di cui abbiamo già raccontato in precedenza- ma è attiva in diverse province italiane nell’accoglienza dei richiedenti asilo. Basti pensare che nel 2022 ha incassato, in totale, oltre 34 milioni di euro in tutta Italia per la gestione dei centri.

      Briciole rispetto agli oltre 151 milioni di euro preventivati dalla prefettura di Roma per la “gara” relativa alla gestione delle strutture previste dal protocollo Italia-Albania: un centro nella città portuale albanese Shengjin (hotspot) e due strutture (un altro hotspot e un Cpr) a Gjader (ne abbiamo parlato in questo approfondimento).

      La fornitura di servizi è preventivata con una base d’asta di 130 milioni di euro, con l’aggiunta di quasi sei milioni per il pocket-money e la tessera telefonica. La durata è di 24 mesi, prorogabili per altri 24 a partire dal 20 maggio 2024. Data entro la quale la prefettura di Roma dovrebbe aggiudicare la gara alla cooperativa che avrà presentato l’offerta economicamente più vantaggiosa. Nei nuovi documenti di gara si sottolinea che i lavori di adeguamento delle strutture non sono ancora stati conclusi. Una corsa contro il tempo. Obiettivo: non certo la tutela dei diritti delle persone ma le elezioni europee.

      https://altreconomia.it/medihospes-consorzio-hera-officine-sociali-chi-gestira-i-centri-per-mig
      #externalisation #Italie #accord #Albanie #migrations #réfugiés #coopérative #sous-traitance #Engel #Engel_Italia #business #Shengjin #Gjader

  • Rwanda trips by UK ministers and officials have already cost over £400,000

    Sending ministers and officials to Rwanda has cost the government more than £400,000 before a single deportation flight has taken off, figures show.

    Ministers have spent a total of £413,541 on travel in the two years since the policy to send asylum seekers to Kigali started to be developed.

    The total, calculated by the Labour party, is based on government transparency releases. It includes trips by senior government officials and a succession of ministers and home secretaries including James Cleverly, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel.

    This week it emerged that Cleverly spent £165,561 on chartering a private jet for a one-day trip to sign a new treaty with Rwanda in December. The cost of the flight was published in a transparency document on Thursday.

    The shadow immigration minister, Stephen Kinnock, said: “Having clearly decided that committing £600m of taxpayers’ money to the Rwandan government for just 300 refugees wasn’t insulting enough, it now emerges that three home secretaries have blown hundreds of thousands of pounds on their various publicity stunts in Rwanda. This government’s enthusiasm for wasting taxpayers’ money knows no bounds.

    “Labour would redirect the cash set aside for Rwanda into a cross-border police unit and security partnership to smash the criminal smuggler gangs at source, and introduce a new returns unit to quickly remove those with no right to be here.”

    A succession of legal challenges have prevented the Rwanda policy, which would send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on small boats to the east African country for processing, from being implemented.

    The plan was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022 but is yet to become operational two years later.

    The government insists that flights to Rwanda will take off this spring, after a bill intended to overcome legal hurdles to the policy becomes law.

    However, ministers have delayed the passage of the bill until after Easter, with the final votes on it expected to take place in mid-April. The government has yet to find an airline to operate the flight.

    Asked why he was waiting another three weeks to push the legislation through, Rishi Sunak said his plan to stop Channel crossings “is working”.

    “People should not be able to jump the queue, come here illegally, put pressure on local services, undermine our sense of fairness and ultimately put their lives at risk as they are exploited by gangs,” he told broadcasters. “That’s why I am determined to stop the boats. Our plan is working, the numbers last year were down by a third. That’s never happened before, that shows that we are making progress.”

    He added that the UK needed Rwanda flights as a “deterrent” to “finish the job”.

    Cleverly’s flight to Rwanda in December was to sign a new treaty that established a new appeal body, to be made up of judges with asylum expertise from a range of countries, to hear individual cases.

    The flights alone of the home secretary’s 24-hour trip cost more than four times the total cost of Braverman’s last visit in March 2023. Her trip cost just over £40,000, with flights at £35,041, hotels £4,301, transport £248 and “engagement” £2,056, the Daily Mirror reported last year.

    The government said Rwanda’s asylum system would be monitored by an independent committee, whose powers to enforce the treaty would be beefed up. The committee would develop a system to enable relocated people and their lawyers to lodge complaints.

    The government was criticised earlier this month for planning to spend £1.8m on each of the first 300 asylum seekers it plans to send to Rwanda. The overall cost of the scheme stands at more than half a billion pounds, according to the figures released to the National Audit Office.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/rwanda-trips-uk-ministers-officials-cost-over-400000

    #coût #Rwanda #externalisation #UK #Angleterre #préparation #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    –—

    ajouté à la #métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • “Action file” on Tunisia outlines EU’s externalisation plans

    An “action file” obtained by Statewatch lays out the objectives and activities of the EU’s cooperation on migration with Tunisia – whose government was heavily criticized by the European Parliament this week for “an authoritarian reversal and an alarming backslide on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

    Externalisation of migration control

    The document (pdf), produced as part of the #Operational_Coordination_Mechanism_for_the_External_Dimension_of_Migration (#MOCADEM) and circulated within the Council in December 2023, summarizes ongoing EU efforts to externalise migration and border control to Tunisia. It covers the main developments since the signature of the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding of July 2023.

    The MoU is cited in the document as a cooperation “framework” whose implementation shall “continue”. Criticism also continues, with the organization Refugees International arguing:

    “The short-term securitisation approach to Tunisia advanced by Team Europe is… likely to fail on at least two fronts: both on its own terms by failing to stem irregular migration, and on legal and ethical terms by tying EU support to the inevitability of grave human rights abuses by Tunisian authorities.”

    From the document it is clear that the EU has intensified political and technical outreach to Tunisia through high-level visits from both EU and member state representatives and that the Tunisian authorities are involved in different initiatives, including through EU agencies, such as Europol and Frontex. The European Police College (CEPOL), the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA) and Eurojust are also mentioned as potential actors for cooperation.

    The measures listed in the document target all potential migration from Tunisia to the EU. However, distinctions are drawn – including in the language used – between measures addressed to non-Tunisian nationals and measures addressed to Tunisian nationals.

    Measures addressed to non-Tunisian nationals

    For non-Tunisian nationals, “preventing irregular departures from, as well as irregular arrivals to Tunisia” is the key objective of ongoing cooperation in the areas of border management, anti-smuggling and search and rescue. The EU provides Tunisia different amounts of funding through existing projects.

    Border management, including search and rescue

    the EU finances the projects Strengthening the Tunisian Coast Guard Training Pillar, run by ICMPD (2023-2026) and the EUTF funded Border Management Programme for the Maghreb region (BMP-Maghreb) (2018-2024). Both projects aim at developing the Tunisian authorities’ border control capacity, for both land and sea borders, thus including search and rescue activities. This is done through the donation of equipment and the training of the Garde National of Tunisia and the Navy.

    As for equipment, details about the delivery of boats, engines and spare parts for putting search and rescue vessels to Tunisia are included in the document, including the provision of fuel. A new contract will “build and equip a command-and-control centre for the Tunisian national guard at the border with Libya,” to enhance cross-border cooperation with Libya.

    With regard to training, the document mentions a session for two officials in Rome as well as the participation of the Tunisian border control authorities in a Frontex workshop organised in the context of Joint Operation Themis. The MOCADEM reports that Tunisia considers talks on a working arrangement with Frontex “pre-mature.”

    Anti-smuggling

    The EU pursues the Anti-smuggling Operational Partnership (ASOP) to try to develop the Tunisian police capacity to investigate, prosecute and convict smugglers. Training is also key in this area.

    The document mentions a mentorship programme between Tunisia and the EU Member States on migrant smuggling. Cross-border cooperation in investigations is encouraged, also through Europol, information campaigns (in North Africa and along the Central Mediterranean), and regional action. There is an ongoing discussion on a Europol agreement to exchange personal data between Europol and Tunisian authorities.

    Return and reintegration of non-Tunisian nationals

    the EU finances IOM’s project on Migrant Protection, Return and Reintegration in North Africa, concretely supporting assisted voluntary return from Tunisia to countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The MOCADEM document states that the EU engages “with Tunisian authorities to develop a national mechanism for returns facilitation.”

    Direct capacity-building of national authorities to return non-Tunisian nationals to their country of origin is a novelty in the EU migration policies. This is a follow-up of the objective spelled out in the EU-Tunisia MoU of “developing a system for the identification and return of irregular migrants already present in Tunisia”. It is reported that a “new technical assistance programme to further support the return system in Tunisia is under preparation.”

    International protection for non-Tunisian nationals

    As usual, protection programmes receive much lower funding than other cooperation objectives for the securitisation of migration. In Tunisia, the EU will fund a project run by the UNCHR to enhance reception and access to international protection for asylum seekers and refugees.

    Measures addressed to Tunisian nationals

    For Tunisian nationals, the EU aims to increase return and readmission of Tunisian nationals deemed to be irregularly staying in the EU to Tunisia, privileging so-called “assisted voluntary return” and reintegration projects for Tunisian nationals over forced returns. At the same time, the EU stresses the importance of increasing opportunities for legal migration through the launch of a “Talent Partnership” and better visa conditions for Tunisian nationals.

    Deportations

    the EU finances a national reintegration support mechanism called “Tounesna,” as well as the Frontex Joint Reintegration Services, for which Frontex launched a new call for proposals. Key actors in this area are the High Level Network for Return, chaired by the EU Return Coordinator and composed of representatives of all Member States and Frontex.

    In October 2023, Tunisia was identified as one of the seven countries targeted for joint deportation actions. The document reports that the negotiations for an EU-Tunisia readmission agreement and visa facilitation agreements, which started in 2016, have been on hold since 2019 and that “Tunisia has shown no interest to date to relaunch the negotiations.”

    Legal migration

    The EU finances pilot projects under the Mobility Partnership Facility (MPF) and the regional project THAMM (2018-2023), which received extra funding. Again, the launch of an EU-Tunisia Talent Partnership is announced through a Joint Roadmap for a Talent Partnership, which is yet to be finalized.

    In the EU-Tunisia MoU, the EU promised to “take appropriate measures to facilitate legal mobility between the two Parties, including facilitating the granting of visas by reducing delays, costs and administrative procedure.” However, in this document there are no prospects for cooperation on visa policy. The document merely contains a reminder that visa policy is conditional on readmission cooperation.

    Ongoing cooperation

    While the European Parliament this week condemned a decision by the Commission to release €150 million to Tunisia through an urgent written procedure, bypassing the normal-decision making process, with a resolution that said the North African country is undergoing “an authoritarian reversal and an alarming backslide on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

    The resolution goes on to say that “over the last year, President Kais Saied has had opposition politicians, judges, media workers and civil society activists arbitrarily arrested and detained.”

    However, the cooperation being coordinated through MOCADEM remains largely beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. As highlighted by a separate article published today by Statewatch and Migration-Control.info, the parliament’s lawyers agree with MEPs that this needs to change.

    https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/march/action-file-on-tunisia-outlines-eu-s-externalisation-plans
    #Tunisie #externalisation #migrations #réfugiés #financement #Kais_Saied #accord #frontières #EU #UE #Union_européenne #contrôles_frontaliers

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur le #Memorandum_of_Understanding (#MoU) avec la #Tunisie :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1020591

  • European Commission accused of ‘bankrolling dictators’ by MEPs after Tunisia deal

    Members of justice committee say €150m in EU funding went straight to country’s president, Kais Saied

    The European Commission has been accused of “bankrolling dictators” by senior MEPs who have claimed that the €150m it gave to Tunisia last year in a migration and development deal has ended up directly in the president’s hands.

