• BY MY SIDE

    Simon Brunel, Nicolas Pannetier :

    Si vous êtes à Berlin, ne manquez pas cette exposition et ce programme de nos amis de l’atelier Limo

    https://www.lcb.de/programm/simon-brunel-nicolas-pannetier-by-my-side

    BY MY SIDE
    Simon Brunel, Nicolas Pannetier

    Nikosia · Mostar · Berlin · Belfast

    Frontlinien, Betonmauern, Soldaten, Checkpoints und Pufferzonen: Was bedeutet es für eine Stadt, wenn sie geteilt ist? Die Ausstellung BY MY SIDE, kuratiert von Simon Brunel und Nicolas Pannetier (Atelier Limo), ist Teil des Festivals REWRITING THE MAP und untersucht die Einflüsse innerstädtischer Grenzlinien auf den Alltag der Bewohner·innen Nikosias, Mostars, Berlins und Belfasts. Die beiden Fotografen erkundeten im Auftrag des LCB diese vier Städte und zeigen mit ihren Bildern eindrucksvoll, wie Grenzziehungen Menschen voneinander trennen, aber auch neue Strukturen erzeugen und verstetigen. In Portraits und Interviews werden Personen vorgestellt, die sich direkt vor der eigenen Haustür mit den Folgen komplexer geopolitischer Verhältnisse auseinandersetzen müssen, was viele auch als Chance begreifen, für Veränderung zu kämpfen.

    Rewriting the Map – Literature and Urbanism in divided Cities : Literarisches Colloquium Berlin

    https://www.lcb.de/programm/rewriting-the-map-literature-and-urbanism-in-divided-cities

    Rewriting the Map – Literature and Urbanism in divided Cities
    discussions, readings, films, performances

    With guests from Belfast · Berlin · Mostar · Nicosia
    25. – 27. Juli 2019

    “A city is more than a place in space, it is a drama in time.”
    Patrick Geddes

    #frontières #murs #urban_matter #atelier_limo

  • EU-Egypt migration cooperation : where are human rights ?

    The new EuroMed Rights study “EU-Egypt migration cooperation: at the expense of human rights,” published today, maps EU and Member State cooperation with Egypt in migration and border management. The study highlights the impact of this cooperation on the rights of refugees and migrants in Egypt and offers concrete recommendations for action. This publication follows the second meeting of the Migration Dialogue between the European Union and Egypt, which took place in Cairo on 11 July.

    While Egypt does not constitute a major country of departure for migrant movement towards Europe, the report finds that attention towards EU-Egypt cooperation on migration is predominately driven by Egypt’s attempts to strengthen its image as a regional leader, gain European support for its counter-terrorism policy and obtain funds for its domestic projects. If EU-led cooperation programmes in Egypt have stalled, certain Member States have stepped up bilateral cooperation on migration, going so far as to increase deportations of Egyptians back to Egypt where they could face severe human rights violations.

    “EU support to Egypt on migration has served to reinforce Egypt’s policing capacities and harsh border management policies, legitimising and strengthening the violence of the authoritarian Egyptian regime,” said Wadih Al-Asmar, President of EuroMed Rights. “We urge the EU to consult independent NGOs, inside and outside Egypt, on migration cooperation, assess the human rights impact of EU-Egypt agreements and funding, report to the European Parliament on cooperation between Frontex and the Egyptian authorities, and reject any proposals for a readmission agreement with Egypt.”

    https://euromedrights.org/publication/eu-egypt-migration-cooperation-where-are-human-rights

    #droits_humains #Egypte #UE #EU #Europe #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Italie #Allemagne #externalisation #coopération

    –--------
    Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop avec ce commentaire :

    Le dernier rapport d’EuroMed Droits (disponible en anglais, recommandations disponibles en arabe aussi) porte sur la coopération entre l’UE et l’Egypte relativement à la question dite de la « gestion des flux migratoires ». Peu documentée, cette coopération s’est pourtant intensifiée depuis la fin 2016 au niveau de la Commission européenne, mais aussi à l’appui notamment d’une coopération bilatérale fournie entre l’Egypte et l’Italie, d’une part, et l’Allemagne d’autre part. Le faible contrôle démocratique et le manque de transparence sur la réalité de cette coopération ajoute aux inquiétudes fortes d’une coopération qui ne fait ni guère cas de l’impact de cette coopération sur les droits humains (des personnes en migration et des Egyptien.nes).

    Le rapport met aussi en lumière des éléments d’analyse qui contredisent la thèse d’une « externalisation des politiques européennes » au sens classique du terme : les auteurs avancent que l’UE ne bénéficie que très peu d’une coopération qui, à l’inverse, profite véritablement à l’Egypte qui voit dans la coopération migratoire un canal de financement & de légitimité diplomatique fort utile, dans un contexte plus général de politique anti-terroriste qui s’accommode assez bien d’un amalgame politiquement utile entre migration irrégulière, criminalité transfrontalière et terrorisme.

    Au vu des enjeux en matière de droits humains particulièrement prégnant en Egypte, des recommandations sont émises aux institutions européennes, ainsi qu’aux autorités italiennes et égyptiennes pour tirer la sonnette d’alarme sur une coopération dangereuse qui se poursuit loin des regards.

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation, et plus précisément sur l’externalisation en Egypte :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message767801

  • USA : Dublin façon frontière Mexique/USA

    Faute d’accord avec le #Guatemala (pour l’instant bloqué du fait du recours déposé par plusieurs membres de l’opposition devant la Cour constitutionnelle) et le #Mexique les désignant comme des « #pays_sûr », les USA ont adopté une nouvelle réglementation en matière d’#asile ( « #Interim_Final_Rule » - #IFR), spécifiquement pour la #frontière avec le Mexique, qui n’est pas sans faire penser au règlement de Dublin : les personnes qui n’auront pas sollicité l’asile dans un des pays traversés en cours de route avant d’arriver aux USA verront leur demande rejetée.
    Cette règle entre en vigueur aujourd’hui et permet donc le #refoulement de toute personne « who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border, but who did not apply for protection from persecution or torture where it was available in at least one third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which he or she transited en route to the United States. »
    Lien vers le règlement : https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/07/15/dhs-and-doj-issue-third-country-asylum-rule
    Plusieurs associations dont ACLU (association US) vont déposer un recours visant à le faire invalider.
    Les USA recueillent et échangent déjà des données avec les pays d’Amérique centrale et latine qu’ils utilisent pour débouter les demandeurs d’asile, par exemple avec le Salvador : https://psmag.com/social-justice/homeland-security-uses-foreign-databases-to-monitor-gang-activity

    Reçu via email le 16.07.2019 de @pascaline

    #USA #Etats-Unis #Dublin #Dublin_façon_USA #loi #Dublin_aux_USA #législation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #El_Salvador

    • Trump Administration Implementing ’3rd Country’ Rule On Migrants Seeking Asylum

      The Trump administration is moving forward with a tough new asylum rule in its campaign to slow the flow of Central American migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Asylum-seeking immigrants who pass through a third country en route to the U.S. must first apply for refugee status in that country rather than at the U.S. border.

      The restriction will likely face court challenges, opening a new front in the battle over U.S. immigration policies.

      The interim final rule will take effect immediately after it is published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, according to the departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

      The new policy applies specifically to the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that “an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum.”

      “Until Congress can act, this interim rule will help reduce a major ’pull’ factor driving irregular migration to the United States,” Homeland Security acting Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan said in a statement about the new rule.

      The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to file a lawsuit to try to stop the rule from taking effect.

      “This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

      Gelernt accused the Trump administration of “trying to unilaterally reverse our country’s legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger.”

      The strict policy shift would likely bring new pressures and official burdens on Mexico and Guatemala, countries through which migrants and refugees often pass on their way to the U.S.

      On Sunday, Guatemala’s government pulled out of a meeting between President Jimmy Morales and Trump that had been scheduled for Monday, citing ongoing legal questions over whether the country could be deemed a “safe third country” for migrants who want to reach the U.S.

      Hours after the U.S. announced the rule on Monday, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said it was a unilateral move that will not affect Mexican citizens.

      “Mexico does not agree with measures that limit asylum and refugee status for those who fear for their lives or safety, and who fear persecution in their country of origin,” Ebrard said.

      Ebrard said Mexico will maintain its current policies, reiterating the country’s “respect for the human rights of all people, as well as for its international commitments in matters of asylum and political refuge.”

      According to a DHS news release, the U.S. rule would set “a new bar to eligibility” for anyone seeking asylum. It also allows exceptions in three limited cases:

      “1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country;

      ”(2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of ’victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons’ provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or,

      “(3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

      The DHS release describes asylum as “a discretionary benefit offered by the United States Government to those fleeing persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

      The departments of Justice and Homeland Security are publishing the 58-page asylum rule as the Trump administration faces criticism over conditions at migrant detention centers at the southern border, as well as its “remain in Mexico” policy that requires asylum-seekers who are waiting for a U.S. court date to do so in Mexico rather than in the U.S.

      In a statement about the new rule, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said that current U.S. asylum rules have been abused, and that the large number of people trying to enter the country has put a strain on the system.

      Barr said the number of cases referred to the Department of Justice for proceedings before an immigration judge “has risen exponentially, more than tripling between 2013 and 2018.” The attorney general added, “Only a small minority of these individuals, however, are ultimately granted asylum.”

      https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741769333/u-s-sets-new-asylum-rule-telling-potential-refugees-to-apply-elsewhere

    • Le journal The New Yorker : Trump est prêt à signer un accord majeur pour envoyer à l’avenir les demandeurs d’asile au Guatemala

      L’article fait état d’un projet de #plate-forme_externalisée pour examiner les demandes de personnes appréhendées aux frontières US, qui rappelle à la fois une proposition britannique (jamais concrétisée) de 2003 de créer des processing centers extra-européens et la #Pacific_solution australienne, qui consiste à déporter les demandeurs d’asile « illégaux » de toute nationalité dans des pays voisins. Et l’article évoque la « plus grande et la plus troublante des questions : comment le Guatemala pourrait-il faire face à un afflux si énorme de demandeurs ? » Peut-être en demandant conseil aux autorités libyennes et à leurs amis européens ?

      –-> Message reçu d’Alain Morice via la mailling-list Migreurop.

      Trump Is Poised to Sign a Radical Agreement to Send Future Asylum Seekers to Guatemala

      Early next week, according to a D.H.S. official, the Trump Administration is expected to announce a major immigration deal, known as a safe-third-country agreement, with Guatemala. For weeks, there have been reports that negotiations were under way between the two countries, but, until now, none of the details were official. According to a draft of the agreement obtained by The New Yorker, asylum seekers from any country who either show up at U.S. ports of entry or are apprehended while crossing between ports of entry could be sent to seek asylum in Guatemala instead. During the past year, tens of thousands of migrants, the vast majority of them from Central America, have arrived at the U.S. border seeking asylum each month. By law, the U.S. must give them a chance to bring their claims before authorities, even though there’s currently a backlog in the immigration courts of roughly a million cases. The Trump Administration has tried a number of measures to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country—from “metering” at ports of entry to forcing people to wait in Mexico—but, in every case, international obligations held that the U.S. would eventually have to hear their asylum claims. Under this new arrangement, most of these migrants will no longer have a chance to make an asylum claim in the U.S. at all. “We’re talking about something much bigger than what the term ‘safe third country’ implies,” someone with knowledge of the deal told me. “We’re talking about a kind of transfer agreement where the U.S. can send any asylum seekers, not just Central Americans, to Guatemala.”

