• North Africa a ’testing ground’ for EU surveillance technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Almost 100 people died in the wreck.

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

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

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

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

    ping @_kg_

    • The (human) cost of Artificial Intelligence and Surveillance technology in migration

      The ethical cost of Artificial Intelligence tools has triggered heated debates in the last few months. From chatbots to image generation software, advocates and detractors have been debating the technological pros and societal cons of the new technology.

      In two new reports, Europe’s Techno-Borders and Artificial Intelligence: The New Frontier of the EU’s Border Externalisation Strategy, EuroMed Rights, Statewatch and independent researcher Antonella Napolitano have investigated the human and financial costs of AI in migration. The reports show how the deployment of AI to manage migration flows actively contribute to the instability of the Middle East and North African region as well as discriminatory border procedures, threatening the right to asylum, the right to leave one’s country, the principle of non-refoulement as well as the rights to privacy and liberty.

      European borders and neighbouring countries have been the stage of decades-long efforts to militarise and securitise the control of migration. Huge sums of public money have been invested to deploy security and defence tools and equipment to curb arrivals towards the EU territory, both via externalisation policies in countries in the Middle East and North Africa and at the EU’s borders themselves. In this strategy of “muscling-up” the borders, technology has played a crucial role.

      EuroMed Rights’ new reports highlight how over the decades, surveillance technology has become a central asset in the EU’s migration policies with serious impacts on fundamental rights and privacy. In Artificial Intelligence: The New Frontier of the EU’s Border Externalisation Strategy we analyse how surveillance technology has been a crucial part of the European policy of externalisation of migration control. When surveillance technologies are deployed with the purpose of anti-smuggling, trafficking or counterterrorism in countries where democracies are fragile or there are authoritarian governments, they can easily end up being used for the repression of civic space and freedom of expression. What is being sold as tools to curb migrant flows, could actually be used to reinforce the security apparatus of repressive governments and fuel instability in the region.

      At the same time, Europe’s Techno-Borders highlights how this security obsession has been applied to the EU’s borders for decades, equipping them with ever-more advanced technologies. This architecture for border surveillance has been continuously expanding in an attempt to detect, deter and repel refugees and migrants. For those who manage to enter, they are biometrically registered and screened against large-scale databases, raising serious concerns on privacy violations, data protection breaches and questions of proportionality.

      Decades of “muscling-up” the EU’s borders keep showing the same thing: military, security, defence tools or technology do not stop migration, they only make it more dangerous and lethal. Nonetheless, the security and surveillance apparatus is only expected to increase: more and more money is being invested to research and develop new tech tools to curb migration, including through Artificial Intelligence.

      In a context that is resistant to public scrutiny and accountability, and where the private military and security sector has a vested interest in expanding the surveillance architecture, it is crucial to keep monitoring and denouncing the use of these technologies, in the struggle for a humane migration policy that puts the right of people on the move at the centre!

      Read our reports here:

      - Artificial Intelligence: the new frontier of the EU’s border externalisation strategy: https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Euromed_AI-Migration-Report_EN-1.pdf
      - Europe’s Techno-Borders: https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/EuroMed-Rights_Statewatch_Europe-techno-borders_EN-1.pdf

      https://euromedrights.org/publication/the-human-cost-of-artificial-intelligence-and-surveillance-technology
      #rapport #EuroMed_rights

  • Migrations : l’Union européenne, droit dans le mur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D’une ligne rouge à une ligne floue

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Technologies et barrières font bon ménage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Le Comité anti-torture du Conseil de l’Europe (CPT) publie deux rapports sur l’observation d’une opération de retour soutenue par Frontex depuis la Belgique et Chypre vers la République démocratique du Congo - CPT
    https://www.coe.int/fr/web/cpt/-/council-of-europe-anti-torture-committee-cpt-publishes-two-reports-on-the-monit
    https://www.coe.int/documents/10743412/23703277/0/27071c11-d2e0-c268-03bc-9e4695797c65

    News 2023
    Le Comité anti-torture du Conseil de l’Europe (CPT) publie deux rapports sur l’observation d’une opération de retour soutenue par Frontex depuis la Belgique et Chypre vers la République démocratique du Congo. Le Comité pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) du Conseil de l’Europe publie aujourd’hui deux rapports sur ses visites ad hoc effectuées en Belgique du 7 au 10 novembre et à Chypre du 7 au 9 novembre 2022, dans le cadre d’une opération de retour, organisée avec le soutien de Frontex, vers la République démocratique du Congo, ainsi que les réponses des autorités belges et chypriotes.
    13/07/2023