    A group of MEPs on the human rights, justice and foreign affairs committees at the European parliament launched a scathing attack on the executive in Brussels, expressing anxiety over reports that the commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, was about to seal a similar deal with Egypt.

    The Greek migration minister, Dimitris Kairidis, confirmed late on Wednesday that a joint declaration between the EU and Egypt had been agreed and would be formally unveiled when von der Leyen and the leaders of Greece, Italy and Belgium visit Cairo on Sunday.

    The agreement sees Egypt receiving an aid package of €7.4bn (£6.3bn) “mostly in loans” in return for the country “committing to work harder on migration”, he told the Guardian, adding: “I have said, time and again to my colleagues, that we need to support Egypt which has been so helpful in managing migration and so important for the stability of North Africa and the wider Middle East.”

    Kairidis, who held talks with the Egyptian ambassador to Greece on Wednesday, confirmed there had been no boats leaving directly from Egypt, even if arrivals on southern Greek islands of migrants travelling through Libya had soared this year. “Egypt is not only hosting 9 million refugees, it has been very effective in controlling illegal migration,” he said.

    The MEPs have accused the commission of refusing to answer questions on the deal with Tunisia and worry that it is looking at a series of “ad hoc” deals with other African countries without regard to democracy and rule of law in those countries.

    “It seems that we are bankrolling dictators across the region. And that is not the Europe that we want to see. That is not the place which the EU should be holding in the world,” said the French MEP Mounir Satouri, a member of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee.

    At a press conference in Strasbourg, he claimed the money – pledged to Tunisia last year as part of a wider pact aimed at curbing a surge in migration to Italy and people-smuggling – had been diverted, saying that the €150m was supposed to have been invested directly in an EU-agreed project but instead had been “transferred to the president directly”.

    Fellow MEPs said there had been an “authoritarian shift” in Tunisia under its president, Kais Saied, but the commissioners had gone ahead with the deal anyway.

    A spokesperson for the EU commission said MEPs were entitled to express their views but that it was better to build partnerships to improve democracy and human rights than to “break off relations” and see the situation deteriorate.

    “What I can say is that we are absolutely convinced of the necessity to work with countries in our neighbourhood, taking into account the realities on the ground,” the spokesperson said. “We know the criticism related to human rights in those countries, and it is obvious that this is an issue and that these are issues that we take up with those countries.”

    The spokesperson added there were “specific mechanisms in place to discuss human rights with the countries in the region, including Egypt”.

    The Danish MEP Karen Melchior, coordinator of the justice committee, said parliamentarians’ concerns about the Tunisia deal were “being continually ignored” and that commissioners refused to answer their questions or take their concerns seriously.

    “How can we continue to have a memorandum of understanding, how can we give budget support without conditionality to Tunisia, when things are going from bad to worse?” she said.

    “To sign an agreement with President Saied, who is continuing to suppress opposition and democracy in Tunisia – this is not the way the EU should be acting. This is not the way that Team Europe should be doing our foreign policy.”

    The chair of the human rights committee, Udo Bullman, attacked what he said was a “hush-hush” deal that had been rushed through.

    “The commission has to explain why there was so much urgency in the agreement of last summer – why it, hush-hush, very quickly before Christmas, [said] it was of the ‘highest urgency’ and just gave the money … without any critical debate,” he said, adding this was a question for the EU’s commissioner for neighbourhood and enlargement, Olivér Várhelyi, and for von der Leyen.

    Michael Gahler, the German CDU MEP who was blocked from visiting Tunisia by the local authorities last year, said the Tunisian people should not be abandoned in the face of “Saied’s autocratic rule” and economic decline.

    “That requires us to make sure that European taxpayers’ money truly benefits the Tunisian people and the civil society … and why it has to be clear that European funding to Tunisia needs to be adequately conditioned to that end,” he said.

    The concerns are being voiced this week as the EU parliament’s five-year mandate draws to a close before elections in June, with MEPs keen to lay down red lines for any future deals the executive in Brussels intends to do.

    Sara Prestianni, the advocacy director for the NGO EuroMed Rights, said she was concerned the EU was about to make a similar “strategic and political” mistake with Cairo, pledging vast sums of money without setting conditions involving enough financial oversight or guarantees on human rights. “It would be an error, particularly if it [the Tunisia deal] is replicated with Egypt,” she said.

    Satouri, who is also the parliament’s special rapporteur for Egypt, said: “We need to ensure democratic procedures are followed before money is disbursed. These are not the private fund of Commissioner Várhelyi. These are European funds.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/13/european-commission-accused-of-bankrolling-dictators-by-meps-after-tuni
    #Tunisie #externalisation #migrations #réfugiés #financement #Kais_Saied #accord

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur le #Memorandum_of_Understanding (#MoU) avec la #Tunisie :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1020591

  • Von der Leyen’s EU group plans Rwanda-style asylum schemes

    Centre-right European People’s party says it wants to create deportation deals with non-EU countries to head off rise of far right.

    The European Commission chief, #Ursula_von_der_Leyen, has given her support to controversial migration reforms that would involve deporting people to third countries for asylum processing and the imposition of a quota system for those receiving protection in EU countries.

    Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s party (EPP), said the policies – similar to the UK’s Rwanda scheme – had been worked out with all the parties in the EPP political group, which includes von der Leyen’s Christian Democrat Union in Germany.

    Warning that “the far right wants to destroy Europe from the inside”, Weber said the EPP would be “crystal clear” about its desire to reduce immigration in the campaign for the European elections in June.

    Asked if von der Leyen – who is expected to be nominated as the EPP’s candidate for European Commission president at its annual congress in Romania – backed these policies, Weber said: “All the programmatic positions of the European People’s party are [supported] also by Ursula von der Leyen … We do this as a team together.

    He added: “What European people expect from us – and here the European People’s party will be, in the campaign, crystal clear – you have to lower the numbers of arrivals. And we have to separate the visitors who are refugees and asylum seekers who should get the protection they need.”

    The policy is seen as an initiative to head off the rise of far-right and extremist parties such as the AfD in Germany. It envisages the EU doing a series of deals with non-EU states with a view to deporting people who have arrived via irregular migration routes for asylum processing in those “safe” third countries.

    The draft law advocating the fundamental change in European asylum regime will be considered at the EPP’s annual congress in Bucharest on Wednesday as part of the party’s manifesto discussions.

    The hardening of migration policy is likely to inflame tensions within the parliament and create external political risks for von der Leyen, who must represent the interests of the entire EU and not one political bloc in parliament, where the EPP is the largest grouping.

    She is expected to be formally selected as the EPP’s official candidate for the European Commission presidency in a vote in Romania on Thursday, meaning that it will back her for a second term in office.

    One Brussels insider said “the socialists will go mad with this” – a reference to the Socialists and Democrats, the second-biggest voting bloc in the European parliament.

    Sophie in ’t Veld, a Dutch MEP and the lead representative for the liberal Renew group on the parliament’s committee for civil liberties, justice and home affairs, called the measure “yet another unsavoury EPP chunk of red meat, meant to attract the far-right vote”.

    She added: “It will not work. All the EPP strategy has achieved over the past years is making the far right bigger. So if they know it doesn’t work, why do they stubbornly repeat the same tactics each time?”

    The EPP represents centre-right parties across Europe, including government parties in Greece, Poland, Ireland, Latvia, Croatia, Lithuania, Sweden, Romania, Finland and Luxembourg.

    Its manifesto says: “We want to implement the concept of safe third countries. Anyone applying for asylum in the EU could also be transferred to a safe third country and undergo the asylum process there.” However, in what could be seen as an effort to set itself apart from the UK’s controversial Rwanda policy, the manifesto stresses that the “criteria for safe countries shall be in line with the core obligations of the Geneva refugee convention and the European convention on human rights”.

    It says that neither of the conventions “include the right to freely choose the country of protection”.

    Developing the theme further, it says that after the “implementation of the third country concept”, it proposes the EU then “admit a quota of people in need of protection through annual humanitarian quotas of vulnerable individuals”.

    The publication of the manifesto and the launch of the EPP campaign could be start of a tricky period for von der Leyen. “I don’t think she will have any difficulty among member states, but the parliamentary vote is another game altogether,” said one diplomat.

    While very little legislation is left to negotiate, the bumps on the road to June act as a reminder of how von der Leyen came to power in 2019 – as a last-minute compromise candidate who was voted in with a wafer-thin majority.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/eu-group-european-peoples-party-von-der-leyen-migration-reforms

    #UE #externalisation #Union_européenne #EU #procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #modèle_australien #Rwanda #Rwanda-style

    –—

    ajouté à la #métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • UK strikes £1M deal with Libya to combat irregular arrivals into Europe

    The announcement comes after Britain’s home office minister concluded a visit to Tripoli with representatives from the European Union, the United Nations, France, Germany, and Malta.

    The United Kingdom will pay Libya £1 million (1.17 million euros) to stop people from entering Europe by crossing the Mediterranean Sea and instead repatriate them to their countries of origin, the German news agency dpa reported.

    The announcement comes after #Michael_Tomlinson, Britain’s home office minister, concluded a visit to Tripoli last week with representatives from the European Union, the United Nations, France, Germany, and Malta. Tomlinson is the first UK home office minister to visit the North African country in decades.

    “As well as supporting survivors of trafficking, the funding will assist migrants who choose to return to their countries of origin. These voluntary returns are one of the most fundamental tools at our disposal for driving down migration numbers globally,” Tomlinson said in a statement published on his website.

    The International Organization for Migration (IOM) defines voluntary returns as the “assisted or independent return to the country of origin, transit or another country based on the voluntary decision of the returnee.”

    Launching pad for entry to Europe

    The previous year saw record-high arrivals in Europe from North Africa, with over 150,000 migrants reaching Italy by sea. Libya, a major departure point for Mediterranean-bound migrants, saw nearly 40,000 arrivals in Europe.

    “The new funding I announced is only the latest step in our drive to bolster international efforts, building on our new deal with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and agreements with other countries including Vietnam and Albania,” said Tomlinson in an article he wrote for British newspaper The Telegraph.

    Last month, the UK also announced a new working arrangement with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to crack down on people smuggling networks by strengthening Frontex’s border agency capabilities.

    “This isn’t just Libya or North Africa; it isn’t just Europe. It is a global challenge. And we are getting on with the job. We will do whatever it takes to secure our borders, reform our immigration system, and stop the boats,” Tomlinson concluded.

    In addition to Libya, the UK has pledged a £3 million deal with Turkey to construct a new center to coordinate joint operations between the UK and the Turkish border patrol. Tukey is reportedly the starting point for 90 percent of the small boats attempting to enter the UK by crossing the English Channel.

    Last year, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak penned similar bilateral agreements with Belgium, Bulgaria, and Serbia.

    Outsourcing migrant oppression

    The UK and Libya alliance comes in the wake of media reports that the humanitarian rescue group SOS Humanity 1 clashed with the Libyan coast guard while conducting a rescue mission earlier this month. SOS Humanity alleged that the Libyan Coast Guard had fired live bullets and used violence.

    Human rights groups have widely criticized Europe for outsourcing their migration policies to African countries, particularly those with a record of human rights abuses such as Libya.