      From the start of the Trump Presidency, Administration officials have been fixated on a safe-third-country policy with Mexico—a similar accord already exists with Canada—since it would allow the U.S. government to shift the burden of handling asylum claims farther south. The principle was that migrants wouldn’t have to apply for asylum in the U.S. because they could do so elsewhere along the way. But immigrants-rights advocates and policy experts pointed out that Mexico’s legal system could not credibly take on that responsibility. “If you’re going to pursue a safe-third-country agreement, you have to be able to say ‘safe’ with a straight face,” Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, told me. Until very recently, the prospect of such an agreement—not just with Mexico but with any other country in Central America—seemed far-fetched. Yet last month, under the threat of steep tariffs on Mexican goods, Trump strong-armed the Mexican government into considering it. Even so, according to a former Mexican official, the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador is stalling. “They are trying to fight this,” the former official said. What’s so striking about the agreement with Guatemala, however, is that it goes even further than the terms the U.S. sought in its dealings with Mexico. “This is a whole new level,” the person with knowledge of the agreement told me. “In my read, it looks like even those who have never set foot in Guatemala can potentially be sent there.”

      At this point, there are still more questions than answers about what the agreement with Guatemala will mean in practice. A lot will still have to happen before it goes into force, and the terms aren’t final. The draft of the agreement doesn’t provide much clarity on how it will be implemented—another person with knowledge of the agreement said, “This reads like it was drafted by someone’s intern”—but it does offer an exemption for Guatemalan migrants, which might be why the government of Jimmy Morales, a U.S. ally, seems willing to sign on. Guatemala is currently in the midst of Presidential elections; next month, the country will hold a runoff between two candidates, and the current front-runner has been opposed to this type of deal. The Morales government, however, still has six months left in office. A U.N.-backed anti-corruption body called the CICIG, which for years was funded by the U.S. and admired throughout the region, is being dismantled by Morales, whose own family has fallen under investigation for graft and financial improprieties. Signing an immigration deal “would get the Guatemalan government in the U.S.’s good graces,” Stephen McFarland, a former U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, told me. “The question is, what would they intend to use that status for?” Earlier this week, after Morales announced that he would be meeting with Trump in Washington on Monday, three former foreign ministers of Guatemala petitioned the country’s Constitutional Court to block him from signing the agreement. Doing so, they said, “would allow the current president of the republic to leave the future of our country mortgaged, without any responsibility.”

      The biggest, and most unsettling, question raised by the agreement is how Guatemala could possibly cope with such enormous demands. More people are leaving Guatemala now than any other country in the northern triangle of Central America. Rampant poverty, entrenched political corruption, urban crime, and the effects of climate change have made large swaths of the country virtually uninhabitable. “This is already a country in which the political and economic system can’t provide jobs for all its people,” McFarland said. “There are all these people, their own citizens, that the government and the political and economic system are not taking care of. To get thousands of citizens from other countries to come in there, and to take care of them for an indefinite period of time, would be very difficult.” Although the U.S. would provide additional aid to help the Guatemalan government address the influx of asylum seekers, it isn’t clear whether the country has the administrative capacity to take on the job. According to the person familiar with the safe-third-country agreement, “U.N.H.C.R. [the U.N.’s refugee agency] has not been involved” in the current negotiations. And, for Central Americans transferred to Guatemala under the terms of the deal, there’s an added security risk: many of the gangs Salvadorans and Hondurans are fleeing also operate in Guatemala.

      In recent months, the squalid conditions at borderland detention centers have provoked a broad political outcry in the U.S. At the same time, a worsening asylum crisis has been playing out south of the U.S. border, beyond the immediate notice of concerned Americans. There, the Trump Administration is quietly delivering on its promise to redraw American asylum practice. Since January, under a policy called the Migration Protection Protocols (M.P.P.), the U.S. government has sent more than fifteen thousand asylum seekers to Mexico, where they now must wait indefinitely as their cases inch through the backlogged American immigration courts. Cities in northern Mexico, such as Tijuana and Juarez, are filling up with desperate migrants who are exposed to violent crime, extortion, and kidnappings, all of which are on the rise.This week, as part of the M.P.P., the U.S. began sending migrants to Tamaulipas, one of Mexico’s most violent states and a stronghold for drug cartels that, for years, have brutalized migrants for money and for sport.

      Safe-third-country agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The logistics are complex, and the outcomes tend not to change the harried calculations of asylum seekers as they flee their homes. These agreements, according to a recent study by the Migration Policy Institute, are “unlikely to hold the key to solving the crisis unfolding at the U.S. southern border.” The Trump Administration has already cut aid to Central America, and the U.S. asylum system remains in dire need of improvement. But there’s also little question that the agreement with Guatemala will reduce the number of people who reach, and remain in, the U.S. If the President has made the asylum crisis worse, he’ll also be able to say he’s improving it—just as he can claim credit for the decline in the number of apprehensions at the U.S. border last month. That was the result of increased enforcement efforts by the Mexican government acting under U.S. pressure.

      There’s also no reason to expect that the Trump Administration will abandon its efforts to force the Mexicans into a safe-third-country agreement as well. “The Mexican government thought that the possibility of a safe-third-country agreement with Guatemala had fallen apart because of the elections there,” the former Mexican official told me. “The recent news caught top Mexican officials by surprise.” In the next month, the two countries will continue immigration talks, and, again, Mexico will face mounting pressure to accede to American demands. “The U.S. has used the agreement with Guatemala to convince the Mexicans to sign their own safe-third-country agreement,” the former official said. “Its argument is that the number of migrants Mexico will receive will be lower now.”

      https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-poised-to-sign-a-radical-agreement-to-send-future-asylum-seekers-to
      #externalisation

  • #Hugues_MOUTOUH : « Le mot “#migrants” traduit un parti pris idéologique que nous devons refuser »

    Le terme de « migrants » s’est imposé dans le ­#discours public et désigne indistinctement des ­réalités très différentes. À la faveur de ce mot ­s’impose ­subrepticement une vision de l’immigration à l’opposé du vœu des Français, s’inquiète l’ancien préfet Hugues MOUTOUH.

    –-----------

    Depuis quelques années déjà, l’actualité européenne ne parle plus que d’eux. Ils font régulièrement la une des journaux télévisés, sont le sujet de nombreuses conférences intergouvernementales et la source de bien des brouilles diplomatiques. On dit même qu’ils pourraient achever de saper le projet européen, à force de mettre à l’épreuve la solidarité des États membres. Mais de qui parle-t-on ? Des « migrants », bien sûr.

    La France, comme les autres pays européens, n’échappe pas à la fameuse « crise migratoire ». Il suffit d’ouvrir n’importe quel journal de ces derniers jours pour s’en convaincre : « Loire-Atlantique : la préfète juge parfaitement insupportable l’existence d’un campement de migrants dans le centre de Nantes » ; « Nord : les autorités évacuent à nouveau le campement de migrants de Grande-Synthe, où vivent environ 500 personnes ».

    Pas une semaine sans que les mots de « migrant » ou de « migration » ne viennent alimenter les chroniques de presse ou déclarations des personnalités politiques. Tout ou presque sur ce sujet semble avoir été dit… excepté peut-être l’essentiel : pourquoi parle-t-on aujourd’hui de « migrants » et de « migrations » ?

    Ce vocable est nouveau dans la bouche des journalistes et des politiques. Voilà quelques années, les mêmes auraient décrit le phénomène auquel nous sommes actuellement confrontés avec des mots plus classiques. On aurait parlé de #réfugiés, de vagues d’immigrés ou de #clandestins, selon le point de vue adopté. Entre hier et aujourd’hui, les réalités que désignent ces mots n’ont pas changé. Des personnes quittent leurs pays, toujours pour des raisons identiques : la guerre, la famine, ou, le plus souvent, l’espérance d’une vie meilleure plus au nord. En fin de compte, la seule vraie nouveauté est d’ordre sémantique. Dorénavant, d’Emmanuel MACRON à Marine LE PEN, en passant par Jean-Luc MÉLENCHON, un même mot est utilisé pour désigner la chose. Exit la figure de « l’#immigré » ! Dépassé, le débat sur « l’#immigration ». C’est du « migrant » dont il est question.

    « La seule vraie nouveauté est d’ordre sémantique »

    Cette évolution du langage n’est ni anodine ni innocente. On sait qu’en politique, plus que dans n’importe quel autre domaine, les mots ont un sens. Chaque époque conditionne ainsi, à travers les mots que l’on emploie, ce qu’il est possible et acceptable de dire.

    Ce n’est ni par anti-modernisme ou simple esprit de réaction que, pour notre part, nous pensons préférable de reparler en 2018 d’« #immigration ». C’est parce que, selon nous, seul l’emploi de ce terme permet de traiter du sujet comme il devrait l’être : uniquement sous l’angle #politique et non à travers un prisme déformant, exclusivement #humanitaire. Nul ne peut contester à un pays le droit de contrôler en toute #souveraineté son immigration. Il n’y a là aucune question #morale, juste un peu de #droit au service d’une politique nationale. L’immigré est l’#étranger qu’un État accepte d’accueillir sur son sol pendant une durée déterminée, à la condition qu’il se conforme aux règles d’entrée et de séjour qui lui sont signifiées. Lorsqu’il se trouve en situation irrégulière, il n’a vocation ni à entrer ni à demeurer sur le territoire de cet État. Les cas des #demandeurs_d’asile_sincères appellent un traitement particulier, mais le détournement du droit d’asile en filière d’#immigration_illégale doit cesser.

    Or, dès lors que l’on parle de « migrants » et de « migration », les termes du débat se trouvent faussés. S’installe alors, au profit de ces mêmes étrangers, une présomption de #devoir_d’accueil, avec un renversement inédit de la #charge_de_la_preuve : les gouvernants se retrouvent sommés de s’expliquer devant le tribunal de l’opinion. Ils doivent se justifier de ne pas accueillir chaque jour toujours plus de « migrants », qui semblent se voir reconnu (par qui et au nom de quoi ?) un véritable droit de créance sur les États européens, une sorte d’incroyable et de terrible #pouvoir_d’exiger.

    Refuser de parler de « migrants » est donc tout sauf une #coquetterie_langagière. C’est un véritable #acte_de_résistance, le refus de reconnaissance à notre encontre d’une #dette positive pesant sur nos épaules et surtout celles des générations futures. Non, les « migrants » qui sont convoyés par les nouvelles mafias, avec le concours irresponsable (mais pas toujours naïf) de quelques #ONG, ne peuvent exiger de la France, de l’Allemagne ou de l’Italie tout un ensemble de prestations qui vont du droit à l’accueil et à l’assistance au droit au logement, en passant par le droit au travail ou à l’instruction.

    Qui ne comprend qu’accepter de parler de « migration » revient non seulement à faire le jeu de ceux qui militent depuis toujours pour l’abolition des frontières et la fin des nations, mais donne aussi le sentiment que l’Europe est une terre à conquérir ? Pour concevoir et faire appliquer une politique en matière d’immigration, il faut d’abord mener la bataille des mots.

    https://www.association-iceo.fr/actualite-par-thematiques/opinion/hugues-moutouh-le-mot-migrants-traduit-un-parti-pris-ideologique-qu
    #terminologie #mots #vocabulaire #asile #migrations #réfugiés #migrant

    –------------

    Le collègue qui m’a envoyé ce texte par email a commenté ainsi :

    Quand on entre dans ce niveau d’approche sémantique, cela ouvre l’attention ? Quand on voit un Préfet parler des « des journalistes et des politiques », ca sent toujours le roussi. A mon avis, il y a un là un personnage intéressant pour comprendre comment la « #peste_brune » pénètre les services de l’État.

    https://www.association-iceo.fr/actualite-par-thematiques/opinion/hugues-moutouh-le-mot-migrants-traduit-un-parti-pris-ideologique-qu

    ping @karine4 @reka @isskein

    Notez ce magnifique terme :
    "#demandeurs_d’asile_sincères" —> @sinehebdo
    #sincérité (et donc #mensonge #abus, vrais et faux réfugiés, #catégorisation)

  • Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Was a Member of Secret Facebook Group
    https://theintercept.com/2019/07/12/border-patrol-chief-carla-provost-was-a-member-of-secret-facebook-grou

    When news broke that thousands of current and former Border Patrol agents were members of a secret Facebook group filled with racist, vulgar, and sexist content, Carla Provost, chief of the agency, was quick to respond. “These posts are completely inappropriate and contrary to the honor and integrity I see — and expect — from our agents day in and day out,” Provost said in a statement. “Any employees found to have violated our standards of conduct will be held accountable.” For Provost, a (...)

    #ICE #DHS #Facebook #migration #discrimination #surveillance #frontières

  • Matteo #Salvini veut construire un mur à la frontière entre la Slovénie et l’Italie

    Voilà une semaine que des #patrouilles slovéno-italiennes parcourent la frontière entre les deux pays pour empêcher les passages illégaux de réfugiés. Présentée comme une intensification de la coopération entre Rome et Ljubljana, la mesure ne satisfait pas le ministre italien de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, qui a évoqué l’idée d’un mur à la frontière Est de la Botte.

    L’image, digne d’un spot de campagne proeuropéen, a fait le tour des médias slovènes : tous sourires, deux gardes-frontières slovène et italien se serrent solennellement la main, encouragés par un concert de bons mots sur la coopération policière entre Rome et Ljubljana. La mise en place d’une patrouille frontalière binationale, proposée par le ministre slovène des Affaires étrangères Miro Cerar et approuvée par son homologue italien, vise à empêcher plus efficacement les franchissements illégaux. « Nous nous attendons à des résultats positifs », a déclaré à la télévision slovène 24UR Vincenzo Avallone, chef de secteur de la police frontalière basée à Udine. « Cette coopération contribuera à un meilleur partage d’informations, crucial pour continuer notre travail. »

    Jusqu’au 30 septembre, quatre patrouilles de police se succèderont chaque semaine, trois côté slovène et une côté italien. Formées à Trieste, les équipes pourront entrer jusqu’à dix kilomètres dans le territoire des deux pays, avec pour mission de surveiller les points de passage les plus sensibles. « Nous avons travaillé sur cette initiative durant des mois », s’est félicité le gouverneur de la région de Frioul-Vénétie julienne, Massimiliano Fedriga, cité par l’agence italienne ANSA. « La pression politico-diplomatique sur la Slovénie et les pays des Balkans s’est accentuée », précise-t-il, tout en présentant la mesure comme « un commencement, pas une solution ».
    « Rendre la frontière infranchissable »

    La semaine dernière, Matteo Salvini, vice-Premier ministre italien en charge de l’Intérieur, a affirmé que si ces patrouilles ne suffisaient pas, il ferait installer des « obstacles physiques » à la frontière, à commencer par une barrière de fils barbelés. Avant d’évoquer l’idée de sceller la frontière orientale : « Nous allons rendre la frontière avec la Slovénie infranchissable, et ce par tous les moyens disponibles ».

    Le 5 juin, 500 personnes s’étaient rassemblées en signe de protestation dans la commune frontalière de #Nova_Gorica - #Gorizia, et 300 autres à Trieste lors d’une visite de Matteo Salvini à Trieste pour la signature d’un contrat d’investissement avec la Hongrie. « Chez nous, le dernier mur est tombé en 2004 [date de l’entrée de la Slovénie dans l’UE]. L’érection d’un nouveau mur éveillerait le passé, ce qui serait non seulement douloureux mais également contreproductif », explique le maire de Gorizia, Rudi Ziberna, à La Repubblica. Au premier semestre 2019, 5306 migrants auraient franchi la frontière slovéno-croate, une hausse de près de 50% par rapport à 2018 (3612 passages). 146 auraient été renvoyés en Slovénie, contre 158 l’année précédente.

    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/refugies-Salvini-mur-frontiere-Slovenie-Italie
    #frontières #frontière_sud-alpine #murs #barrières_frontalières #Italie #Slovénie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #coopération_bilatérale #gardes-frontière #militarisation_des_frontières

    • Il muro anti-migranti tra Italia e Slovenia proposto dalla Lega costerebbe 2 miliardi di euro

      Il governatore del Friuli Venezia Giulia, Massimiliano Fedriga, ha parlato dell’ipotesi di costruire un muro di 243 chilometri al confine orientale dell’Italia, tra Friuli e la Slovenia.

      In un’intervista rilasciata al Fatto Quotidiano domenica 30 giugno, ha dichiarato che sta valutando l’ipotesi di realizzare il piano insieme al Viminale. La sua realizzazione risponderebbe infatti alla necessità di “fermare l’ondata migratoria che avanza”.

      “Se l’Europa non tutela i suoi confini noi saremo costretti a fermare l’ondata migratoria che avanza attraverso altri altri Paesi dell’Ue con tutti i mezzi. Non possiamo mettere poliziotti a ogni metro”, ha detto il leghista.
      Muro anti migranti Friuli | Costo

      Ma quanto costerebbe realizzare un vero e proprio muro anti migranti tra Friuli Venezia Giulia e Slovenia?

      Il coordinatore nazionale dei Verdi, Angelo Bonelli, ha calcolato che la sua costruzione costerebbe circa 2 miliardi di euro alle casse dello stato.

      “Per 100chilometri di reticolato al confine tra Usa e Messico il congresso americano ha autorizzato a Trump la spesa di 1,3 miliardi di dollari. E quindi per 243 chilometri di reticolato in Italia, il costo sarà di circa 2 miliardi di euro”, ha detto Bonelli.

      Un’infrastruttura del genere sarebbe, per questo, non solo discutibile dal punto di vista politico e morale, ma anche dal punto di vista pratico.

      Le spese per la costruzione del muro ricadrebbero su molti di quei cittadini italiani che, di questi tempi, probabilmente accoglierebbero con favore il piano.
      Muro anti migranti Friuli | Le critiche

      Le critiche all’idea del progetto non sono tardate ad arrivare anche da parte di altri personaggi pubblici, che si sono concentrati sull’aspetto politico del piano, ritenuto da alcuni anacronistico.

      Lo scrittore e saggista Claudio Magris ha scritto sul Corriere della Sera che un progetto simile sarebbe anti-storico, e rievocherebbe l’epoca della cortina di ferro, costruita alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale tra Trieste e la ex Jugoslavia di Tito.

      Anche diversi membri del Movimento 5 stelle hanno criticato il piano, tra cui il deputato e giornalista Emilio Carelli, che ha detto: “Spero che l’idea del governatore Massimiliano Fedriga non venga raccolta da nessuna forza politica. Non è alzando i muri che si governano i problemi delle migrazioni”.

      Giuseppe Brescia, presidente della Commissione Affari costituzionali della Camera ed esponente del M5S, ha invece affermato: “Questa iniziativa non ha né capo né coda, non se ne dovrebbe nemmeno parlare. Non è in agenda né nel contratto di governo, quelli della Lega non possono spararla sempre più grossa”.

      https://www.tpi.it/2019/07/01/muro-anti-migranti-friuli-fedriga-costo/

    • PM Says Fence Not Needed on Slovene-Italian Border

      Prime Minister Marjan Šarec has dismissed ideas by senior Italian officials that a fence should be erected on the Slovenian-Italian border, telling the National Assembly that such proposals had to be interpreted “in the domestic policy context”.

      “In talks with the Italian government we will state that there are no reasons for the border, this is clear from the numbers ... Italy is not threatened by Slovenia’s inactivity, and we will substantiate that,” he said.

      Šarec made the comment when he was quizzed by opposition MPs in parliament on Tuesday about the recent launch of mixed police patrols on the border, their implication being that the beefed up controls are the result of Slovenia’s failure to properly protect the Schengen border.

      Stressing that the number of persons Italy returned to Slovenia had dropped by 17% in the first half of 2019 compared to the same period last year, Šarec said Slovenian police were doing all they could to protect the Schengen border and curb illegal migrations.

      Border patrols are “not a measure that would squeeze Slovenia out of the Schengen zone,” as Democrat (SDS) MP Branko Grims claimed, as Italy has such cooperation with all of its neighbours and Slovenia also had such mixed patrols on its other borders, according to Šarec.

      New Slovenia (NSi) deputy Jernej Vrtovec wondered why Slovenia had proposed mixed patrols, labelling it an admission of its inability to control the Schengen border. But Šarec stressed that it was not the government that had proposed joint patrols, this was the result of an agreement at the level of both police forces.

      For Šarec, the key thing to dam migrations is for Frontex, the EU’s border agency, to be deployed on Croatia’s borders with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia.

      Overall, border control is “a serious issue that the new EU Commission will have to tackle with all seriousness... Migrations will be with us for years to come ... the EU is not active in tackling these issues,” he said, adding: “Schengen is de facto not working anymore.”

      Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini recently suggested Italy might erect a fence on its border with Slovenia if joint police patrols do not suffice to stop migrations, raising fears of a return to border checks that would severely disrupt life along the border.

      While the right has taken the announcement as evidence of Slovenia’s failings, politicians on the left have started urging the government to take action to prevent such a scenario from unfolding.

      Social Democrat (SD) deputy Matjaž Nemec thus urged Šarec today to take the initiative and invite the prime ministers of all countries on the Western Balkan migration route, including Italy and Austria, to jointly tackle the issue.

      But others think Italy will do as it likes regardless of what Slovenia does.

      Robert Polnar, an MP for the Pensioners’ Party (DeSUS), said Italy’s measures would probably be harsher than the measures Slovenia is adopting.

      And Luka Mesec, the leader of the Left, said Salvini was “playing his game” in order to win the election in Italy.

      "What the Slovenian right is doing, and partially the government by starting to announce drones and fencing ... is acquiescing to this game... Our politicians are dancing to Sallvini’s tune, Mesec said on the margins of the plenary today.

      https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/4072-pm-says-fence-not-needed-on-slovene-italian-border

  • Migranti: premier annuncia più controlli a confine Croazia

    LUBIANA - Il premier sloveno Marjan Šarec ha deciso di aumentare la presenza di polizia e soldati lungo il confine con la Croazia. «Non abbiamo mai detto che non c’era alcun problema con i migranti», ha dichiarato Šarec durante un sopralluogo effettuato oggi lungo la frontiera meridionale, nel comune di #Ilirska_Bistrica, insieme al ministro dell’interno Boštjan Poklukar, e alla direttrice generale della Polizia, Tatjan Bobnar. Anche se ha preferito non dare dettagli sul numero di ulteriori agenti che saranno inviati per il pattugliamento dei valichi di frontiera, Šarec ha detto che le forze di sicurezza saranno dotate di attrezzature tecniche, come i droni, e che viene anche valutata l’eventualità di rinforzare recinzioni e barriere fisiche, ove necessario. Lungo alcuni tratti del confine fra Slovenia e Croazia è presente una recinzione con filo spinato, ma sin dalla prima visita del ministro Poklukar il numero di attraversamenti illegali è raddoppiato e «questo per noi è inaccettabile», ha dichiarato il primo ministro. Come si apprende da una nota diffusa dal governo, in linea con le aspettative di protezione dei propri confini il governo ha stanziato considerevoli risorse finanziarie destinate alla polizia slovena e continuerà a farlo in futuro. La collaborazione con la comunità locale, prosegue il comunicato, deve essere portata avanti senza che la retorica politica prenda il sopravvento. La visita di Šarec è poi proseguita nei comuni di #Kostel e #Črnomelj.

    http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/it/notizie/rubriche/politica/2019/07/08/migranti-premier-annuncia-piu-controlli-a-confine-croazia_01b75f45-24ae-4f
    #militarisation_des_frontières #drones #barrières_frontalières #murs
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Croatie #Slovénie #frontières

  • #Croatie : dans les #montagnes, la police traque les #réfugiés

    Ce sont des randonneurs pas comme les autres. Dans les refuges de montagne du massif de #Risnjak, non loin de la frontière croato-slovène, les hommes des forces spéciales paradent en expliquant leurs tristes exploits contre les réfugiés, qui tentent de chercher un peu de chaleur ou de nourriture. Un randonneur choqué a témoigné dans une lettre ouverte auprès de la rédaction H-Alter. Morceaux choisis.

    Le samedi 15 juin, un groupe de randonneurs arrive au #refuge de Risnjak, dans le but d’y passer la nuit avant d’entamer le lendemain l’ascension du sommet. Mais à l’entrée du refuge, ils tombent sur une scène inattendue : un fusil automatique trône sur une table et deux membres des forces spéciales discutent avec la gérante du refuge. Ils sont là pour la « protéger des réfugiés », explique-t-elle. Cet hiver, certains seraient entrés par effraction dans le refuge et l’auraient « dévasté ». Pourtant, on ne voit nulle trace de dégradation, pas la moindre fenêtre cassée. Les malheureux étaient simplement à la recherche de chaleur et de nourriture.