    In January, Human Rights Watch released a report that revealed the dire conditions faced by migrants and asylum seekers in Libya which include torture, forced labor, and sexual assault.

    After a fact-finding mission in Libya last year, the UN Human Rights Council declared that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed against Libyans and migrants throughout Libya since 2016.”

    There are an estimated 600,000 migrants stranded in Libya according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

    Failed state

    Libya spiraled into chaos after Muammar Gaddafi’s removal in 2011. Libya plunged into a failed state with two rival political administrations controlled by militias.

    Since then, Libya has faced persistent condemnation from human rights organizations for widespread human rights violations and unchecked actions by the government.

    #Angleterre #UK #Libye #externalisation #migrations #réfugiés #financement #aide_financière

  • Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda

    Le gouvernement britannique a promis de faire baisser l’immigration. Sa solution : délocaliser son système d’asile au Rwanda pour dissuader les arrivées clandestines, en particulier via la Manche. Pour l’instant, la justice bloque le projet. Alors, l’exécutif propose une loi qui affirme que le Rwanda est un pays sûr. Mais le processus parlementaire vient de se compliquer lors de l’examen à la #Chambre_des_Lords.

    Les Lords britanniques ont approuvé mercredi soir une dizaine d’amendements au projet de loi sur la sécurité du Rwanda. La plupart avec une marge de plus de 100 voix.

    Parmi ces amendements, la possibilité pour les tribunaux britanniques d’intervenir dans l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile. C’est le principal revers pour le gouvernement, qui a présenté ce texte précisément pour contourner les injonctions judiciaires.

    Les membres de la Chambre haute ont également voté pour renforcer les protections pour les mineurs non accompagnés, les victimes de l’esclavage moderne et les anciens collaborateurs des services britanniques.

    Un amendement réclame enfin la publication de données chiffrées de la part du gouvernement, qui n’a toujours pas indiqué combien de demandeurs d’asile il comptait envoyer au Rwanda.

    Le vote de ces amendements – qui affaiblissent le texte du gouvernement – va rallonger la navette parlementaire : les députés doivent valider le texte dans les mêmes termes pour qu’il soit adopté. De quoi retarder l’entrée en vigueur du partenariat avec le Rwanda promis par l’exécutif depuis deux ans.


    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/55697/royaumeuni--les-lords-mettent-un-frein-au-projet-de-delocaliser-le-sys

    #UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #offshore_asylum_processing #Rwanda

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda - InfoMigrants
    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/55697/royaumeuni--les-lords-mettent-un-frein-au-projet-de-delocaliser-le-sys

    Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda
    Par RFI Publié le : 08/03/2024
    Le gouvernement britannique a promis de faire baisser l’immigration. Sa solution : délocaliser son système d’asile au Rwanda pour dissuader les arrivées clandestines, en particulier via la Manche. Pour l’instant, la justice bloque le projet. Alors, l’exécutif propose une loi qui affirme que le Rwanda est un pays sûr. Mais le processus parlementaire vient de se compliquer lors de l’examen à la Chambre des Lords.
    Les Lords britanniques ont approuvé mercredi soir une dizaine d’amendements au projet de loi sur la sécurité du Rwanda. La plupart avec une marge de plus de 100 voix.Parmi ces amendements, la possibilité pour les tribunaux britanniques d’intervenir dans l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile. C’est le principal revers pour le gouvernement, qui a présenté ce texte précisément pour contourner les injonctions judiciaires.
    Les membres de la Chambre haute ont également voté pour renforcer les protections pour les mineurs non accompagnés, les victimes de l’esclavage moderne et les anciens collaborateurs des services britanniques.
    Un amendement réclame enfin la publication de données chiffrées de la part du gouvernement, qui n’a toujours pas indiqué combien de demandeurs d’asile il comptait envoyer au Rwanda. Le vote de ces amendements – qui affaiblissent le texte du gouvernement – va rallonger la navette parlementaire : les députés doivent valider le texte dans les mêmes termes pour qu’il soit adopté. De quoi retarder l’entrée en vigueur du partenariat avec le Rwanda promis par l’exécutif depuis deux ans.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#royaumeuni#rwanda#asile#expulsion#payssur#politiquemigratoire#droit#sante

  • Border security with drones and databases

    The EU’s borders are increasingly militarised, with hundreds of millions of euros paid to state agencies and military, security and IT companies for surveillance, patrols and apprehension and detention. This process has massive human cost, and politicians are planning to intensify it.

    Europe is ringed by steel fences topped by barbed wire; patrolled by border agents equipped with thermal vision systems, heartbeat detectors, guns and batons; and watched from the skies by drones, helicopters and planes. Anyone who enters is supposed to have their fingerprints and photograph taken for inclusion in an enormous biometric database. Constant additions to this technological arsenal are under development, backed by generous amounts of public funding. Three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there are more walls than ever at Europe’s borders,[1] and those borders stretch ever further in and out of its territory. This situation is the result of long-term political and corporate efforts to toughen up border surveillance and controls.

    The implications for those travelling to the EU depend on whether they belong to the majority entering in a “regular” manner, with the necessary paperwork and permissions, or are unable to obtain that paperwork, and cross borders irregularly. Those with permission must hand over increasing amounts of personal data. The increasing automation of borders is reliant on the collection of sensitive personal data and the use of algorithms, machine learning and other forms of so-called artificial intelligence to determine whether or not an individual poses a threat.

    Those without permission to enter the EU – a category that includes almost any refugee, with the notable exception of those who hold a Ukrainian passport – are faced with technology, personnel and policies designed to make journeys increasingly difficult, and thus increasingly dangerous. The reliance on smugglers is a result of the insistence on keeping people in need out at any cost – and the cost is substantial. Thousands of people die at Europe’s borders every year, families are separated, and people suffer serious physical and psychological harm as a result of those journeys and subsequent administrative detention and social marginalisation. Yet parties of all political stripes remain committed to the same harmful and dangerous policies – many of which are being worsened through the new Pact on Migration and Asylum.[2]

    The EU’s border agency, Frontex, based in Warsaw, was first set up in 2004 with the aim of providing technical coordination between EU member states’ border guards. Its remit has been gradually expanded. Following the “migration crisis” of 2015 and 2016, extensive new powers were granted to the agency. As the Max Planck Institute has noted, the 2016 law shifted the agency from a playing “support role” to acting as “a player in its own right that fulfils a regulatory, supervisory, and operational role.”[3] New tasks granted to the agency included coordinating deportations of rejected refugees and migrants, data analysis and exchange, border surveillance, and technology research and development. A further legal upgrade in 2019 introduced even more extensive powers, in particular in relation to deportations, and cooperation with and operations in third countries.

    The uniforms, guns and batons wielded by Frontex’s border guards are self-evidently militaristic in nature, as are other aspects of its work: surveillance drones have been acquired from Israeli military companies, and the agency deploys “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.”[4] One investigation described the companies that have held lobbying meetings or attended events with Frontex as “a Who’s Who of the weapons industry,” with guests including Airbus, BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales.[5] The information acquired from the agency’s surveillance and field operations is combined with data provided by EU and third country agencies, and fed into the European Border Surveillance System, EUROSUR. This offers a God’s-eye overview of the situation at Europe’s borders and beyond – the system also claims to provide “pre-frontier situational awareness.”

    The EU and its member states also fund research and development on these technologies. From 2014 to 2022, 49 research projects were provided with a total of almost €275 million to investigate new border technologies, including swarms of autonomous drones for border surveillance, and systems that aim to use artificial intelligence to integrate and analyse data from drones, satellites, cameras, sensors and elsewhere for “analysis of potential threats” and “detection of illegal activities.”[6] Amongst the top recipients of funding have been large research institutes – for example, Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute – but companies such as Leonardo, Smiths Detection, Engineering – Ingegneria Informatica and Veridos have also been significant beneficiaries.[7]

    This is only a tiny fraction of the funds available for strengthening the EU’s border regime. A 2022 study found that between 2015 and 2020, €7.7 billion had been spent on the EU’s borders and “the biggest parts of this budget come from European funding” – that is, the EU’s own budget. The total value of the budgets that provide funds for asylum, migration and border control between 2021-27 comes to over €113 billion[8]. Proposals for the next round of budgets from 2028 until 2035 are likely to be even larger.

    Cooperation between the EU, its member states and third countries on migration control comes in a variety of forms: diplomacy, short and long-term projects, formal agreements and operational deployments. Whatever form it takes, it is frequently extremely harmful. For example, to try to reduce the number of people arriving across the Mediterranean, member states have withdrawn national sea rescue assets (as deployed, for example, in Italy’s Mare Nostrum operation) whilst increasing aerial surveillance, such as that provided by the Israel-produced drones operated by Frontex. This makes it possible to observe refugees attempting to cross the Mediterranean, whilst outsourcing their interception to authorities from countries such as Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

    This is part of an ongoing plan “to strengthen coordination of search and rescue capacities and border surveillance at sea and land borders” of those countries. [9] Cooperation with Tunisia includes refitting search and rescue vessels and providing vehicles and equipment to the Tunisian coastguard and navy, along with substantial amounts of funding. The agreement with Egypt appears to be structured along similar lines, and five vessels have been provided to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard in 2023.[10]

    Frontex also plays a key role in the EU’s externalised border controls. The 2016 reform allowed Frontex deployments at countries bordering the EU, and the 2019 reform allowed deployments anywhere in the world, subject to agreement with the state in question. There are now EU border guards stationed in Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and North Macedonia.[11] The agency is seeking agreements with Niger, Senegal and Morocco, and has recently received visits from Tunisian and Egyptian officials with a view to stepping up cooperation.[12]

    In a recent report for the organisation EuroMed Rights, Antonella Napolitano highlighted “a new element” in the EU’s externalisation strategy: “the use of EU funds – including development aid – to outsource surveillance technologies that are used to entrench political control both on people on the move and local population.” Five means of doing so have been identified: provision of equipment; training; financing operations and procurement; facilitating exports by industry; and promoting legislation that enables surveillance.[13]

    The report highlights Frontex’s extended role which, even without agreements allowing deployments on foreign territory, has seen the agency support the creation of “risk analysis cells” in a number of African states, used to gather and analyse data on migration movements. The EU has also funded intelligence training in Algeria, digital evidence capacity building in Egypt, border control initiatives in Libya, and the provision of surveillance technology to Morocco. The European Ombudsman has found that insufficient attention has been given to the potential human rights impacts of this kind of cooperation.[14]

    While the EU and its member states may provide the funds for the acquisition of new technologies, or the construction of new border control systems, information on the companies that receive the contracts is not necessarily publicly available. Funds awarded to third countries will be spent in accordance with those countries’ procurement rules, which may not be as transparent as those in the EU. Indeed, the acquisition of information on the externalisation in third countries is far from simple, as a Statewatch investigation published in March 2023 found.[15]

    While EU and member state institutions are clearly committed to continuing with plans to strengthen border controls, there is a plethora of organisations, initiatives, campaigns and projects in Europe, Africa and elsewhere that are calling for a different approach. One major opportunity to call for change in the years to come will revolve around proposals for the EU’s new budgets in the 2028-35 period. The European Commission is likely to propose pouring billions more euros into borders – but there are many alternative uses of that money that would be more positive and productive. The challenge will be in creating enough political pressure to make that happen.

    This article was originally published by Welt Sichten, and is based upon the Statewatch/EuroMed Rights report Europe’s techno-borders.