    Au cours de la soirée, les #militaires sont au centre de l’attention : fiers de leurs exploits, ils expliquent qu’ils patrouillent constamment dans la forêt pour chasser les réfugiés, confisquer leurs affaires et les renvoyer en Bosnie-Herzégovine. Certains migrants, se vantent-ils, se font attraper pour la vingtième fois, et « crèvent de trouille devant eux ». Pourtant, ils reconnaissent eux-mêmes qu’aucun cas de violence envers des locaux ou des randonneurs n’a été signalé. Le seul crime de ces « bêtes sauvages et dangereuses », répète notre témoin, est donc d’avoir voulu dormir au chaud et volé des boîtes de conserve dans des résidences secondaires et des refuges.

    Malgré tout, la soirée se déroule dans une atmosphère relativement chaleureuse, on nourrit avec enthousiasme Pablo, le renard mascotte du refuge, et son ami le blaireau. Même les animaux sauvages sont ici, semble-t-il, plus humains que les étrangers : à 23h, alors que les #militaires sont rentrés, c’est au tour des réfugiés de s’approcher du refuge, à la recherche d’eau. Un jeune couple leur en donne, sans avoir le temps de les avertir de se cacher. Les militaires se ruent dehors en hurlant Lay on the ground, frappent les hommes à terre à coups de matraque, tirent au-dessus de la tête de ceux qui s’enfuient. L’un des réfugiés, paniqué, tombe dans la pente et se blesse, mais nul ne sait ce qu’il advient de lui, car les militaires font rentrer tout le monde dans le refuge et les enferment à clé « pour leur propre sécurité ».

    Le lendemain, nulle trace des réfugiés. Les militaires affirment en avoir « attrapé six », et devant le refuge, les braises d’un feu exhalent une odeur de plastique brûlé : les restes fumants des affaires confisquées aux malheureux. L’atmosphère est délétère. Si certains randonneurs choqués gardent le silence, d’autres se félicitent ouvertement des actes des militaires, qui les protègent contre ces hordes sauvages venues envahir la chrétienté. « Il y a des choses qui différencient les hommes des bêtes, et eux, ce sont des bêtes », lance un marcheur satisfait.

    « Dans une situation où tu as d’un côté des gens qui demandent de l’eau, de l’autre ceux qui répondent à cette prière par des coups de matraque et des tirs de fusil, avec l’approbation de la majorité de l’assistance, alors, il est vraiment temps de se demander qui sont les hommes, et qui sont les bêtes, et dans quel camp toi, dans cette situation, tu te ranges », conclut notre témoin, qui refuse que de tels actes soient perpétrés en son nom.

    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Croatie-dans-les-montagnes-les-forces-speciales-traquent-les-refu
    #montagne #police #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontière_sud-alpine #frontières #Slovénie #violence #violences_policières

    Publié aussi dans ce rapport :
    https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/Final-June-Report.pdf

    • Na strani zvijeri

      H-Alter je primio pismo planinara koji je u subotu svjedočio nasilju nad izbjeglicama na Risnjaku. Pismo prenosimo u cijelosti. “U domu sam ugledao automatsku pušku na stolu i specijalce kako razgovaraju s upraviteljicom. Oko 23 sata, došle su i izbjeglice. Tražili su vode. Specijalci su izjurili van, počeli ih odmah mlatiti, a jedan od (ili više) policajaca počeo je pucati, direkt iznad njihovih glava. U situaciji kad s jedne strane imaš ljude koji pitaju za vodu, a s druge one koji na to odgovaraju pucnjavom i pendrecima, uz većinsko odobravanje ostalih, stvarno se moraš zapitati jesi li na strani ljudi, ili na strani zvijeri”.

      Pismo prenosimo u cijelosti.

      U subotu, 15. lipnja, krenuli smo na vrh Risnjaka u čijem smo podnožju planirali prenoćiti u planinarskom domu. Kad smo došli u dnevni boravak planinarskog doma, ugledao sam automatsku pušku na jednom stolu i dvoje specijalaca kako razgovaraju s upraviteljicom doma. U početku nam ništa nije bilo jasno, no ubrzo smo saznali da je specijalna policija postala dio domske svakodnevice.

      Nismo dobili neko službeno objašnjenje zašto su među nama naoružani specijalci u punoj spremi, ali nam je upraviteljica doma rekla da nas “oni čuvaju od izbjeglica”. Kako je vrijeme prolazilo, kroz razgovore u veseloj i prisnoj atmosferi, kakva je inače karakteristična za planinarske domove, situacija nam je pomalo postajala jasnija. Upraviteljica je vrlo ljuta na te “migrante” budući da je jedna ili više skupina izbjeglica koji bježe kroz planine da bi došli do Slovenije, ove zime provalila u dom, kako bi se sklonili, najeli i ugrijali.

      O tom i sličnim događajima (ulazak u vikendice, planinarska skloništa), kao što se može vidjeti uglavnom po planinarskim stranicama i lokalnim medijima, priča se kao da su došli “divljaci”, “oni”, i u ovom konkretnom slučaju “devastirali dom” jadnoj ženi. Na ovaj način su razgovarali specijalci, upraviteljica i dio planinara a nitko od ostalih prisutnih (bilo nas je petnaestak) nije naglas pokušao osporiti takvu retoriku.

      Iako u takvoj atmosferi ni ja nisam ništa rekao, u sebi sam razmišljao da, iako je do provale uistinu došlo, teško je pričati o devastaciji, osobito u kontekstu u kojem se provala dogodila - nad prostorom se nije iživljavalo, prozori nisu razbijeni, sve prostorije funkcioniraju, od sanitarnih, kuhinje, do soba... Dakle, ako uzmemo u obzir tko je provalio i zašto, prije bi se moglo govoriti o osnovnoj ljudskoj potrebi i preživljavanju, nego o devastaciji.

      Tu večer svi zajedno sjedili smo ispred doma, a u centru pažnje su bili specijalci koji su odgovarali na razna pitanja, ali i davali neka svoja razmišljanja i interpretacije situacije. Saznali smo da konstantno patroliraju šumama, da je cijeli Risnjak pod kamerama i da su tu da love izbjeglice. To rade u koordinaciji s bosanskom policijom. Na pitanje, što rade kada ih “ulove”. Odgovarali su da im uzmu stvari te ih vraćaju u BiH.

      Tijekom tih razgovora ispričali su i razne “dogodovštine”, uz puno smijeha. Primjerice, kako su jednog migranta ulovili već dvadeseti put pa ih je preklinjao da ga ovaj put puste. Kako mnogi migranti već znaju proceduru pa im više i ne moraju ništa objašnjavati. Kako ih krijumčari ostave podno Risnjaka i kažu im da su u Sloveniji pa oni lutaju po brdima izgubljeni.

      Jedan od specijalaca konstatirao je i da ih se “oni boje više od svega”, na što je bio osobito ponosan. Čulo se i komentara o tome kako smrde i kako su glupi, no važno je spomenuti da je jedan od specijalaca istaknuo i da do sada nije zabilježen niti jedan slučaj nasilja migranata prema nekome od mještana ili općenito ljudima koje sretnu putem.

      Radi se o tisućama ljudi koji lutaju šumama gladni, žedni, promrznuti, prestrašeni, a “krimen” zbog kojeg se poziva na linč protiv njih i dehumanizira ih se jest to što upadaju u vikendice, skloništa i planinarske domove u potrazi za hranom i skloništem na svom dugom i mučnom putu.

      Unatoč tome što je rečeno da još nije zabilježeno nikakvo nasilje, generalna atmosfera je ta da su migranti opasni i da je jako dobro što ih specijalci love, te se većina u razgovoru priklanjala tom stavu. Glasno su se smijali na šale specijalaca i njihove dogodovštine prilikom “lova na izbjeglice”.

      Izdvojio bih jedan moment - na Risnjaku uz dom živi lisica Pablo, koju svi obožavaju. Vole je hraniti, upraviteljica joj svakodnevno daje ostatke hrane (lisici se ponekad priključe jazavci i pokoji medo) komentirajući kako “ona to nit’ ne jede, već zakopava”. Jedan specijalac je s vrlo velikim žarom pričao kako je Pablu jedno jutro dao mesni doručak, zatim mazao paštetu koju je ovaj lizao s kruha, te je tom prilikom snimio i lijepi video.

      Slušajući te priče i gledajući kako taj isti čovjek koji lovi izbjeglice istovremeno s takvim žarom i obzirnošću hrani već prejedenu lisicu, po glavi mi se stalno vrtilo - čak i lisica ima pravo na ime i svu humanost koja uz imenovanje ide. Istovremeno, na izbjeglice se uglavnom ne gleda kao na ljude, čak kao ni na živa bića, već u najboljem slučaju smetnju koju je potrebno ukloniti.

      Pablo je došao i tu večer i svi su ga oduševljeno hranili, a malo kasnije došao je i jazavac, što je izazvalo opće veselje. Istu večer, oko 23 sata, došle su i izbjeglice. Vani je bilo još nekoliko ljudi, dok su specijalci bili u domu na katu.

      Došlo ih je nekoliko, i tražili su vode, na što im je jedan mlađi par odmah pružio bočicu, te su sjeli na pod premoreni i pili vodu. Mladi par nije ih ni stigao upozoriti na to da su u blizini specijalci, već su specijalci izjurili van na dojavu jedne od osoba koja je vidjela dolazak izbjeglica.

      Izletjeli su van s pendrecima urlajući “lay on the ground” ("lezite na pod") i počeli ih mlatiti. Izbjeglice su počele bježati, na što je jedan od (ili više) policajaca počeo pucati iz oružja, iznad njihovih glava. U toj suludoj situaciji, i strahu, jedan od izbjeglica strčao se niz provaliju i prema izjavi jednog očevica, “cijeli se polomio” (ne možemo biti sigurni kolike su bile ozljede jer nakon toga više nitko od nas nije smio napustiti dom) - te je jedan od šestorice uhvaćenih (kako saznajemo od specijalaca kasnije i idućeg dana).

      Očevici koji su vidjeli događaje ispred doma u dnevnom su nam boravku u šoku prepričavali kako su “došli migranti i tražili vode, na što su ih specijalci mlatili i pucali iznad njih”. Na to je reagirala upraviteljica doma i stala u obranu specijalaca ustvrdivši da ih “nisu mlatili” te da su oni “dobri dečki”, iako, koliko mi je poznato, ona uopće nije bila prisutna na mjestu događaja i nije mogla znati što se točno dogodilo. Bez obzira na to, djevojku koja je svjedočila događaju upraviteljica je posjela za stol i objasnila zašto su postupci specijalaca opravdani.

      Usprkos tome, svi su saznali što se dogodilo. Nakon petnaestak minuta u zajedničku prostoriju uletio je jedan od specijalaca. Vrlo zadihan, pozvao je upraviteljicu da dođe pričati s njim. Pritom je nas ostale krenuo smirivati, govorivši nam da smo sigurni, da se to tu njima događa svaki dan, da se ne bojimo.

      Ne znam na koga je pritom mislio. Je li mislio - da se ne bojimo izbjeglih ljudi koji su došli moliti vode? Ili njih koji su automatskim puškama pucali iznad njihovih glava, u neposrednoj blizini ostalih planinara? Jedini strah koji sam osjećao jest pred onima koji mlate ljude, zastrašuju ih pucanjem te zatim love po šumama kako bi im oduzeli sve stvari i vratili ih u Bosnu (i potencijalno prebili, jer ako se ne libe to raditi pred svima nama, strah me kako se prema njima odnose kad nema svjedoka), a još više, prema onima koji to odobravaju.

      Nakon toga su nas zaključali u dom te više nismo mogli izlaziti do jutra, “radi naše sigurnosti”, uz odobravanje ostalih planinara. Ono što me najviše zapanjilo u cijeloj situaciji jest to kako se priča od prvotne verzije da “policija mlati i puca po migrantima koji su samo tražili vode” promijenila u to da je “ovo bila samo izvidnica” i da ih “ima sedamdesetak” te da je dobro što je tu policija da nas “štiti”.

      O mlaćenju i pucanju više nije bilo ni riječi (bar ne naglas) dok se dio planinara dodatno raspištoljio (smatrajući da sad imaju opravdanje, da je situacija pogodna) i počeo migrante nazivati zvijerima, i onima koji su došli ratovati protiv nas kršćana – uz “ogradu” da ima među njima uglađenih i visokoobrazovanih, koji nisu "takvi“, što god to “takvi” trebalo značiti.

      Tek me tada obuzela prava jeza - kada sam vidio kako se fokus priče u 10 minuta, uz navođenje upraviteljice, specijalaca i nekoliko glasnijih planinara počeo premještati s onoga čemu smo svjedočili - bezrazložnog nasilja nad izbjeglicama koji traže vode - na to da su oni opasne zvijeri. Postupak specijalaca pritom ne samo da se pravdao, već im se počelo tepati do te razine da su ih jutro nakon neki prozvali našim “anđelima čuvarima”. Naravno, bilo je par disonantnih glasova, i upravo zahvaljujući njima dobio sam više informacija od ove varijante “službene priče” koja se počela formirati ubrzo nakon događaja.

      Nakon što smo se ujutro probudili, pili smo kavu na otvorenom ispred doma. Atmosfera je bila uzavrela - ljudi su uzbuđeno pričali o događajima od prošle noći dok su specijalci podnosili izvještaj da su ih “noćas ulovili šestero”.

      Dio glasnijih planinara nije se libio izjavljivati kvalifikacije o izbjeglicama koje nisu ništa doli rasističke. Svojim su paranojama i strahovima pridavali znanstveni karakter i objašnjavali nam razliku između nas i zvijeri.

      Pritom sam primijetio da cijelo dvorište smrdi na spaljenu plastiku i vidio kako tik do nas tinjaju ostaci vatre.

      Uskoro sam saznao da su to stvari koje specijalci uzimaju izbjeglicama (dobili smo i slikovite prikaze kako im noževima odrežu naramenice s ruksaka čim ih uhvate....), ruksaci i odjeća... Njih se, navodno, redovno pali (ispred doma u nacionalnom parku “civilizirane države”). Tamo su između ostalog završile i plahte te madraci koje su migranti koristili kad su bili u domu, valjda jer ono što oni zaprljaju, “normalan čovjek” više ne može koristiti.

      Ovo iskustvo mi je pokazalo kako lako postaje opravdati nasilje nad ljudima, čak i kada se dogodi pred našim očima. U stanju smo nasilje nad ljudima interpretirati kao da se ustvari dogodilo nešto drugo. Nakon što su izbjeglice uspješno stigmatizirani i dehumanizirani, ljudi su, prestrašeni od strane medija i rasista koji lažu i kapitaliziraju taj strah, spremni opravdati nasilje. Gube sposobnost empatije, suosjećanja s patnjom drugog živog bića.

      Ne pišem ovo kako bi stigmatizirao ljude u domu, jer krivnja ionako nije individualna. Ovaj primjer jasno je pokazao kako se ljudi u atmosferi straha, nacionalizma, zatrovani ponavljajućim pričama o “drugima” i “vječitoj mržnji nas i njih” osjećaju sigurnije i superiornije kao dio neke mitske zajednice, u ovom slučaju "bijelih kršćana“. Kako ti ljudi lako povjeruju da se oni samo “brane” jer ih drugi “napadaju” – drugi koji goloruki, žedni i gladni danima lutaju po planinama koje ne poznaju.

      Danima me prati jeza od ovog događaja, jeza od toga da je nasilje tako blizu, da se vrši i u “moje ime”, da je toliko prisutno i da je vjerojatno pitanje vremena kad će dodatno eskalirati na zajedničku katastrofu ogromne većine nas i veselje onih koji (će) na tom nasilju i ratu profitiraju.

      Na kraju svega, u glavi mi se ne prestaje vrtjeti rečenica koju je jedan od planinara izrekao ujutro nakon cijelog događaja: “Postoje stvari koje čovjeka odvajaju od zvijeri, a oni su upravo to, zvijeri”. Uz mnoga pitanja i odgovore koje sam htio uputiti onome koje to izrekao, na kraju bih ga pitao samo jedno.

      U situaciji kad s jedne strane imaš ljude koji mole za vodu, a s druge one koji na tu molbu odgovaraju pucnjavom i pendrecima, uz većinsko odobravanje ostalih, stvarno se moraš zapitati jesi li ti u toj situaciji na strani ljudi, ili na strani zvijeri.

      http://www.h-alter.org/vijesti/na-strani-zvijeri

  • View from Nowhere. Is it the press’s job to create a community that transcends borders?

    A few years ago, on a plane somewhere between Singapore and Dubai, I read Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983). I was traveling to report on the global market for passports—how the ultrawealthy can legally buy citizenship or residence virtually anywhere they like, even as 10 million stateless people languish, unrecognized by any country. In the process, I was trying to wrap my head around why national identity meant so much to so many, yet so little to my passport-peddling sources. Their world was the very image of Steve Bannon’s globalist nightmare: where you can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many passports.

    Anderson didn’t address the sale of citizenship, which only took off in earnest in the past decade; he did argue that nations, nationalism, and nationality are about as organic as Cheez Whiz. The idea of a nation, he writes, is a capitalist chimera. It is a collective sense of identity processed, shelf-stabilized, and packaged before being disseminated, for a considerable profit, to a mass audience in the form of printed books, news, and stories. He calls this “print-capitalism.”

    Per Anderson, after the printing press was invented, nearly 600 years ago, enterprising booksellers began publishing the Bible in local vernacular languages (as opposed to the elitist Latin), “set[ting] the stage for the modern nation” by allowing ordinary citizens to participate in the same conversations as the upper classes. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the proliferation (and popularity) of daily newspapers further collapsed time and space, creating an “extraordinary mass ceremony” of reading the same things at the same moment.

    “An American will never meet, or even know the names of more than a handful of his 240,000,000–odd fellow Americans,” Anderson wrote. “He has no idea of what they are up to at any one time.” But with the knowledge that others are reading the same news, “he has complete confidence in their steady, anonymous, simultaneous activity.”

    Should the press be playing a role in shaping not national identities, but transnational ones—a sense that we’re all in it together?

    Of course, national presses enabled more explicit efforts by the state itself to shape identity. After the US entered World War I, for instance, President Woodrow Wilson set out to make Americans more patriotic through his US Committee on Public Information. Its efforts included roping influential mainstream journalists into advocating American-style democracy by presenting US involvement in the war in a positive light, or simply by referring to Germans as “Huns.” The committee also monitored papers produced by minorities to make sure they supported the war effort not as Indians, Italians, or Greeks, but as Americans. Five Irish-American papers were banned, and the German-American press, reacting to negative stereotypes, encouraged readers to buy US bonds to support the war effort.

    The US media played an analogous role in selling the public on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But ever since then, in the digital economy, its influence on the national consciousness has waned. Imagined Communities was published seven years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, twenty-two years before Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat, and a couple of decades before the internet upended print-capitalism as the world knew it (one of Anderson’s footnotes is telling, if quaint: “We still have no giant multinationals in the world of publishing”).

    Since Trump—a self-described nationalist—became a real contender for the US presidency, many news organizations have taken to looking inward: consider the running obsession with the president’s tweets, for instance, or the nonstop White House palace intrigue (which the president invites readily).

    Meanwhile, the unprofitability of local and regional papers has contributed to the erosion of civics, which, down the line, makes it easier for billionaires to opt out of old “imagined communities” and join new ones based on class and wealth, not citizenship. And given the challenges humanity faces—climate change, mass migration, corporate hegemony, and our relationships to new technologies—even if national papers did make everyone feel like they shared the same narrative, a renewed sense of national pride would prove impotent in fighting world-historic threats that know no borders.

    Should the press, then, be playing an analogous role in shaping not national identities, but transnational ones—a sense that we’re all in it together? If it was so important in shaping national identity, can it do so on a global scale?

    Like my passport-buying subjects, I am what Theresa May, the former British prime minister, might call a “citizen of nowhere.” I was born in one place to parents from another, grew up in a third, and have lived and traveled all over. That informs my perspective: I want deeply for there to be a truly cosmopolitan press corps, untethered from national allegiances, regional biases, class divisions, and the remnants of colonial exploitation. I know that’s utopian; the international working class is hardly a lucrative demographic against which publishers can sell ads. But we seem to be living in a time of considerable upheaval and opportunity. Just as the decline of religiously and imperially organized societies paved the way for national alternatives, then perhaps today there is a chance to transcend countries’ boundaries, too.

    Does the US media help create a sense of national identity? If nationalism means putting the interests of one nation—and what its citizens are interested in—before more universal concerns, then yes. Most journalists working for American papers, websites, and TV write in English with a national audience (or regional time zone) in mind, which affects how we pitch, source, frame, and illustrate a story—which, in turn, influences our readers, their country’s politics, and, down the line, the world. But a news peg isn’t an ideological form of nationalism so much as a practical or methodological one. The US press feeds off of more pernicious nationalisms, too: Donald Trump’s false theory about Barack Obama being “secretly” Kenyan, disseminated by the likes of Fox and The Daily Caller, comes to mind.

    That isn’t to say that global news outlets don’t exist in the US. When coaxing subscribers, the Financial Times, whose front page often includes references to a dozen different countries, openly appeals to their cosmopolitanism. “Be a global citizen. Become an FT Subscriber,” read a recent banner ad, alongside a collage featuring the American, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, and European Union flags (though stories like the recent “beginner’s guide to buying a private island” might tell us something about what kind of global citizen they’re appealing to).

    “I don’t think we try to shape anyone’s identity at all,” Gillian Tett, the paper’s managing editor for the US, says. “We recognize two things: that the world is more interconnected today than it’s ever been, and that these connections are complex and quite opaque. We think it’s critical to try to illuminate them.”

    For Tett, who has a PhD in social anthropology, money serves as a “neutral, technocratic” starting point through which to understand—and tie together—the world. “Most newspapers today tend to start with an interest in politics or events, and that inevitably leads you to succumb to tribalism, however hard you try [not to],” Tett explains. “If you look at the world through money—how is money going around the world, who’s making and losing it and why?—out of that you lead to political, cultural, foreign-policy stories.”

    Tett’s comments again brought to mind Imagined Communities: Anderson notes that, in 18th-century Caracas, newspapers “began essentially as appendages of the market,” providing commercial news about ships coming in, commodity prices, and colonial appointments, as well as a proto–Vows section for the upper crust to hate-read in their carriages. “The newspaper of Caracas quite naturally, and even apolitically, created an imagined community among a specific assemblage of fellow-readers, to whom these ships, brides, bishops, and prices belonged,” he wrote. “In time, of course, it was only to be expected that political elements would enter in.”

    Yesterday’s aristocracy is today’s passport-buying, globe-trotting one percent. The passport brokers I got to know also pitched clients with the very same promise of “global citizenship” (it sounds less louche than “buy a new passport”)—by taking out ads in the Financial Times. Theirs is exactly the kind of neoliberal “globalism” that nationalist politicians like Trump have won elections denouncing (often hypocritically) as wanting “the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.” Isn’t upper-crust glibness about borders, boundaries, and the value of national citizenship part of what helped give us this reactionary nativism in the first place?

    “I suspect what’s been going on with Brexit and maybe Trump and other populist movements [is that] people. . . see ‘global’ as a threat to local communities and businesses rather than something to be welcomed,” Tett says. “But if you’re an FT reader, you see it as benign or descriptive.”

    Among the largest news organizations in the world is Reuters, with more than 3,000 journalists and photographers in 120 countries. It is part of Thomson Reuters, a truly global firm. Reuters does not take its mandate lightly: a friend who works there recently sent me a job posting for an editor in Gdynia, which, Google clarified for me, is a city in the Pomeranian Voivodeship of Poland.