    Notes

    [1] https://www.tni.org/en/publication/building-walls

    [2] https://www.statewatch.org/news/2023/december/tracking-the-pact-human-rights-disaster-in-the-works-as-parliament-makes

    [3] https://www.mpg.de/14588889/frontex

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

    [5] https://frontexfiles.eu/en.html

    [6] https://www.statewatch.org/publications/reports-and-books/europe-s-techno-borders

    [7] https://www.statewatch.org/publications/reports-and-books/europe-s-techno-borders

    [8] https://www.statewatch.org/publications/reports-and-books/europe-s-techno-borders

    [9] https://www.statewatch.org/news/2023/november/eu-planning-new-anti-migration-deals-with-egypt-and-tunisia-unrepentant-

    [10] https://www.statewatch.org/media/4103/eu-com-von-der-leyen-ec-letter-annex-10-23.pdf

    [11] https://www.statewatch.org/analyses/2021/briefing-external-action-frontex-operations-outside-the-eu

    [12] https://www.statewatch.org/news/2023/november/eu-planning-new-anti-migration-deals-with-egypt-and-tunisia-unrepentant-, https://www.statewatch.org/publications/events/secrecy-and-the-externalisation-of-eu-migration-control

    [13] https://privacyinternational.org/challenging-drivers-surveillance

    [14] https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Euromed_AI-Migration-Report_EN-1.pdf

    [15] https://www.statewatch.org/access-denied-secrecy-and-the-externalisation-of-eu-migration-control

    https://www.statewatch.org/analyses/2024/border-security-with-drones-and-databases
    #frontières #militarisation_des_frontières #technologie #données #bases_de_données #drones #complexe_militaro-industriel #migrations #réfugiés #contrôles_frontaliers #surveillance #sécurité_frontalière #biométrie #données_biométriques #intelligence_artificielle #algorithmes #smugglers #passeurs #Frontex #Airbus #BAE_Systems #Leonardo #Thales #EUROSUR #coût #business #prix #Smiths_Detection #Fraunhofer_Institute #Engineering_Ingegneria_Informatica #informatique #Tunisie #gardes-côtes_tunisiens #Albanie #Monténégro #Serbie #Bosnie-Herzégovine #Macédoine_du_Nord #Egypte #externalisation #développement #aide_au_développement #coopération_au_développement #Algérie #Libye #Maroc #Afrique_du_Nord

  • 2,200 #Frontex #emails to #Libya

    Frontex has shared locations of migrant boats with Libya’s coast guard more than 2,000 times in three years – despite watching them whip, beat and shoot at passengers

    It has long been known that European countries provide support and funding to the Libyan Coast Guard to carry out a controversial mission: intercepting Europe-bound migrants whom EU member states and agencies cannot apprehend directly without breaching international laws.

    Numerous media and NGO reports have detailed the abuse and violence practised by the Libyan Coast Guard against migrants during sea interception and inside the detention centres they are taken to after being brought back to Libya.

    Lighthouse Reports has previously established suspicious patterns of collaboration between EU border agency Frontex and the Libyan Coast Guard, including direct links between Frontex aerial assets spotting boats and their subsequent interception by the coast guard.

    Despite the reports of abuse and torture, Frontex has withheld public criticism of the Libyan Coast Guard. And until now, the extent to which Frontex has shared information with the coast guard, and its internal knowledge of the abuse migrants face after they are intercepted, was unknown.
    METHODS

    Following the publication of Lighthouse investigation Frontex and the Pirate Ship in December, the EU Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) sent a letter to Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens questioning the agency’s collaboration with Libyan actors, including militia, in eastern and western Libya.

    Lighthouse Reports and Der Spiegel gained access to the director’s response to the LIBE Committee’s questions. The email included all Serious Incident Reports (SIRs) relating to the Libyan Coast Guard.
    STORYLINES

    The SIRs reveal three incidents of Frontex aerial surveillance assets witnessing Libyan Coast Guard officers beating people in overcrowded boats at sea. In a separate incident, the agency’s surveillance drone recorded a Libyan officer shooting at a wooden boat to force it to stop.

    The letter from Leitjens meanwhile reveals that Frontex gave away the location of migrant boats to the Libyan Coast Guard approximately 2,200 times, usually via email, in the last three years – despite being aware of the regular instances of violence they commit.

    When confronted with these facts by our team, Frontex said: “The decision to share information about vessels in distress with the Libyan rescue coordination centre, alongside other national centres, is taken with a heavy heart”

    The SIRs contain parts of Frontex’s human rights officer’s recommendations for the agency. The measures proposed range from increasing the sharing of coordinates with NGO rescue ships to involving UN agencies in following the fates of those returned to Libya. Frontex did not comment on whether these recommendations were implemented.

    https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/2200-frontex-emails-to-libya

    #partage #localisation #migrations #asile #externalisation #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #gardes-côtes_libyens #géolocalisation #SIRs #surveillance_aérienne #drones

  • Réadmission des migrants venant d’Europe : #Soueisssya, ciblée pour un centre de transit ?

    Mine de rien, les autorités mauritaniennes et européennes seraient avancées dans leur projet de « #partenariat_renforcé » dans la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine entre les deux rives. Malgré la levée du ton de l’Opposition, le projet commun est déjà -si l’on en croit des sources autorisées- bien lancé. Le dernier déplacement conjoint de la présidente de la commission européenne, Urusla Van Der Leyen, et du premier Ministre espagnol, Pedro Sanchez, attesterait de l’importance de la question pour les deux parties.
    Les discussions entre les deux parties, entamées de plus plusieurs mois, auraient même déjà identifiée la zone de Soueissiya, 60 km de notre capitale économique, sur la route de Nouakchott, pour élire le futur centre de rétention des immigrés interceptés en haute mer.
    Pour ce faire, un autre accord de statut pour les forces du Frontex devrait permettre aux gardes-frontières européens de patrouiller, avec les garde-côtes mauritaniens, pour intercepter les candidats à l’immigration clandestine.
    Ces derniers qui voient les filets se resserrer sur eux pourraient donc être interceptés et renvoyés vers ce centre de reflux où ils devraient être recueillis dans l’optique de les faire retourner chez eux. En plus de soutien sonnant et trébuchant, l’UE aurait également accéder à des demandes locales pour la construction de tronçons routiers entre Boulenouar, 98km, et Tmeimichatt, 319 km sur la voie ferrée. Le projet de centre en lui-même sera bien équipé et gardé. Rien n’a été donc jusqu’à présent scellé. La date butoir du 7 mars 2024 où séjournera une Haute délégation de l’UE à Nouakchott permettra d’entrevoir plus de transparence, peut-être, dans ce dossier qui fait couler beaucoup d’encre. Il aidera, en tout cas, à estomper les supputations qui vont bon train sur cette délicate question.
    Si officiellement on évoque l’enveloppe de 210 millions d’euros, d’ici la fin de l’année, l’investissement européen, pour convaincre la partie mauritanienne, est estimé à quelques 522 millions d’euros.
    Néanmoins, les autorités mauritaniennes dénient tout accord avec l’UE permettant de recaser sur leur territoire d’immigrés chassés d’Europe. La perspective de renvoi d’immigrés, en majorité africains, serait pour le moins imprudente au moment où la Mauritanie tient les brides de l’UA.

    https://ladepeche.mr/?p=8575
    #externalisation #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Mauritanie #accord #partenariat #Europe #UE #EU #centre_de_transit #centre_de_rétention #rétention #détention_administrative #Frontex

    • La Mauritania diventerà un centro di accoglienza per i migranti espulsi dall’Europa?

      Il 7 marzo è previsto un nuovo incontro congiunto tra l’Ue, la Spagna e lo Stato africano

      Abbonati

      Abbonati a Melting Pot. Basta 1 € al mese - Permetti alle nostre parole di restare libere di informare
      Di Kokopelado - Opera propria, CC BY-SA 3.0
      Approfondimenti
      La Mauritania diventerà un centro di accoglienza per i migranti espulsi dall’Europa?

      Il 7 marzo è previsto un nuovo incontro congiunto tra l’Ue, la Spagna e lo Stato africano
      Nagi Cheikh Ahmed
      6 Marzo 2024

      La Mauritania è un paese situato nell’angolo nord-occidentale del continente africano e affacciato sull’oceano Atlantico: questa sua posizione è strategica ed estremamente importante per le persone migranti che cercano di raggiungere il continente europeo e l’arcipelago spagnolo delle Canarie. Negli ultimi anni, infatti, il paese ha registrato un significativo aumento del numero di migranti che lo attraversano nel tentativo di raggiungere le isole spagnole e altri paesi dell’Unione Europea. Le stime indicano che questo aumento potrebbe essere il risultato del rafforzamento delle misure contro le migrazioni nei paesi limitrofi che portano a deviare le rotte verso nuovi percorsi, rendendo la Mauritania un luogo di transito sempre più “attraente” per raggiungere l’Europa.

      È in questo contesto che la Spagna e lo Stato africano stanno avanzando nella costruzione di una forte partnership per combattere l’immigrazione irregolare e rafforzare la sicurezza dei confini attraverso una serie di misure e azioni. Questi sforzi includono la cooperazione nello scambio di informazioni di intelligence, la formazione delle forze di sicurezza e della guardia nazionale, nonché il rafforzamento del controllo delle frontiere e un supporto operativo per lo sviluppo di capacità nell’affrontare tale fenomeno. Secondo i dati spagnoli, l’83% dei migranti che attualmente arrivano alle isole Canarie sono transitati dalla Mauritania.
      I migranti come strumento di pressione e ricatto

      Di fronte alle crescenti tensioni attorno le questioni migratorie, i Paesi europei cercano di trovare “soluzioni” che garantiscano una riduzione del flusso di migranti verso i loro confini. È quella che viene definita la politica di esternalizzazione delle frontiere, ossia una politica di “estensione” dei confini per impedire ai migranti di raggiungere o avvicinarsi al loro territorio, attraverso accordi con diversi Paesi africani considerati punti di transito potenziali per i migranti africani. L’accordo contro l’immigrazione tra la Spagna e la Mauritania è un altro esempio evidente di come i Paesi europei sfruttino le necessità finanziarie dei paesi poveri. Questo accordo che si basa su sforzi congiunti per la lotta all’immigrazione, riflette chiaramente la dinamica tra la necessità di sicurezza europea e la necessità finanziaria dei paesi africani, sollevando controversie sul costo umano che viene pagato in questo processo.

      Nella politica internazionale contemporanea, l’immigrazione emerge come una delle questioni più controverse e complesse, specialmente quando viene utilizzata come strumento di pressione nelle negoziazioni politiche ed economiche. La Turchia, con la sua posizione geografica unica tra l’Europa e il Medio Oriente, ha utilizzato abilmente l’immigrazione nelle sue negoziazioni con l’Unione Europea. L’accordo del 2016 è stato un punto di svolta, in cui l’Unione Europea ha accettato di pagare miliardi di euro ad Ankara in cambio del controllo del flusso di rifugiati verso l’Europa. Questo accordo ha dimostrato come i paesi possano sfruttare le crisi migratorie per rafforzare le loro posizioni economiche e politiche.

      Come la Turchia, anche il Marocco ha sfruttato la sua posizione come principale porta d’accesso all’Europa per ottenere concessioni finanziarie e commerciali dalla Spagna e dall’Unione Europea, e persino posizioni politiche nel suo conflitto con il Fronte Polisario. Controllando i flussi migratori, il Marocco ha rafforzato la sua posizione come partner chiave dell’Unione Europea nella lotta contro l’immigrazione irregolare, migliorando così le sue relazioni economiche e politiche con l’Europa.

      Oltre a Turchia e Marocco, il comportamento di Russia e Bielorussia emerge come un esempio evidente di sfruttamento delle questioni migratorie per il ricatto politico contro l’Unione Europea. Questi due paesi hanno facilitato l’accesso dei migranti ai confini orientali europei, creando una crisi migratoria artificiale mirata a esercitare pressione politica ed economica. La Bielorussia, sotto la guida di Alexander Lukashenko, ha utilizzato l’immigrazione come mezzo per rispondere alle sanzioni europee imposte contro di essa. Facilitando il passaggio dei migranti verso Lituania, Lettonia e Polonia, la Bielorussia ha cercato di creare problemi di sicurezza e umanitari all’Unione Europea, costringendola a rinegoziare i termini delle sanzioni e le relazioni diplomatiche.

      Anche la Mauritania vuole partecipare

      Considerati i numerosi accordi bilaterali sottoscritti negli ultimi anni, anche il governo mauritano cerca opportunità per trarre vantaggio da questa situazione ottenendo guadagni politici e finanziari. Pertanto, l’uso dei migranti come strumento di ricatto riflette una strategia che consente alla Mauritania di richiedere più supporto e assistenza dall’Unione Europea in cambio della sua cooperazione nella lotta contro l’immigrazione irregolare e l’arresto del flusso di migranti. La Mauritania, che trova difficoltà nel controllare i suoi vasti confini, potrebbe tollerare l’ingresso dei migranti nel suo territorio, al fine di accumularne un gran numero per dimostrare la sua necessità di fronte all’Europa e quindi ottenere supporto e assistenza finanziaria, ignorando tutti i rischi che tali politiche potrebbero comportare per un paese già fragile con una infrastruttura carente, trascurando i diritti di migliaia di migranti.

      Il governo nega, ma i documenti confermano

      L’accordo stipulato tra la Mauritania e l’Unione Europea per combattere il fenomeno dell’immigrazione irregolare ha sollevato polemiche a livello locale, considerato come un “accordo” tra le due parti per insediare i migranti sul territorio mauritano in cambio di un pacchetto di aiuti finanziari, cosa che le autorità negano. Alcuni media indipendenti hanno riportato l’intenzione dell’Unione Europea di offrire subito 220 milioni di euro di aiuto alla Mauritania: questa proposta è emersa durante un incontro tenutosi giovedì 8 febbraio nella capitale Nouakchott, tra la presidente della Commissione Europea Ursula von der Leyen, il primo ministro spagnolo Pedro Sánchez e il presidente mauritano Mohamed Ould Ghazouani.

      Il Ministero dell’Interno mauritano ha negato ciò, affermando che la Mauritania “non sarà una patria alternativa per i migranti irregolari“, confermando al contempo di aver avviato negoziazioni preliminari con l’Unione Europea “su una bozza di dichiarazione congiunta relativa all’immigrazione, in linea con la roadmap discussa tra le parti a Bruxelles l’11 dicembre 2023“. Il ministero ha aggiunto in una dichiarazione che “le negoziazioni tra le parti rimarranno aperte, al fine di raggiungere un’intesa comune che serva gli interessi di entrambe le parti in materia di immigrazione legale e lotta contro l’immigrazione irregolare, tenendo conto delle sfide che la Mauritania affronta in questo campo, lontano da ciò che alcuni promuovono riguardo l’ipotesi di insediare i migranti irregolari in Mauritania”.

      Il ministero ha negato con enfasi qualsiasi ipotesi di accordo che punti a rendere la Mauritania un luogo dove insediare, accogliere o ospitare temporaneamente migranti stranieri irregolari, affermando che queste voci sono completamente infondate e che questo argomento non è stato affatto discusso, non è all’ordine del giorno e non è assolutamente contemplato. Il ministero ha dichiarato che gli incontri tra le parti hanno discusso la bozza del documento, allo scopo di “avvicinare i punti di vista riguardo ciò che stabilisce un accordo equilibrato e giusto che garantisca il rispetto della sovranità e degli interessi comuni di entrambe le parti, e sia in linea con le convenzioni e le leggi internazionali in materia di immigrazione“.

      Il ministero ha sottolineato che gli incontri continueranno a esaminare e analizzare i termini del documento, incluso ciò che sarà discusso durante l’incontro previsto tra la Mauritania e l’Unione Europea che si terrà nuovamente a Nouakchott giovedì 7 marzo. Tuttavia, il documento ottenuto dai media, relativo al verbale di discussione tra una delegazione mauritana e l’Unione Europea a Bruxelles il 9 febbraio 2024, mostra nei suoi termini l’accettazione della Mauritania di accogliere i rifugiati e i migranti espulsi dall’Europa, al fine di assisterli nella loro integrazione e “facilitare” la loro vita.

      Il documento non parla chiaramente dell’accoglimento da parte della Mauritania di re-insediare in modo permanente i migranti espulsi dagli Stati dell’Ue sul suo territorio, ma c’è un punto che rivela senza ambiguità la sua disponibilità ad accogliere i migranti espulsi dall’Europa, in assenza totale di qualsiasi meccanismo specifico per il successivo rimpatrio nei loro paesi d’origine.

      Questa estrema ambiguità getta diversi dubbi sulla serietà delle misure adottate, specialmente quando si considerano le enormi difficoltà che anche i paesi europei, con le loro vastissime risorse, incontrano nell’identificare i migranti che spesso sono senza documenti. Sembra che la soluzione europea si limiti a liberarsi del problema, rimpatriando i migranti in Mauritania senza considerare il loro destino successivo, il che significa che alla fine rimarranno in Mauritania a tempo indeterminato.

      Questo approccio ignora deliberatamente le cause profonde dell’immigrazione, come i cambiamenti climatici, i conflitti e le violazioni dei diritti umani, che spingono le persone a rischiare la vita in cerca di una loro sicurezza e di una possibilità di vita dignitosa. Concentrandosi esclusivamente sulla deportazione, l’Unione Europea dimostra una certa indifferenza verso la sofferenza delle persone più vulnerabili, ignorando così gli obblighi internazionali relativi alla protezione dei rifugiati e ai diritti umani, che garantiscono il diritto delle persone a presentare domande di protezione internazionale basate sulle loro storie personali e a dare loro tempo sufficiente per elaborare le richieste di protezione e asilo.

      D’altra parte, la firma di tali accordi con la Mauritania solleva serie domande sulla situazione della sicurezza e dei diritti umani nel paese. La disponibilità ad accettare questi migranti senza misure chiare per proteggerli o rispettare i loro diritti trascura gravemente l’assenza di tutele civili e sociali, a causa del pessimo record della Mauritania in materia di diritti umani.

      «Le relazioni internazionali sul Paese mettono in luce violazioni continue che includono schiavitù, discriminazione, detenzione arbitraria e repressione della libertà di espressione.»

      Ad esempio, lunedì 4 marzo 2024 in Mauritania è iniziato il processo contro due giovani. Una ragazza di 19 anni è stata arrestata lo scorso luglio e la pubblica accusa le ha imputato il “reato di derisione e insulto al Profeta Maometto“, chiedendo la sua incarcerazione. È inoltre accusata di utilizzare i social media per offendere l’Islam, reati per cui il codice penale mauritano prevede la pena di morte. L’altro giovane è un mauritano che aveva abbracciato il cristianesimo da tempo e viveva in Germania, dove aveva chiesto protezione, ma le autorità tedesche non hanno riconosciuto la sua richiesta e lo hanno deportato in Mauritania, dove è stato arrestato immediatamente all’arrivo in aeroporto ed è in carcere da mesi. In questo momento, c’è una grande carenza di informazioni sul loro stato di salute fisico e psicologico. Le autorità stanno facendo pressione per oscurare il processo e non parlare di queste vicende, il tutto si svolge in un’atmosfera cupa. Questi due casi sono anche esemplificativi dei seri dubbi sulla volontà della Mauritania di fornire protezione ai migranti e ai rifugiati rimpatriati.

      Inoltre, l’assenza di legislazione specifica per regolare lo status di rifugiati e migranti in Mauritania complica la possibilità di garantire efficacemente i diritti di queste categorie. Senza un quadro legale chiaro che regoli le procedure di asilo e immigrazione, e garantisca la protezione necessaria, rifugiati e migranti rimangono in una posizione legale precaria, esposti a rischi e senza diritti tangibili.

      Il fatto che l’Europa firmi tali accordi ignorando la realtà in Mauritania costituisce una chiara violazione dei trattati internazionali che proibiscono il trasferimento di migranti in paesi dove potrebbero affrontare il rischio di incarcerazione o discriminazione, e subire trattamenti inumani e degradanti. Questo accordo, per gli esperti del diritto, contraddice esplicitamente perfino gli approcci di sicurezza adottati dall’Europa nel settembre 2015, quando la Commissione Europea ha proposto un progetto per creare una lista comune dei “paesi di origine e transito sicuri“, dove i richiedenti asilo che passano attraverso il paese indicato potrebbero essere rimpatriati. Paesi considerati appunto “sicuri” in quanto le procedure relative alle loro richieste di asilo dovrebbero essere in linea con gli standard del diritto internazionale ed europeo sui rifugiati. Tuttavia, l’Unione Europea non ha incluso la Mauritania in questa lista dei paesi sicuri. Quindi, come può l’Europa firmare tali accordi con un paese che non considera sicuro?
      Verso un nuovo orizzonte

      L’incontro congiunto di giovedì 7 marzo nella capitale Nouakchott deve essere considerato come un momento cruciale che richiede una profonda riflessione e una revisione delle basi e dei principi su cui si fondano tali accordi. Entrambe le parti dovrebbero guardare con occhi critici alle esperienze passate, valutando i risultati e gli impatti reali delle politiche adottate sui diritti umani e sulla dignità dei migranti e dei rifugiati.

      C’è un bisogno urgente di adottare un approccio più inclusivo e umano nel trattare le questioni dell’immigrazione, un approccio che vada oltre le misure di sicurezza e restrittive per includere le dimensioni sociali e umane. Questo approccio dovrebbe concentrarsi sul diritto e sulla libertà dell’individuo di muoversi e migrare, piuttosto che limitarsi alla semplice gestione dei flussi migratori o tutt’al più a deviare i tragitti da un paese all’altro.

      È anche essenziale rafforzare i meccanismi di trasparenza e responsabilità nell’attuazione e nel monitoraggio degli accordi. L’Unione Europea e la Mauritania devono garantire che le politiche sull’immigrazione siano conformi agli obblighi internazionali e rispettino i diritti umani e la dignità di tutte le persone. La cooperazione internazionale in materia di immigrazione non dovrebbe portare a minare questi diritti o ignorare le difficili condizioni umane affrontate da migranti e rifugiati.

      È richiesto inoltre che la Mauritania lavori per migliorare il suo approccio sui diritti umani e rafforzare la protezione per migranti e rifugiati sul suo territorio. Ciò dovrebbe includere la riforma delle leggi e delle pratiche che permettono l’arresto arbitrario e la discriminazione, e fornire meccanismi efficaci per il ricorso e la protezione legale degli individui.

      Dall’altro lato, spetta all’Unione Europea non solo fornire supporto finanziario e tecnico, ma anche lavorare con la Mauritania e altri paesi partner per sviluppare politiche sull’immigrazione giuste ed eque, che rispettino i diritti e la dignità umana di tutte le persone, indipendentemente dal loro status migratorio.