    Reuters journalists cover everything from club sports to international tax evasion. They’re outsourcing quick hits about corporate earnings to Bangalore, assembling teams on multiple continents to tackle a big investigation, shedding or shuffling staff under corporate reorganizations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, “more than half our business is serving financial customers,” Stephen Adler, the editor in chief, tells me. “That has little to do with what country you’re from. It’s about information: a central-bank action in Europe or Japan may be just as important as everything else.”

    Institutionally, “it’s really important and useful that we don’t have one national HQ,” Adler adds. “That’s the difference between a global news organization and one with a foreign desk. For us, nothing is foreign.” That approach won Reuters this year’s international Pulitzer Prize for uncovering the mass murder of the Rohingya in Myanmar (two of the reporters were imprisoned as a result, and since freed); it also comes through especially sharply in daily financial stories: comprehensive, if dry, compendiums of who-what-where-when-why that recognize the global impact of national stories, and vice versa. A recent roundup of stock movements included references to the US Fed, China trade talks, Brexit, monetary policy around the world, and the price of gold.

    Adler has led the newsroom since 2011, and a lot has changed in the world. (I worked at Reuters between 2011 and 2013, first as Adler’s researcher and later as a reporter; Adler is the chair of CJR’s board.) Shortly after Trump’s election, Adler wrote a memo affirming the organization’s commitment to being fair, honest, and resourceful. He now feels more strongly than ever about judiciously avoiding biases—including national ones. “Our ideology and discipline around putting personal feelings and nationality aside has been really helpful, because when you think about how powerful local feelings are—revolutions, the Arab Spring—we want you writing objectively and dispassionately.”

    The delivery of stories in a casual, illustrated, highly readable form is in some ways more crucial to developing an audience than subject matter.

    Whether global stories can push communities to develop transnationally in a meaningful way is a harder question to answer; it seems to impugn our collective aptitude for reacting to problems of a global nature in a rational way. Reuters’s decision not to fetishize Trump hasn’t led to a drop-off in US coverage—its reporters have been especially strong on immigration and trade policy, not to mention the effects of the new administration on the global economy—but its stories aren’t exactly clickbait, which means ordinary Americans might not encounter them at the top of their feed. In other words, having a global perspective doesn’t necessarily translate to more eyeballs.

    What’s more, Reuters doesn’t solve the audience-class problem: whether readers are getting dispatches in partner newspapers like The New York Times or through the organization’s Eikon terminal, they tend to be the sort of person “who does transnational business, travels a good deal, is connected through work and media, has friends in different places, cares about what’s going on in different places,” Adler says. “That’s a pretty large cohort of people who have reason to care what’s going on in other places.”

    There are ways to unite readers without centering coverage on money or the markets. For a generation of readers around the world, the common ground is technology: the internet. “We didn’t pick our audience,” Ben Smith, the editor in chief of BuzzFeed, tells me over the phone. “Our audience picked us.” He defines his readers as a cohort aged 18–35 “who are on the internet and who broadly care about human rights, global politics, and feminism and gay rights in particular.”

    To serve them, BuzzFeed recently published a damning investigative report into the World Wildlife Fund’s arming of militias in natural reserves; a (not uncontroversial) series on Trump’s business dealings abroad; early exposés of China’s detention of Uighur citizens; and reports on child abuse in Australia. Climate—“the central challenge for every newsroom in the world”—has been harder to pin down. “We don’t feel anyone has cracked it. But the shift from abstract scientific [stories] to coverage of fires in California, it’s a huge change—it makes it more concrete,” Smith says. (My husband is a reporter for BuzzFeed.)

    The delivery of these stories in a casual, illustrated, highly readable form is in some ways more crucial to developing an audience than subject matter. “The global political financial elites have had a common language ever since it was French,” Smith says. “There is now a universal language of internet culture, [and] that. . . is how our stuff translates so well between cultures and audiences.” This isn’t a form of digital Esperanto, Smith insists; the point isn’t to flatten the differences between countries or regions so much as to serve as a “container” in which people from different regions, interest groups, and cultures can consume media through references they all understand.

    BuzzFeed might not be setting out to shape its readers’ identities (I certainly can’t claim to feel a special bond with other people who found out they were Phoebes from the quiz “Your Sushi Order Will Reveal Which ‘Friends’ Character You’re Most Like”). An audience defined by its youth and its media consumption habits can be difficult to keep up with: platforms come and go, and young people don’t stay young forever. But if Anderson’s thesis still carries water, there must be something to speaking this language across cultures, space, and time. Call it “Web vernacular.”

    In 2013, during one of the many recent and lengthy US government shutdowns, Joshua Keating, a journalist at Slate, began a series, “If It Happened There,” that imagined how the American media would view the shutdown if it were occurring in another country. “The typical signs of state failure aren’t evident on the streets of this sleepy capital city,” Keating opens. “Beret-wearing colonels have not yet taken to the airwaves to declare martial law. . . .But the pleasant autumn weather disguises a government teetering on the brink.”

    It goes on; you get the idea. Keating’s series, which was inspired by his having to read “many, many headlines from around the world” while working at Foreign Policy, is a clever journalistic illustration of what sociologists call “methodological nationalism”: the bias that gets inadvertently baked into work and words. In the Middle East, it’s sectarian or ethnic strife; in the Midwest, it’s a trigger-happy cop and a kid in a hoodie.

    His send-ups hit a nerve. “It was huge—it was by far the most popular thing I’ve done at Slate,” Keating says. “I don’t think that it was a shocking realization to anyone that this kind of language can be a problem, but sometimes pointing it out can be helpful. If the series did anything, it made people stop and be conscious of how. . . our inherent biases and perspectives will inform how we cover the world.”

    Curiously, living under an openly nationalist administration has changed the way America—or at the very least, a significant part of the American press corps—sees itself. The press is a de facto opposition party, not because it tries to be, but because the administration paints it that way. And that gives reporters the experience of working in a place much more hostile than the US without setting foot outside the country.

    Keating has “semi-retired” the series as a result of the broad awareness among American reporters that it is, in fact, happening here. “It didn’t feel too novel to say [Trump was] acting like a foreign dictator,” he says. “That was what the real news coverage was doing.”

    Keating, who traveled to Somaliland, Kurdistan, and Abkhazia to report his book Invisible Countries (2018), still thinks the fastest and most effective way to form an international perspective is to live abroad. At the same time, not being bound to a strong national identity “can make it hard to understand particular concerns of the people you’re writing about,” he says. It might be obvious, but there is no one perfect way to be internationally minded.

    Alan Rusbridger—the former editor of The Guardian who oversaw the paper’s Edward Snowden coverage and is now the principal at Lady Margaret Hall, a college at Oxford University—recognizes the journalistic and even moral merits of approaching news in a non-national way: “I think of journalism as a public service, and I do think there’s a link between journalism at its best and the betterment of individual lives and societies,” he says. But he doesn’t have an easy formula for how to do that, because truly cosmopolitan journalism requires both top-down editorial philosophies—not using certain phrasings or framings that position foreigners as “others”—and bottom-up efforts by individual writers to read widely and be continuously aware of how their work might be read by people thousands of miles away.

    Yes, the starting point is a nationally defined press, not a decentralized network, but working jointly helps pool scarce resources and challenge national or local biases.

    Rusbridger sees potential in collaborations across newsrooms, countries, and continents. Yes, the starting point is a nationally defined press, not a decentralized network; but working jointly helps pool scarce resources and challenge national or local biases. It also wields power. “One of the reasons we reported Snowden with the Times in New York was to use global protections of human rights and free speech and be able to appeal to a global audience of readers and lawyers,” Rusbridger recalls. “We thought, ‘We’re pretty sure nation-states will come at us over this, and the only way to do it is harness ourselves to the US First Amendment not available to us anywhere else.’”

    In employing these tactics, the press positions itself in opposition to the nation-state. The same strategy could be seen behind the rollout of the Panama and Paradise Papers (not to mention the aggressive tax dodging detailed therein). “I think journalists and activists and citizens on the progressive wing of politics are thinking creatively about how global forces can work to their advantage,” Rusbridger says.

    But he thinks it all starts locally, with correspondents who have fluency in the language, culture, and politics of the places they cover, people who are members of the communities they write about. That isn’t a traditional foreign-correspondent experience (nor indeed that of UN employees, NGO workers, or other expats). The silver lining of publishing companies’ shrinking budgets might be that cost cutting pushes newsrooms to draw from local talent, rather than send established writers around. What you gain—a cosmopolitanism that works from the bottom up—can help dispel accusations of media elitism. That’s the first step to creating new imagined communities.

    Anderson’s work has inspired many an academic, but media executives? Not so much. Rob Wijnberg is an exception: he founded the (now beleaguered) Correspondent in the Netherlands in 2013 with Anderson’s ideas in mind. In fact, when we speak, he brings the name up unprompted.

    “You have to transcend this notion that you can understand the world through the national point of view,” he says. “The question is, What replacement do we have for it? Simply saying we have to transcend borders or have an international view isn’t enough, because you have to replace the imagined community you’re leaving behind with another one.”

    For Wijnberg, who was a philosophy student before he became a journalist, this meant radically reinventing the very structures of the news business: avoiding covering “current events” just because they happened, and thinking instead of what we might call eventful currents—the political, social, and economic developments that affect us all. It meant decoupling reporting from national news cycles, and getting readers to become paying “members” instead of relying on advertisements.

    This, he hoped, would help create a readership not based on wealth, class, nationality, or location, but on borderless, universal concerns. “We try to see our members. . . as part of a group or knowledge community, where the thing they share is the knowledge they have about a specific structural subject matter,” be it climate, inequality, or migration, Wijnberg says. “I think democracy and politics answers more to media than the other way around, so if you change the way media covers the world you change a lot.”

    That approach worked well in the Netherlands: his team raised 1.7 million euros in 2013, and grew to include 60,000 members. A few years later, Wijnberg and his colleagues decided to expand into the US, and with the help of NYU’s Jay Rosen, an early supporter, they made it onto Trevor Noah’s Daily Show to pitch their idea.

    The Correspondent raised more than $2.5 million from nearly 50,000 members—a great success, by any measure. But in March, things started to get hairy, with the publication abruptly pulling the plug on opening a US newsroom and announcing that staff would edit stories reported from the US from the original Amsterdam office instead. Many of the reasons behind this are mundane: visas, high rent, relocation costs. And reporters would still be reporting from, and on, the States. But supporters felt blindsided, calling the operation a scam.

    Today, Wijnberg reflects that he should have controlled the messaging better, and not promised to hire and operate from New York until he was certain that he could. He also wonders why it matters.

    “It’s not saying people who think it matters are wrong,” he explains. “But if the whole idea of this kind of geography and why it’s there is a construct, and you’re trying to think about transcending it, the very notion of Where are you based? is secondary. The whole point is not to be based anywhere.”

    Still: “The view from everywhere—the natural opposite—is just as real,” Wijnberg concedes. “You can’t be everywhere. You have to be somewhere.”

    And that’s the rub: for all of nationalism’s ills, it does instill in its subjects what Anderson calls a “deep, horizontal comradeship” that, while imagined, blossoms thanks to a confluence of forces. It can’t be replicated supranationally overnight. The challenge for a cosmopolitan journalism, then, is to dream up new forms of belonging that look forward, not backward—without discarding the imagined communities we have.

    That’s hard; so hard that it more frequently provokes a retrenchment, not an expansion, of solidarity. But it’s not impossible. And our collective futures almost certainly depend on it.

    https://www.cjr.org/special_report/view-from-nowhere.php
    #journalisme #nationalisme #Etat-nation #communauté_nationale #communauté_internationale #frontières #presse #médias

  • Amnesty International Condemns U.S. Attacks on Border Journalists and Human Rights Defenders
    https://theintercept.com/2019/07/02/amnesty-international-human-rights-border-report

    The shape of the Trump administration’s approach to policing immigration is at this point familiar. Since January 2017, federal agents and officers have been under orders to enforce a harsh interpretation of immigration laws without restraint. The result has most infamously manifested in the forced separation of immigrant parents from their children and, more recently, a series of horrific reports detailing conditions in border-area detention centers. Though undocumented people have always (...)