      La sfida che l’Unione Europea e la Mauritania devono affrontare non è solo rinnovare questi accordi, ma reinventarli in modo che realizzino sicurezza e stabilità e, allo stesso tempo, rispettino i diritti umani e promuovano lo sviluppo sostenibile e inclusivo.

      Questo incontro congiunto a Nouakchott dovrebbe essere un’opportunità per presentare una nuova visione della cooperazione in materia di immigrazione, una visione basata sulla responsabilità condivisa, solidarietà e rispetto reciproco. Infine, l’obiettivo dovrebbe essere costruire un futuro in cui le persone possano vivere con dignità e sicurezza nei loro paesi, o scegliere di migrare come un diritto e non come una necessità imposta dalla disperazione.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2024/03/la-mauritania-diventera-un-centro-di-accoglienza-per-i-migranti-espulsi-

    • Migration : petit à petit, l’UE verrouille des accords fragiles avec les pays tiers

      Ce jeudi, la secrétaire d’Etat de Moor, accompagne la commissaire européenne aux Affaires intérieures à Nouakchott pour signer un mémorandum d’accord migratoire avec la Mauritanie. Après la Turquie, la Libye, et la Tunisie récemment, ces accords se multiplient autant que les critiques qui les entourent.

      Ce dimanche, partis de Mauritanie, six migrants voulant rallier l’Europe ont péri dans leur traversée. 65 autres personnes, également à bord de leur pirogue, sont toujours portées disparues. En 2023, plus de 40.000 personnes ont risqué leur vie dans l’Atlantique – près de 1.000 en sont mortes – en voulant rejoindre l’Espagne via les îles Canaries au départ de l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Une hausse sans précédent (+ 160 % par rapport à 2022) que les autorités locales ont du mal à gérer. C’est dans ce contexte que la commissaire européenne aux Affaires intérieures Ylva Johansson, le ministre de l’Intérieur espagnol Fernando Grande-Marlaska et notre secrétaire d’Etat à l’Asile et la Migration Nicole de Moor se rendent à Nouakchott ce jeudi afin de signer un mémorandum d’accord avec la Mauritanie.

      Ce protocole d’accord s’inscrit dans la lignée de celui, polémique, conclu en juillet dernier avec la Tunisie. Avec ces « partenariats stratégiques mutuellement bénéficiaires », la présidente de la Commission européenne Ursula von der Leyen entend « combattre la migration irrégulière à la racine et travailler mieux avec des pays partenaires », c’est-à-dire ceux où les migrants embarquent ou prennent la route pour l’UE. L’idée est que les pays de départ ou de transit bloquent l’arrivée de migrants vers les côtes européennes et réadmettent leurs citoyens en séjour illégal dans l’UE en échange d’investissements ou de coups de pouce économiques. Contacté, il est question, pour l’exécutif européen, de passer d’autres « partenariats sur mesure » similaires avec l’Egypte, prochainement. Voire avec le Maroc ? Bref, petit à petit, la Commission complète sa carte du pourtour méditerranéen.

      Stratégie électoraliste

      « Ce type d’accord n’est pas nouveau », avance Eleonora Frasca, chercheuse doctorante sur la coopération entre l’UE et les pays africains en matière d’immigration (UCLouvain). « Il y a notamment celui passé avec la Libye ou encore avec la Turquie. Mais le deal passé avec Ankara, aussi critiqué soit-il, avait le mérite de prévoir des fonds pour l’accueil et l’accompagnement des exilés sur le sol turc. Ce qui a disparu des accords qui ont suivi et qui se concentrent sur les aspects sécuritaires. »

      Certes, la coopération migratoire n’est pas neuve. Ce qui l’est davantage, c’est la stratégie de communication de l’UE autour de ce type de deal, pointe Eleonora Frasca : « On déplace des membres de la Commission pour en faire un événement majeur. » Florian Trauner, doyen de la Brussels School of Governance (VUB) et spécialiste de la politique migratoire de l’UE, y lit une stratégie électoraliste. « Ces accords symbolisent une politique migratoire plus restrictive. En année électorale, les dirigeants européens envoient un signal à la population : “Regardez, on empêche les migrants d’arriver en Europe.” » Pour lui, cela montre aussi que les Etats membres s’accordent plus facilement sur une politique d’externalisation des frontières plutôt que sur une réponse solidaire. « La négociation du nouveau pacte sur la migration et l’asile l’illustre très bien. »

      Ces annonces et ces signatures en grande pompe contrastent avec l’opacité des négociations. « Les pourparlers avec la Tunisie hier, la Mauritanie aujourd’hui et l’Egypte demain en sont les parfaits exemples. Il est très difficile, voire impossible, de suivre les discussions. On assiste à un processus “d’informalisation ou de déformalisation” du droit international auquel l’UE contribue de manière significative, ainsi qu’à la multiplication d’instruments de droit non contraignant », regrette la chercheuse de l’UCLouvain. Pour son collègue de la VUB, ces accords informels sont par définition plus flexibles, moins contraignants juridiquement et politiquement. « Ce qui arrange les deux parties. Ils permettent, pour les pays tiers, de mettre hors du débat public ces arrangements souvent contestés par la population locale. »

      Le « chantage » aux migrants

      Et puis ces accords reposent sur le bon vouloir des régimes en place. En témoignent les soubresauts dans l’application de l’accord tunisien, décrié puis accepté… par le même président qui l’avait signé. « L’exemple récent du Niger est criant », ajoute Eleonora Frasca. « Depuis le coup d’Etat de juillet dernier et l’abrogation d’une loi réprimant le trafic illicite de migrants, l’UE est très préoccupée. »

      Florian Trauner soulève un autre « danger » : le « chantage » aux migrants. « Sachant l’Europe divisée, sensible et fragile quand il s’agit d’immigration, les pays tiers en jouent pour négocier, notamment de l’argent. Ce n’est pas pour rien qu’autant de migrants sont arrivés à Lampedusa depuis la Tunisie cet été… » Et le doyen de la Brussels School of Governance de citer les pressions d’Erdogan en 2020 afin que l’Europe appuie ses initiatives en Syrie ou encore le jeu du Maroc avec l’Espagne sur la question du Sahara occidental. Par ailleurs, pointent nos deux experts, ces accords sont passés avec des pays loin d’être des exemples en termes de respect des droits fondamentaux. L’exemple tunisien est encore une fois parlant : la situation déplorable des migrants en Tunisie ne s’est pas améliorée depuis la signature, dénoncent les ONG.

      Mais ces arrangements sont-ils « efficaces » ? S’il est impossible de chiffrer le nombre d’entrées évitées grâce aux accords, Florian Trauner les a étudiés sur dix ans, entre 2008 et 2018. « Hormis l’accord passé avec la Turquie qui a montré des résultats dans la prise en charge par Ankara des réfugiés syriens, ces accords ont un bilan modeste. Les pays des Balkans jouent le jeu, mais les pays africains peu ou pas du tout », constate-t-il. « A court terme, ces arrangements peuvent paraître efficaces parce qu’ils font écho à une réduction des entrées irrégulières », explique Eleonora Frasca. « On a dans un premier temps diminué les flux au départ de la Libye, ils se sont alors dirigés vers la Tunisie. Raison pour laquelle on a passé un accord avec Tunis, dont on voit timidement les résultats… Mais les migrations s’adaptent et se réorganisent. Ça ne sert à rien de passer des accords avec tous les pays africains, cela rend juste les routes de plus en plus dangereuses. »

      https://www.lesoir.be/572896/article/2024-03-06/migration-petit-petit-lue-verrouille-des-accords-fragiles-avec-les-pays-tiers

    • La Mauritanie, nouvelle voie d’entrée de migrants vers l’Union européenne... qui réagit

      L’Union européenne a initié jeudi un nouveau partenariat en matière de migration avec la Mauritanie, État d’Afrique du Nord-Ouest par où transitent des migrants vers les îles Canaries (Espagne). La route des îles Canaries, passant par une dangereuse traversée dans l’Atlantique, est davantage fréquentée ces derniers temps. Plus de 12.000 personnes l’ont empruntée sur les deux premiers mois de cette année, soit plus de six fois plus que sur la même période l’an dernier.

      Ce partenariat doit ouvrir la voie à un financement européen afin de soutenir la gestion des migrations - notamment la lutte contre le trafic de migrants -, ainsi que la sécurité et la stabilité, l’aide humanitaire en faveur des réfugiés et le soutien aux communautés d’accueil.

      Une déclaration en ce sens a été signée à Nouakchott par la commissaire aux Affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, et le ministre mauritanien de l’Intérieur, Mohamed Ahmed Ould Mohamed Lemine, en présence de son homologue espagnol, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, et de la secrétaire d’État belge à l’Asile et à la Migration, Nicole de Moor, au nom de la présidence belge du Conseil. « Nous avons besoin de partenariats avec ces pays d’Afrique du Nord pour prévenir les départs irréguliers et les pertes de vies humaines. Une gestion efficace des migrations constitue un défi européen nécessitant une réponse collective », a déclaré Mme de Moor.

      Le partenariat vise entre autres à renforcer les capacités des garde-frontières mauritaniens, en accroissant la coopération avec Frontex, l’agence européenne de garde-frontières et garde-côtes, pour ce qui est de la formation et des équipements. La coopération sur les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage sera aussi intensifiée. L’UE veut également appuyer les efforts de la Mauritanie dans ses capacités d’accueil, en particulier des plus vulnérables. Dans le pays résident quelque 150.000 réfugiés du Mali. Des enquêtes conjointes doivent aussi aider à prévenir la migration irrégulière.

      La coopération sera renforcée en matière de retour et de réadmission en ce qui concerne les Mauritaniens en séjour irrégulier dans l’UE, « dans le respect de leurs droits et de leur dignité », assure la Commission dans un communiqué. Comme c’est le cas pour d’autres accords en gestation, ou pour l’accord controversé avec la Tunisie, l’UE vise un partenariat large. Il visera donc aussi la création de perspectives d’emploi (accès à la formation professionnelle et au financement pour les entreprises), mais aussi la promotion de la migration légale (mobilité des étudiants, chercheurs et entrepreneurs). Le mois dernier, la présidente de la Commission Ursula von der Leyen avait annoncé, lors d’un déplacement en Mauritanie, la mobilisation de 210 millions d’euros en faveur de ce pays.

      L’UE cherche encore à nouer un autre partenariat stratégique de ce type avec l’Égypte, qui est non seulement un pays de transit, mais aussi de départ et de destination. « Des Égyptiens quittent leur pays, qui est le cinquième pays d’entrée dans l’UE, tandis que de nombreuses autres personnes fuient vers l’Égypte. Un partenariat solide est plus que nécessaire pour ne pas les laisser seuls dans cette tâche difficile », selon Mme de Moor.

      https://www.rtbf.be/article/la-mauritanie-nouvelle-voie-d-entree-de-migrants-vers-l-union-europeenne-qui-re

  • Rwanda : UK to pay at least $470m to Rwanda for asylum deal, watchdog says

    Rwanda will receive at least**$**470million from the UK as part of the plan to have asylum seekers in the UK relocate there.

    The UK government’s spending watchdog National Audit Office (NAO) on Friday revealed up to $190, 000 will also be paid for each person sent to the east African country over a five-year period.

    The NAO report comes after MPs have been calling for greater transparency over the cost of the scheme. But the amounts have been criticised by Labour which called it a “national scandal”.