    #DHS #migration #surveillance #frontières #Amnesty #journalisme

  • Architectural Review : The Irish issue

    https://www.architectural-review.com/my-account/magazine-archive/the-irish-issue-is-here/10042957.article

    Un numéro intéressant consacré à l’Irlande

    Avec cette carte de Belfast en page 106

    ‘If there is a canon in Irish architecture, it seems to be one of ambiguity, of refined cross-pollinations, of great thought in small things’, writes Andrew Clancy. He offers an Irishness in relation, between home and away, one that traverses and returns, to stand at the edge of Europe and before the open ocean. By sending this issue to press at the end of May, the idea was to have caught the islands just two months after the UK’s formal departure from the European Union, with whatever strained solution might have been wrought into the land around the border. We remain, however, afloat in the unknown; and as the interminable process grinds on – as Maria McLintock writes – our language around it remains insufficient, the messy and pulsating borderlands collapsed into ‘backstop’.

    Ignoring the rigid, often arbitrary, frontiers dividing countries, choosing to encompass instead the entirety of ‘the islands of Ireland’ is itself a provocation. But in this issue, we ramble the land from end to end and over the sea to Inis Mór, the ambiguity of our appelation proving productive, to rove around rich seams and difficult terrain to cast an eye over a land in the middle of something.

    In the keynote, Shane O’Toole traces the developments of a critical culture of architecture across Ireland, starting in November 1974 when the AR paid a visit to Dublin, and following on through to the threats posed to the culture today. ‘How long can architects survive on house extensions and other small private commissions before their potential atrophies?’, he asks. In reflection, Eleanor Beaumont considers the ambitious architecture packed into Dublin’s domestic projects, such as those by Clancy Moore, TAKA, Ryan W Kennihan Architects, and Arigho Larmour Wheeler Architects, and Noreile Breen features as this issue’s AREA profile. Going back to Group 91, and the introduction of Irish architecture to an international scene, we also feature a retrospective on Grafton Architects, and their offers of silence in the cacophony of the city.

    We go to Galway, on the Republic’s western coast, to review the recently-completed Pálás cinema by dePaor, a small and fantastical gem fourteen years in the making. Further out in the remote western reaches of Rosmuc and the Aran isle of Inis Mór, we also feature two new school buildings by Paul Dillon, the simplicity and clarity of which does not undermine their value. Looking back to a school rooted in 1970s ideals, we revisit Birr Community School by Peter and Mary Doyle, a school found to be ‘no museum piece’, as John McLaughlin and Aiobheann Ní Mhearáin write: ‘the values it embodies are as pertinent today as they were when it was first built.’

    In Belfast, Mark Hackett asserts that the roads that profess to connect the city can be as divisive as its walls, and Gary A Boyd reviews the transport hub designed by Hackett’s former partners, Hall McKnight, as part of a masterplan hoped to catalyse regeneration of the city’s dislocated fringe. In Outrage, Dawn Foster writes that inequalities in access to social housing continue to perpetuate the divide between Catholics and Protestants. In Cantrell Close in Belfast for example, the banners hung around the purportedly mixed community constitute a warning: symbols become violent, even lethal. As Darran Anderson writes, the land is one of iconographers – but also one of iconoclasts, the violence of the conflict mirrored by symbolic acts of destruction carried out on architecture as a receptacle of collective memory.

    In this issue we also feature The raingod’s green, dark as passion, a lyrical story of Cork by Kevin Barry, while Reputations looks at the life of States-based architect, Pritzker laureate and County Cork native, Kevin Roche.

    #irlande #architecture #conflit #frontière #urban_matter

  • Body of evidence: a history of Irish iconoclasm | Thinkpiece | Architectural Review
    https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/body-of-evidence-a-history-of-irish-iconoclasm/10043394.article

    Whether myth or fact, who we are is predicated on where we are. Growing up in Ireland, at school we were taught across many subjects, from history to religious studies, that ours was the fabled ‘land of saints and scholars’. It was a legend often articulated in architecture, from the edge-of-the-world monastic beehive cells of Skellig Michael to the medieval round towers where monks supposedly sought sanctuary from marauding Viking raiders. Ireland, we were told with questionable patriotic zeal, had ‘saved civilisation during the Dark Ages’. Ours was a nation of iconographers, a view that could be deciphered not just in the Book of Kells, but also in the built environment.

    #irlande #conflits #frontières #architecture

  • Irish Boundary Commission - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Boundary_Commission

    The Irish Boundary Commission (Irish: Coimisiún na Teorainne) met in 1924–25 to decide on the precise delineation of the border between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. The 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, which ended the Irish War of Independence, provided for such a commission if Northern Ireland chose to secede from the Irish Free State, an event that occurred as expected two days after the Free State’s inception on 6 December 1922.[1] The governments of the United Kingdom, of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland were to nominate one member each to the commission. When the Northern government refused to cooperate, the British government assigned a Belfast newspaper editor to represent Northern Irish interests.

    #irlande #frontière

  • Drummully Polyp - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drummully_Polyp

    The area which makes up present day Drummully became part of the newly formed Co. Monaghan around 1585 when the kingdom of Airgíalla came to an end and the land was divided into counties.

    Following the Irish War of Independence, in 1922 as part of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, 26 counties including Co. Monaghan seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to form Saorstát Éireann (the Irish Free State).

    Co. Fermanagh remained in the United Kingdom, meaning that after partition Drummully was inaccessible by road except through the United Kingdom. Drummully was not policed until May 1924 when An Garda Síochána were allowed to pass over the National Frontier through Northern Ireland.

    The 1924-25 boundary commission sought to regularise the border but no changes were made to avoid creating further disputes.

    #enclave de #Drummully en #Irlande #frontière

  • An Apology of Enclaves - The New York Times
    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/an-apology-of-enclaves

    Article de 2011 - Pour les archives

    No, “apology” is not the collective noun for enclaves. The accepted term is a complex of enclaves — although more imaginative suggestions are welcome. Nor do I feel the need to apologize for enclaves. Yes, these geopolitical anomalies — for the uninitiated, a chunk of one political or ethnic unit lying wholly within another — have caused their fair share of misery and grief. But fascination with a subject does not equal approval of all its phenomena; herpetologists need not apologize for snakebites.

    In keeping with the original meaning of the word, this apology is a defense of enclaves, a fascinating but endangered border phenomenon. Yet at the same time, this piece is also an apology of sorts for enclaves [1], for two examples in particular: Baarle, Belgium, and Cooch Behar, India/Bangladesh, both of which involve not one or two but dozens of atomized enclaves spread throughout, respectively, Dutch and Bangladeshi/Indian territory. It’s fair to ask why these lands, which by all accounts feed daily bureaucratic nightmares, have been allowed to survive.

    #enclaves #frontières

  • Stony Grey Area – An Irishman’s Diary about the Border’s most eccentric section
    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/stony-grey-area-an-irishman-s-diary-about-the-border-s-most-eccentric-se
    https://www.irishtimes.com/image-creator/?id=1.3238814&origw=858

    Readers might recall a column here some years ago about the “Drummully Polyp” (September 18th, 2013): a small piece of my native Monaghan that juts into Fermanagh and, since partition, has been by far the most eccentric feature of the Border. As I mentioned then, it’s about seven miles (11km) long, north to south, and a maximum three miles (4.8km) wide. But the isthmus connecting it with the Republic is much narrower – you could shout across it – and there is no road in at that point, making the enclave almost an exclave.

    Residents apart, most people’s only visits to Drummully are fleeting, and unconscious, as they drive along the main road between Clones and Belturbet (something uniformed gardaí or PSNI members cannot do without risk of diplomatic incident). In the process, you cross the Border four times in about nine minutes: although again these days – pending Brexit – you may not notice.

    #enclave de #Drummully en #Irlande #frontière

  • Enclave with no way out of the Irish hard border dilemma | News | The Times

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drummully-polyp-enclave-with-no-way-out-of-the-irish-hard-border-dilemma

    If leaving the EU has become something of a preoccupation for most of us, in Drummully Polyp it will soon be as unavoidable as popping to the shops.

    A quirk of history has landed this pocket of Co Monaghan, in the Irish Republic, on the front line of Brexit.

    #enclave de #Drummully en #Irlande #frontière

  • Brexit : dans la petite #enclave de #Drummully en #Irlande, la crainte du retour des checkpoints

    Source : AFP

    Pour les habitants du « Polype de Drummully », petit territoire irlandais enserré en Irlande du Nord, la vie sans une frontière ouverte est inimaginable et évoque la sombre époque des checkpoints.

    La frontière entre les deux Irlande serpente ici dans la campagne verdoyante et dessine un territoire de 10 kilomètres carrés qui s’enfonce en terre britannique mais reste relié à la République d’Irlande par une étroite bande de terre d’une centaine de mètres de large seulement.

    A moins d’enfiler les bottes pour traverser des prairies, c’est par la route nationale 54, qui passe par l’Irlande du Nord, que se fait l’accès à ce confetti aux contours de polype.

    « A nos yeux, il n’y a pas de frontière parce que c’est une route que nous empruntons tous les jours », explique Bernis McElwain, 40 ans, qui a toujours vécu dans cette région.

    Seule une ligne sur le macadam, un changement dans le balisage et des panneaux de limitation de vitesse en kilomètres ou en miles permettent aux automobilistes de savoir dans quel pays ils se trouvent quand ils roulent sur cette voie qui traverse la frontière à quatre reprises en dix minutes de trajet.

    Mais à l’heure du Brexit, prévu le 29 mars 2019, cette frontière deviendra la nouvelle limite extérieure de l’Union européenne, ce qui pourrait engendrer de nouveaux contrôles.
    ’Nous n’en voulons pas’

    « Franchement, ce n’est pas faisable, nous n’en voulons pas », prévient John Connolly, qui craint que la vie devienne « impossible ». A 59 ans, il a toujours vécu à Drummully, « l’île » comme les quelque 200 locaux surnomment l’endroit.

    Les négociateurs britanniques et européens se sont engagés à préserver une circulation sans friction entre l’Irlande et l’Irlande du Nord. Mais la date du divorce approche et la question n’est toujours pas résolue.

    « Ils ne savent pas vraiment ce qu’est cette frontière », juge John Connolly. « Ils pensent simplement qu’il y a une route et une intersection. Mais c’est une toute autre histoire quand vous êtes ici ».

    Eamon Fitzpatrick tient un commerce au bord de la route, une quincaillerie qui fait aussi station-service. Les murs de son local tremblent parfois à cause de l’important trafic routier.

    La frontière passe juste devant l’entrée de son magasin mais seule la note qui précise qu’il accepte les paiements en livres comme en euros permet de le deviner.

    « Aujourd’hui, on peut monter dans une voiture et rouler vers le nord ou vers le sud sans aucun problème », souligne ce patron, à qui il arrive de traverser la frontière jusqu’à 25 fois par jour.

    Une liberté de circulation que les habitants de la quasi-enclave craignent de voir restreinte par de futurs contrôles. « L’humeur générale n’est pas bonne dans le coin », dit Bernis McElwain.

    Elle-même est née en République d’Irlande mais a grandi en Irlande du Nord, avant de déménager et de traverser la frontière dans l’autre sens. Sa mère, qui habite toujours en Irlande du Nord, réfléchit désormais à faire construire une maison en République, au cas où une frontière vienne la séparer de sa famille.
    Opportunité de réunification

    L’appréhension est d’autant plus grande que la population se remémore l’époque pas si lointaine des « Troubles », période de violences entre les républicains, qui souhaitaient le rattachement de l’Irlande du Nord à la République d’Irlande, et les unionistes, qui défendaient le maintien de la province dans le Royaume-Uni.