    In January, Rwandan President Paul Kagame suggested U.K. efforts to introduce an asylum deal with his country are taking too long to implement after criticism of the plan have brought about protests, lawsuits and rulings that have halted it. A Supreme Court ruling in November described the plan as ’illegal’.

    Britain’s Home Secretary James Cleverly and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta signed a new treaty in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital, in December.

    Under the five-year deal, the UK would be able to send individuals who arrive in the country illegally to Rwanda to claim asylum there.

    Britain and Rwanda first signed the deal in April 2022.

    https://www.africanews.com/2024/03/01/rwanda-uk-to-pay-at-least-470m-to-rwanda-for-asylum-deal-watchdog-says
    #financement #aide_financière #Rwanda #externalisation #asile #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #migrations

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    elle-même ajouté à la métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • En Serbie, rendre invisibles les exilés

    La Serbie est le dernier pays non-membre de l’Union européenne de la route des Balkans. Traversée depuis des siècles, elle l’est aujourd’hui encore par de nombreux étrangers venus de Syrie, d’Afghanistan, de Turquie, même du Maroc… Car la Serbie reste le dernier rempart de la forteresse Europe. Ce petit pays de presque 7 millions d’habitants, entouré de huit frontières dont quatre avec l’Union européenne, applique une politique migratoire orchestrée par celle-ci.

    En effet, la Serbie demande son adhésion depuis plus de dix ans.

    Depuis le mois de décembre, après un contexte politique tendu, ce pays de transit tente de rendre invisibles les exilés, déjà soumis aux passeurs et aux lois en matière d’asile et d’immigration. En plein cœur de l’hiver, reportage entre Belgrade et la frontière croate de l’Europe.

    https://www.rfi.fr/fr/podcasts/grand-reportage/20240219-en-serbie-rendre-invisibles-les-exil%C3%A9s

    #emprisonnement #Serbie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Belgrade #route_des_Balkans #Balkans #squat #opération_policière #peur #sécurité #insécurité #Sid #Šid #frontières #Croatie #transit #invisibilisation #Frontex #passeurs #frontières_extérieures #externalisation #visas #camps #solidarité #camps_de_réfugiés #refoulements #push-backs #migration_circulaire #game #the_game
    #audio #podcast

  • I dati che raccontano la guerra ai soccorsi nell’anno nero della strage di Cutro

    Nel 2023 le autorità italiane hanno classificato come operazioni di polizia e non Sar oltre mille sbarchi, per un totale di quasi 40mila persone, un quarto degli arrivi via mare. Dati inediti del Viminale descrivono la “strategia” contro le Ong e l’intento di creare l’emergenza a Lampedusa concentrando lì oltre i due terzi degli approdi.

    Nell’anno della strage di Cutro (26 febbraio 2023) le autorità italiane hanno classificato come operazioni di polizia oltre 1.000 sbarchi, per un totale di quasi 40mila persone, poco più di un quarto di tutti gli arrivi via mare. Questo nonostante gli effetti funesti che la confusione tra “law enforcement” e ricerca e soccorso ha prodotto proprio in occasione del naufragio di fine febbraio dell’anno scorso a pochi metri dalle coste calabresi, quando morirono più di 90 persone, e sulla quale sta indagando la Procura di Crotone.

    Quello degli eventi strumentalmente classificati come di natura poliziesca in luogo del soccorso, anche dopo i fatti di Cutro, è solo uno dei dati attraverso i quali si può leggere come è andata lo scorso anno nel Mediterraneo. È possibile farlo dopo aver ottenuto dati inediti dal ministero dell’Interno, che rispetto al passato ha fortemente ridotto qualità e quantità degli elementi pubblicati nel cruscotto statistico giornaliero e nella sua rielaborazione di fine anno.

    Prima però partiamo dai dati noti. Nel 2023 sono sbarcate sulle coste italiane 157.651 persone (il Viminale talvolta ne riporta 157.652, ma la sostanza è identica). Il dato è il più alto dal 2017 ma inferiore al 2016, quando furono 181.436. Le prime cinque nazionalità dichiarate al momento dello sbarco, che rappresentano quasi il 50% degli arrivi, sono di cittadini della Guinea, Tunisia, Costa d’Avorio, Bangladesh, Egitto. I minori soli sono stati 17.319.

    E qui veniamo ai dati che ci ha trasmesso il Viminale a seguito di un’istanza di accesso civico generalizzato. La stragrande maggioranza delle persone sbarcate è partita nel 2023 dalla Tunisia: oltre 97mila persone sulle 157mila totali. Segue a distanza la Libia, con 52mila partenze, quasi doppiata, e poi più dietro la Turchia (7.150), Algeria, Libano e finanche Cipro.

    Come mostrano le elaborazioni grafiche dei dati governativi, ci sono stati mesi in cui dalla Tunisia sono sbarcate anche oltre 20mila persone. Una tendenza che ha conosciuto una brusca interruzione a partire dal mese di ottobre 2023, quando gli sbarchi in quota Tunisia, al netto delle condizioni meteo marine, sono crollati a poco meno di 1.900, attestandosi poco sotto i 5mila nei due mesi successivi.

    Tradotto: l’ultimo trimestre dello scorso anno ha visto una forte diminuzione degli sbarchi provenienti dalla Tunisia, Paese con il quale Unione europea e Italia hanno stretto il “solito” accordo che prevede soldi e forniture in cambio di “contrasto ai flussi”, ovvero contrasto ai diritti umani. È lo schema libico, con le differenze del caso. Il ministro Matteo Piantedosi il 31 dicembre 2023, intervistato da La Stampa, ha rivendicato la bontà della strategia parlando di “121.883 persone” (dando l’idea di un conteggio analitico e quotidiano) “bloccate” grazie alla “collaborazione con le autorità tunisine e libiche”.

    Un altro dato utilissimo per capire come “funziona” la macchina mediatica della presunta “emergenza immigrazione” è quello dei porti di sbarco. Il primo e incontrastato porto sul quale lo scorso anno è stata scaricata la stragrande maggioranza degli sbarchi è Lampedusa, con quasi 110mila arrivi (di cui “solo” 7.400 autonomi) contro i 5.500 di Augusta, Roccella Jonica, i 4.800 di Pantelleria e i 3.800 di Catania. In passato non è sempre stato così. Ma Lampedusa è troppo importante per due ragioni: dare in pasto all’opinione pubblica l’idea di una situazione esplosiva e ingestibile, bloccando i trasferimenti verso la terraferma (vedasi l’estate 2023), e contemporaneamente convogliare quanti più richiedenti asilo potenziali possibile nella macchina del trattenimento dell’hotspot.

    Benché in Italia si sia convinti che a soccorrere le persone in mare siano solo le acerrime nemiche Ong, i dati, ancora una volta, confermano il loro ruolo ridotto a marginale dopo anni di campagne diffamatorie, criminalizzazione penale e vera e propria persecuzione amministrativa. Nel 2023, infatti, gli assetti delle Organizzazioni non governative hanno salvato e sbarcato in Italia neanche 9mila persone. Poco più del 5% del totale. Anche nei mesi più intensi degli arrivi la quota delle Ong è stata limitata.

    Come noto, le poche navi umanitarie intervenute sono state deliberatamente indirizzate verso porti lontani. Il primo per numero di persone sbarcate è stato Brindisi (quasi 1.400 sbarcati su 9mila), ovvero 285 miglia in più rispetto al Sud-Ovest della Sicilia. Segue Lampedusa con 980, vero, ma poi ci sono Carrara (535 miglia di distanza in più dalla Sicilia), Trapani, Salerno, Bari, Civitavecchia, Ortona.

    Non è facile dire quanti giorni di navigazione in più questa “strategia” brutale abbia esattamente determinato. Un esperto operatore di ricerca e soccorso in mare aiuta a fare due conti a spanne: “Le navi normalmente viaggiano a meno di dieci nodi, calcolando una velocità di sette nodi andare a Brindisi implica circa 41 ore in più rispetto ai porti più vicini del Sud della Sicilia, come ad esempio Pozzallo. E per arrivare a Pozzallo dalla cosiddetta ‘SAR 1’, a Ovest di Tripoli, partendo da una distanza dalla costa libica di circa 35 miglia, tra Zuara e Zawiya, ci vogliono circa 24 ore”.

    Una recente analisi di Sos Humanity -ripresa dal Guardian a metà febbraio- ha stimato che questo modus operandi delle autorità italiane possa aver complessivamente fatto perdere alle navi delle Ong 374 giorni di operatività. Nell’anno in cui sono morte annegate ufficialmente almeno 2.500 persone e intercettate dalle milizie libiche e riportate indietro, sempre ufficialmente, quasi 17.200 (con l’ancora una volta dimostrata complicità dell’Agenzia europea Frontex). Ma sono tempi così oscuri che ostacolare le “ambulanze” è divenuto un vanto.

    https://altreconomia.it/i-dati-che-raccontano-la-guerra-ai-soccorsi-nellanno-nero-della-strage-

    #statistiques #débarquement #Italie #migrations #réfugiés #chiffres #sauvetage #ONG #SAR #search-and-rescue #Méditerranée #Lampedusa #law_enforcement #2023 #Tunisie #Libye #externalisation #accord #urgence #hotspot

  • #Frontex, comment sont gardées les frontières de l’Union européenne ?

    L’ancien directeur #Fabrice_Leggeri a annoncé rejoindre la liste du #Rassemblement_national pour les élections européennes. L’occasion de se demander quel est le #mandat de Frontex, et quel droit régule cette agence chargée de contrôler les frontières européennes.

    Fabrice Leggeri, ancien patron de Frontex, l’agence européenne chargée d’assister les États membres dans la gestion et le contrôle des frontières extérieures de l’espace Schengen, rallie le Rassemblement national ainsi que la liste de Jordan Bardella pour les #élections_européennes de juin prochain. L’occasion de revenir sur les attributions de Frontex.

    L’obligation d’assistance

    Créée en 2004, Frontex fête ses vingt ans cette année. Deux décennies, au cours desquelles l’agence chargée d’assister les États membres dans la gestion et le contrôle de leurs frontières, a démultiplié tant ses effectifs que son budget et s’est progressivement imposée au cœur du débat migratoire européen. Ludivine Richefeu, maîtresse de conférences en droit privé et sciences criminelles à l’université de Cergy-Pontoise, met en avant les exigences humanitaires et d’#assistance auxquelles l’organisation est soumise par le droit européen et international. “Frontex est une agence qui peut intervenir en amont, avant que les migrants soient dans le territoire européen, en apportant un soutien logistique et opérationnel aux États tiers. Par exemple en #Algérie, au #Maroc ou en #Tunisie en ce qui concerne les flux migratoires traversant les côtes maghrébines. Concrètement, le soutien se traduit par l’envoi de personnel Frontex, de #personnel_détaché des États membres ou encore de matériel. Lorsqu’une embarcation entre dans les eaux territoriales, le droit contraint l’agence à lui porter secours et à la rattacher à un port sûr. S’il y a des mineurs non accompagnés ou des femmes enceintes parmi les passagers, ils doivent obligatoirement être pris en charge. Juridiquement, le statut de réfugié est déclaratoire et n’est pas soumis à l’approbation des États membres. La personne est d’abord réfugiée en elle-même. Le #droit_international oblige les États à la prendre en charge pour ensuite examiner sa demande afin de la protéger des persécutions qu’elle risque ou subit dans son pays.”