    Pendant ce conflit sanglant, qui a pris fin en 1998 avec la signature de l’Accord du Vendredi Saint, le potentiel agricole de l’enclave était sous-exploité, à cause des coûts qu’engendrait le passage des contrôles à la frontière, gardée par des soldats.

    Surtout, les gens vivaient dans la peur et l’isolement, souligne Pat Treanor, conseiller municipal Sinn Féin.

    « Ils ont passé les 20 dernières années à se reconstruire une vie normale. Ils aiment ça, ils veulent que cela continue, ils ne veulent pas revenir en arrière avec l’installation d’une nouvelle frontière », déclare-t-il à l’AFP.

    Le blocage actuel pourrait toutefois représenter une opportunité politique pour son parti qui milite pour la réunification sur l’île d’Irlande.

    "Débattre du Brexit ramène l’attention sur cette ligne illogique et contre-nature qui traverse notre pays, estime Pat Treanor. « L’accent mis sur la séparation fait progresser le débat ».

    16/10/2018 09:23:58 - Drummully (Irlande) (AFP) - © 2018 AFP

    #enclave de #Drummully en #Irlande #frontière

  • Morts à la frontière #Italie-#Suisse (#Côme - #Chiasso)

    #frontière_sud-alpine #montagne #mourir_aux_frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #décès #morts #frontières #frontières

    –--------------------------

    Morire di confine a Como

    Dopo essere stati a Ventimiglia, dove i morti di confine sono stati 12 in pochi mesi, torniamo a Como, dove i migranti provano e riprovano ad attraversare la frontiera a loro preclusa con la Svizzera, ferendosi o perdendo la vita sui treni, con numeri consistenti sia nei tentativi che nei respingimenti.

    https://openmigration.org/analisi/morire-di-confine-a-como

    –-------------------------

    Ajouté à cette métaliste :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/758646

  • Les profiteurs de la frontière – Juin 2019 – Corporate Watch

    La maire de Calais essaye de changer l’image de Calais, souhaitant en faire une « ville fleurie ». Mais comme des locaux ont confié à Corporate Watch le mois dernier, « #ville_barbelée » serait un label plus approprié. Du port ferry jusqu’au tunnel à Coquelles, la périphérie de la ville est un paysage cauchemardesque de #clôtures surmontées de #barbelés à lames rasoir, de #caméras et #détecteurs_de_mouvement, de #terrassements, #tranchées et #terrains_inondés, tous destinés à arrêter les « damné·e·s de la terre » entreprenant cette traversée du détroit de la Manche, si évidente et acquise pour un·e citoyen·ne européen·ne.

    Tout cela implique de l’#argent pour financer les compagnies de construction et de sécurité qui fournissent et édifient l’#infrastructure de la frontière. En 2016, Calais Research a commencé à lister et décrire les #entreprises impliquées dans le marché de la frontière. Voici une rapide mise à jour sur quelques points marquants apparus depuis.

    Le #Centre_Conjoint_d’Information_et_de_Coordination_franco-britannique à Coquelles

    Il y a deux points principaux de passage de la frontière à Calais : le #port, près du centre historique de la ville, et le tunnel sous la Manche, à quelques kilomètres de la ville, à #Coquelles. Près de l’entrée du tunnel se trouve un énorme centre commercial, la Cité Europe, fréquentée par des locaux comme par des Britanniques de passage renflouant leur stock d’alcool bon marché.

    Juste à côté se tient un complexe abritant l’infrastructure policière française anti-migrant : la base principale de la #PAF (Police aux Frontières) et des #CRS, un tribunal où sont entendus les migrants, et le #Centre_de_Rétention_Administrative (#CRA).

    En novembre 2018, un nouveau bâtiment est ajouté au complexe déjà existant : le #CCIC – Centre Conjoint d’Information et de Coordination franco-britannique.

    Selon l’Agence France Presse, le centre est financé par le gouvernement de Grande Bretagne, il est « notamment équipé de #drones », et sert de poste de commande pour les forces de police françaises et britanniques. Celles-ci incluent côté français la PAF, les #douanes et les #gendarmes, et pour l’outre-Manche la police aux frontières (UK border force), la #police du #Kent ainsi que le service national de lutte contre la criminalité (#National_Crime_Agency#NCA).

    Le jour où nous sommes passé·e·s jeter un œil, nous n’avons vu aucun drone décollant du toit. Sur le parking se trouvaient plus de voitures banalisées que de véhicules de police officiels, dont plusieurs immatriculées outre-Manche. Il y avait encore un affichage à l’extérieur du centre (cf. photo) nommant les entrepreneurs impliqués dans sa construction et son équipement. Il indique un coût de 1,844 million d’euros pour ces travaux.

    Les compagnies identifiées incluent : #Villesange_Masson (Architectes locaux) ; #Groupe_Qualiconsult (consultant·e·s pour les projets de construction) ; #Verdi ; #Cougnaud_construction (spécialisé en construction modulaire industrialisée) ; #Ramery_Batiment ; #Eiffage_énergie (grosse société d’ingénierie française) ; #Satelec (électricien·ne·s) ; #Resipelec (électricien·ne·s) ; #Pylones_du_Littoral ; #Majencia (mobilier de bureau) ; #Covage_DGL_Networks (installateur de fibre optique) ; #Econocom.

    Extension du centre de Rétention

    Juste en face du CCIS se trouve le CRA de Coquelles. Actuellement, il permet d’enfermer 79 hommes, mais l’État français veut augmenter le nombre de places. Fin mars 2019, il annonçait un projet d’extension de 480 mètres carrés. L’agence d’architectes #COAST supervise les travaux, et travaille avec #BD_engineering.

    Douanes et tranchées

    En dehors de Coquelles, on voit d’importants travaux de chaque côté de la voie rapide menant au tunnel. Ce sont de grands #bunkers, chacun avec plusieurs quais destinés à la fouille des camions. Ce ne sont pas des mesures prioritairement anti-migrants, il s’agit en fait de nouveaux parking poids-lourds et de postes de douane, construits à la hâte par #Eurotunnel, en prévision de nouveaux contrôles sur les marchandises après le Brexit.

    Cependant, ces projets participent à renforcer les mesures de sécurité exceptionnelles auxquelles on doit ce changement d’atmosphère autour de Calais. Les bunkers sont protégés par des #tranchées et de nouvelles clôtures – canaux et lacs artificiels creusés et remplis d’eau comme une autre mesure contre ces humains dont on ne veut pas. Ceci fait suite aux modèles de #déforestation et d’#inondation initiés par Eurotunnel en 2016.

    Contrôles aux frontières privatisés au parking poids-lourd #Polley

    Une petite industrie s’est développée grâce à la « crise migratoire » : le #parking_poids-lourd sécurisé. Le gouvernement britannique inflige une contravention aux entreprises de transport de marchandises si des personnes sont trouvées dans leurs véhicules sans les documents administratifs adéquats. Dans les faits, cela se traduit par l’#externalisation des contrôles frontaliers vers les camionneurs eux-même, soucieux de ne pas être surpris avec des passager·e·s clandestin·e·s. Et l’entreprise de transport va payer des emplacements sécurisés pour marquer un arrêt avant de traverser la Manche.

    À #Dunkerque, #DK_Secure_Truck_Park dispose de 250 emplacements entourés de clôtures et surveillés par « 40 #caméras_de_surveillance haute-définition ». À Calais, la plus grosse société est #Polley_Secured_Lorry_Park, dirigée par un homme d’affaire local, #Francois_Polley. Ce site de 10 hectares se targue d’être protégé par des grilles hautes de 2,40 mètres et d’être surveillé 24h/24 et 7j/7.

    Récemment, nous avons entendu parler d’une nouvelle niche dans ce business. Les cars de transport de passagers opérés par #Flixbus profitent également des services de sécurité de Polley. Les cars en route vers la Grande Bretagne passent par le parking Polley avant de se diriger vers le tunnel. Là, un des agents de sécurité privés du parking va procéder à une première fouille du véhicule, cherchant d’éventuel·le·s clandestin·e·s dans la soute à bagages. Ceci, en plus des deux contrôles qui seront effectués par les autorités françaises et britanniques une fois au tunnel.

    Flixbus et Polley fournissent peu d’information publique sur cette #fouille supplémentaire. Il y n’y en a qu’une vague référence sur le site de Flixbus, où elle est simplement mentionnée comme « un #contrôle_pré-Royaume-Uni ».

    Hôtel de police…

    Notre dernier arrêt sur notre tour des infrastructures de la frontière s’est trouvé en plein cœur de la ville de Calais. On avait entendu dire que l’ancienne pratique de constamment arrêter et harceler les personnes pouvant être des migrant·e·s dans le centre ville est progressivement devenue marginale. On se demandait donc pourquoi on continuait de voir les camionnettes de CRS patrouiller les rues principales entre la mairie et le théâtre.

    Nous avons réalisé que leur activité principale consistait à déposer et passer prendre de costauds hommes blancs en civil à la porte du #Brit_Hotel. Des locaux nous expliquent alors que ce bâtiment hôtelier a été inoccupé pendant des années, avant de rouvrir sous ce nouveau nom en 2016. Sa clientèle semble être composée presque exclusivement de CRS et de gendarmes – mais si vous rêvez de dormir à côté d’un CRS bien bâti, vous pouvez réserver une chambre pour environ 50 euros la nuit.

    Brit Hôtel est une chaîne hôtelière répandue dans tout la France.

    #business #migrations #frontières #Calais #France #profit #complexe_militaro-industriel #militarisation_des_frontières #privatisation #externalisation_des_frontières

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • 3,800 Volunteers Have Joined an Artist to Challenge Trump’s Idea of a “Big, Beautiful Wall” on the US–Mexico Border

    With the help of thousands of volunteers, #Enrique_Chiu is creating a large-scale mural on Mexico’s side of the border to spread a message of peace.


    https://hyperallergic.com/506480/3800-volunteers-have-joined-an-artist-to-challenge-trumps-idea-of-a-b
    #USA #Etats-Unis #murs #barrières_frontalières #frontières
    #art #graffitis

    Et la question qui notamment Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary se pose... en invitant des artistes à rendre le mur "joli"... ne réifie-t-on pas le mur ? N’est-ce pas une démarche contre-productive ?

    • L’expression des artistes est qualifié de jolie par Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary. Ca me fait le même effet d’entendre reproché à une cause d’être porté par une belle voix.
      C’est ma manière de répondre par l’absurde à ce reproche qui me semble absurde.

    • En fait, Anne-Laure qualifie peut-être de « joli » l’expression des artistes, mais justement pour dénoncer l’effet pervers que ça induit... Pour connaître bien son travail, c’est vraiment quelqu’un qui a dès le début dénoncer l’effet pervers des actions artistiques sur les murs frontaliers.

    • Elle dit notamment cela :
      https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/809322/filename/Amilhat_que_montrent_les_murs.pdf
      et ça :

      Partout où les frontières se ferment, des formes de border art surgissent. Le border art, c’est à la fois l’art de la frontière, l’art à la frontière et l’art sur la frontière. Les murs-frontières où le border art s’est le plus illustré sont les murs les plus médiatiques : Israël / Palestine, Etats-Unis / Mexique, Berlin et puis les deux autres cas qui ont été beaucoup mobilisés : Belfast et Chypre. Les murs-frontières sont un catalyseur extrêmement fort du border art et le border art est un catalyseur de ce que les murs-frontières nous disent.

      https://www.franceculture.fr/video/border-art-signe-de-fermeture-du-monde
      #border_art

      Elle met en évidence l’ambiguïté du border art, qui réifie ce qu’ils essaient de dénoncer...

    • Citation :

      « Ces images fonctionnent comme des prophéties autoréalisatrices : une fois investis des millions dans la construction d’une barrière dont les clichés seront régulièrement présentés dans les médias, il devient évident pour le destinataire de cette communication que le danger contre lequel la barrière devait le prémunir est réel. Selon un syllogisme fallacieux, l’immigrant illégal voit sa dangerosité confirmée par l’ampleur du dispositif mobilisé pour le combattre ».

      Amilhat Szary, 2015, Qu’est-ce qu’une frontière aujourd’hui ?