    Une agence sous le feu des critiques

    Fabrice Leggeri, l’ancien directeur de Frontex entre 2015 et 2022 qui vient de rejoindre la liste du Rassemblement national pour les élections européennes, avait démissionné de son poste notamment à la suite d’accusations de refoulement illégaux de migrants. Ludivine Richefeu nous détaille cette pratique aussi appelée le "pushback" et ses origines. “Le refoulement a lieu lorsqu’une embarcation pénètre dans les eaux territoriales d’un État membre et qu’elle en est repoussée sans que les situations des passagers soient examinées et que l’assistance qui leur est due soit apportée. Des sources journalistiques et des rapports de l’#Office_Européen_Antifraude (#OLAF), nous détaillent ces pratiques. Concrètement, lorsque que l’embarcation est détectée, Frontex envoie les coordonnées aux équipes d’intervention des États membres qui repoussent le navire sous sa supervision. Pour ce faire, les équipes recourent à des menaces, à des formes coercitives et même parfois à l’usage d’armes.”

    Ces pratiques illégales s’inscrivent notamment dans l’élargissement des compétences de l’agence ces dernières années, rappelle la chercheuse. “Grâce à plusieurs règlements adoptés entre 2016 et 2019, Frontex a maintenant un rôle fondamental en matière de lutte contre la criminalité transfrontière et la migration irrégulière est intégrée à cet objectif de criminalité.”

    https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/la-question-du-jour/frontex-comment-sont-gardees-les-frontieres-de-l-union-europeenne-135792
    #frontières #migrations #réfugiés #audio #podcast #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #push-backs #refoulements

  • Cassazione, dare i migranti ai guardiacoste di Tripoli è reato

    La consegna di migranti alla guardia costiera libica è reato perché la Libia «non è porto sicuro».

    E’ quanto sancisce una sentenza della Corte di Cassazione che ha reso definitiva la condanna del comandante del rimorchiatore #Asso_28 che il 30 luglio del 2018 soccorse 101 persone nel Mediterraneo centrale e li riportò in Libia consegnandoli alla Guardia costiera di Tripoli. Della sentenza scrive Repubblica.

    Per i supremi giudici favorire le intercettazioni dei guardiacoste di Tripoli rientra nella fattispecie illecita «dell’abbandono in stato di pericolo di persone minori o incapaci e di sbarco e abbandono arbitrario di persone». Nella sentenza viene sostanzialmente sancito che l’episodio del 2018 fu un respingimento collettivo verso un Paese non ritenuto sicuro vietato dalla Convenzione europea per i diritti umani.

    Casarini, dopo Cassazione su migranti pronti a #class_action

    "Con la sentenza della Corte di Cassazione, che ha chiarito in maniera definitiva che la cosiddetta «guardia costiera libica» non può «coordinare» nessun soccorso, perché non è in grado di garantire il rispetto dei diritti umani dei naufraghi, diventa un reato grave anche ordinarci di farlo, come succede adesso. Ora metteremo a punto non solo i ricorsi contro il decreto Piantedosi, che blocca per questo le navi del soccorso civile, ma anche una grande class action contro il governo e il ministro dell’Interno e il memorandum Italia-Libia". E’ quanto afferma Luca Casarini della ong Mediterranea Saving Humans.

    "Dovranno rispondere in tribunale delle loro azioni di finanziamento e complicità nelle catture e deportazioni che avvengono in mare ad opera di una «sedicente» guardia costiera - aggiunge Casarini -, che altro non è che una formazione militare che ha come compito quello di catturare e deportare, non di «mettere in salvo» le donne, gli uomini e i bambini che cercano aiuto. La suprema corte definisce giustamente una gravissima violazione della Convenzione di Ginevra, la deportazione in Libia di migranti e profughi che sono in mare per tentare di fuggire da quell’inferno". Casarini ricorda, inoltre, che di recente la nave Mare Jonio di Mediterranea "di recente è stata colpita dal fermo amministrativo del governo per non aver chiesto alla Libia il porto sicuro. Proporremo a migliaia di cittadini italiani, ad associazioni e ong, di sottoscrivere la «class action», e chiederemo ad un tribunale della Repubblica di portare in giudizio i responsabili politici di questi gravi crimini. Stiamo parlando di decine di migliaia di esseri umani catturati in mare e deportati in Libia, ogni anno, coordinati di fatto da Roma e dall’agenzia europea Frontex.

    E il ministro Piantedosi, proprio ieri, l’ha rivendicato testimoniando al processo a Palermo contro l’allora ministro Salvini. Lui si è costruito un alibi, con la distinzione tra centri di detenzione legali e illegali in Libia, dichiarando che «l’Italia si coordina con le istituzioni libiche che gestiscono campi di detenzione legalmente. Finalmente questo alibi, che è servito fino ad ora a coprire i crimini, è crollato grazie al pronunciamento della Cassazione. Adesso questo ministro deve essere messo sotto processo, perché ha ammesso di avere sistematicamente commesso un reato, gravissimo, che ha causato morte e sofferenze a migliaia di innocenti».

    https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cronaca/2024/02/17/cassazione-dare-i-migranti-a-guardiacoste-di-tripoli-e-reato_cfcb3461-c654-4f3c

    #justice #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières #gardes-côtes_libyens #Libye #jurisprudence #condamnation #externalisation #pull-backs #refoulements #push-backs #cour_de_cassation #cassation #port_sûr

    • Sentenza Cassazione: Consegnare gli immigranti alla guardia costiera libica è reato

      La Libia è un paese canaglia: bocciati Minniti, Conte e Meloni. Dice la sentenza della Cassazione, è noto che in Libia i migranti subiscono vessazioni, violenze e tortura. Quindi è un reato violare la legge internazionale e il codice di navigazione che impongono di portare i naufraghi in un porto sicuro

      Il governo italiano (sia questo in carica sia quelli di centrosinistra che avevano Marco Minniti come ministro dell’interno) potrebbe addirittura finire sotto processo sulla base di una sentenza emessa dalla Corte di Cassazione.

      Dice questa sentenza che la Libia non è un porto sicuro, e che dunque non si possono consegnare alla Libia (o favorire la cattura da parte delle motovedette libiche) le persone salvate da un naufragio.

      Dice la sentenza, è noto che in Libia i migranti subiscono vessazioni, violenze e tortura. Quindi è un reato violare la legge internazionale e il codice di navigazione che impongono di portare i naufraghi in un porto sicuro.

      Che la Libia non fosse un porto sicuro era stranoto. Bastava non leggere i giornali italiani per saperlo. La novità è che questa evidente verità viene ora formalmente affermata con una sentenza della Cassazione che fa giurisprudenza. E che, come è del tutto evidente, mette in discussione gli accordi con la Libia firmati dai governi di centrosinistra e poi confermati dai governi Conte e infine dai governi di centrodestra.

      Accordi che si basarono persino sul finanziamento italiano e sulla consegna di motovedette – realizzate a spese del governo italiano – alle autorità di Tripoli. Ora quegli accordi devono essere immediatamente cancellati e in linea di principio si potrebbe persino ipotizzare l’apertura di processi (se non è scattata la prescrizione) ai responsabili di quegli accordi.

      I reati per i quali la Cassazione con questa sentenza ha confermato la condanna al comandante di una nave che nel luglio del 2018 (governo gialloverde, Salvini ministro dell’Interno) consegnò alla guardia costiera libica 101 naufraghi salvati in mezzo al Mediterraneo sono “abbandono in stato di pericolo di persone minori o incapaci, e di sbarco e abbandono arbitrario di persone”. La Cassazione ha dichiarato formalmente che la Libia non è un porto sicuro.

      Tutta la politica dei respingimenti a questo punto, se dio vuole, salta in aria. La Cassazione ha stabilito che bisogna tornare allo Stato di diritto, a scapito della propaganda politica. E saltano in aria anche i provvedimenti recentemente adottati dalle autorità italiane sulla base del decreto Spazza-naufraghi varato circa un anno fa dal governo Meloni.

      Ancora in queste ore c’è una nave della Ocean Viking che è sotto fermo amministrativo perché accusata di non aver seguito le direttive impartite dalle autorità libiche. Ovviamente dovrà immediatamente essere dissequestrata e forse c’è anche il rischio che chi ha deciso il sequestro finisca sotto processo. Inoltre bisognerà restituire la multa e probabilmente risarcire il danno.

      E quello della Ocean Viking è solo uno di numerosissimi casi. Certo, perché ciò avvenga sarebbe necessaria una assunzione di responsabilità sia da parte del Parlamento sia da parte della magistratura. E le due cose non sono probabilissime.

      https://www.osservatoriorepressione.info/sentenza-cassazione-consegnare-gli-immigranti-alla-guardia

    • Italy’s top court: Handing over migrants to Libyan coast guards is illegal

      Italy’s highest court, the Cassation Court, has ruled that handing over migrants to Libyan coast guards is unlawful because Libya does not represent a safe port. The sentence could have major repercussions.

      Handing over migrants rescued in the Central Mediterranean to Tripoli’s coast guards is unlawful because Libya is not a safe port and it is conduct which goes against the navigation code, the Cassation Court ruled on February 17. The decision upheld the conviction of the captain of the Italian private vessel Asso 28, which, on July 30, 2018, rescued 101 individuals in the central Mediterranean and then handed them over to the Libyan coast guards to be returned to Libya.

      The supreme court judges ruled in sentence number 4557 that facilitating the interception of migrants and refugees by the Libyan coast guards falls under the crime of “abandonment in a state of danger of minors or incapacitated people and arbitrary disembarkation and abandonment of people.” This ruling effectively characterizes the 2018 incident as collective refoulement to a country not considered safe, contravening the European Convention on Human Rights.

      NGOs announce class action lawsuit

      Beyond its political implications, the Cassation’s decision could significantly impact ongoing legal proceedings, including administrative actions. NGOs have announced a class action lawsuit against the government, the interior minister, and the Italy-Libya memorandum.

      The case, which was first examined by the tribunal of Naples, focuses on the intervention of a trawler, a support ship for a platform, to rescue 101 migrants who were on a boat that had departed from Africa’s coast.

      According to investigators, the ship’s commander was asked by personnel on the rig to take on board a Libyan citizen, described as a “Libyan customs official”, who suggested sailing to Libya and disembarking the rescued migrants.

      The supreme court judges said the defendant “omitted to immediately communicate, before starting rescue operations and after completing them, to the centres of coordination and rescue services of Tripoli and to the IMRCC (Italian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre) of Rome, in the absence of a reply by the first,” that the migrants had been rescued and were under his charge.

      The Cassation ruled that, by operating in this way, the commander violated “procedures provided for by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and by the directives of the International Maritime Organization,” thus carrying out a “collective refoulement to a port deemed unsafe like Libya.”

      Furthermore, the Cassation emphasized the commander’s obligation to ascertain whether the migrants wanted to apply for asylum and conduct necessary checks on accompanying minors.
      ’Cassation should not be interpreted ideologically on Libya’, Piantedosi

      “Italy has never coordinated and handed over to Libya migrants rescued in operations coordinated or directly carried out by Italy,” Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi said on February 19, when asked to comment the Cassation’s ruling. “That sentence must be read well — sentences should never be interpreted in a political or ideological manner,” he said.

      Piantedosi contextualized the ruling within the circumstances prevailing in Libya at the time, citing efforts to assist Libya with EU cooperation. He highlighted the government’s adherence to principles governing repatriation activities and concluded by saying “there can be no spontaneity” and that “coordination” is essential.

      https://twitter.com/InfoMigrants/status/1759901204501438649?t=ZlLRzR3-jQ0e6-y0Q2GPJA