    Le Comité anti-torture du Conseil de l’Europe (CPT) publie deux rapports sur l’observation d’une opération de retour soutenue par Frontex depuis la Belgique et Chypre vers la République démocratique du Congo
    Les deux rapports examinent le traitement et les conditions de détention des ressortissants étrangers privés de liberté en vertu de la loi sur les étrangers, ainsi que les garanties accordées dans le cadre de leur éloignement. Le CPT a envoyé, pour la première fois, deux délégations pour observer la préparation et le déroulement d’une opération de retour conjointe (JRO) par voie aérienne qui a eu lieu le 8 novembre 2022 depuis la Belgique et Chypre vers la République démocratique du Congo. Le vol de retour a été organisé par la Belgique, avec la participation notamment de Chypre et avec le soutien de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes (Frontex). Il s’agit de la sixième opération d’éloignement par voie aérienne observée par le CPT au cours des dix dernières années.
    Dans son rapport concernant la visite effectuée en Belgique, le CPT a noté que sa délégation n’a reçu aucune allégation de mauvais traitements de la part des personnes éloignées. Le Comité a constaté qu’elles ont été traitées avec respect par les agents d’escorte de la Police fédérale belge tout au long de l’opération d’éloignement, qui a été menée de manière professionnelle. Néanmoins, le CPT considère que les garanties procédurales contre le refoulement arbitraire, y compris les voies de recours contre l’ordre de quitter le territoire, devraient être renforcées davantage afin de veiller à ce que personne ne soit renvoyé dans un pays où il y a un risque réel de mauvais traitements. Ce risque devrait être évalué de manière adéquate au moment de l’éloignement.
    En ce qui concerne le recours à la force et aux moyens de contrainte, le CPT prend note des lignes directrices détaillées et des instructions opérationnelles émises par les autorités belges, qui reflètent la position du Comité en la matière. Il se félicite du recours proportionné et progressif à la force et aux moyens de contrainte dont tous les agents d’escorte de la Police fédérale ont fait preuve, sur la base d’une approche dynamique de la sécurité. Plusieurs recommandations sont formulées pour améliorer le respect du secret médical et la transmission des informations médicales.
    Dans le rapport sur la visite à Chypre, le CPT a constaté que les personnes renvoyées étaient traitées avec respect par la police chypriote, mais il a souligné la nécessité d’adopter des lignes directrices claires concernant la phase de préparation du vol et la procédure d’embarquement, y compris à l’égard des questions liées à la santé. Le CPT a également pris connaissance d’allégations de mauvais traitements après des tentatives d’éloignement non abouties qui ont eu lieu dans les mois précédant la visite du CPT. Cela implique que les autorités chypriotes adoptent une approche proactive en ce qui concerne la détection et la prévention des mauvais traitements, y compris grâce à un examen médical systématique des ressortissants étrangers, à leur arrivée au centre de rétention administrative et après une tentative d’éloignement non aboutie, ainsi que la consignation et le signalement des indices médicaux de mauvais traitements.
    Le CPT formule également des recommandations spécifiques visant à améliorer les garanties dans le cadre de la préparation à l’éloignement, notamment en ce qui concerne la notification en temps utile de l’éloignement, l’accès à un avocat et l’examen médical par un médecin avant l’éloignement, dans le cadre d’une évaluation de « l’aptitude à voyager en avion ». Dans leur réponse, les autorités belges notent que des mesures ont été prises au niveau européen pour améliorer la manière dont les informations médicales sont partagées par les États membres participant aux JRO avec le médecin accompagnant le vol. Au niveau national, les autorités ont pris des mesures pour améliorer l’accessibilité des informations sur le mécanisme de plainte de Frontex. En outre, les autorités belges se réfèrent aux lois, procédures et pratiques existantes en réponse aux recommandations du CPT de renforcer les garanties contre le refoulement arbitraire. Les autorités notent également les familles avec enfants ne sont pas retenues dans les centres de rétention.
    Dans leur réponse, les autorités chypriotes fournissent des informations sur les enquêtes en cours concernant les cas d’allégations de mauvais traitements soulevés par le CPT. Les autorités indiquent également les mesures prises en ce qui concerne, entre autres, les examens médicaux, la consignation et le signalement de lésions, les procédures pour les agents d’escorte policière lors des retours forcés et volontaires, l’utilisation de moyens de contrainte, et la mise à disposition de services d’interprétation et de formation pour les agents d’escorte. En outre, ils indiquent que, dans le cadre de la politique publique, aucune personne vulnérable n’est placée en rétention, y compris les mineurs non accompagnés ou les familles avec enfants. Les deux rapports et les réponses ont été publiés à la demande des autorités belges et chypriotes.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#chypre#belgique#republiqueducongo#frontex#centrerretention#retourforce#droit#refoulement#ue#postcovid

  • #Frontex #risk_analyses based on unreliable information, EU watchdog says

    The EU border management agency Frontex produces untrustworthy risk analyses on migration due to the ‘low reliability of the data collected’, an investigation conducted by the #European_Data_Protection_Supervisor (#EDPS) found on Wednesday (31 May).

    The supervisor, which oversees the data processing of EU bodies, questioned the methodology used to integrate interviews collected on the field into risk analyses and denounced the “absence of a clear mapping and exhaustive overview of the processing of personal data” which the authority assessed as not sufficiently protected.

    The voluntary nature of interviews themselves is also not guaranteed, the report has found, as they “are conducted in a situation of deprivation (or limitation) of liberty” and aim at “identifying suspects on the basis of the interviewee’s testimony”.

    The concerns regard “the use of information of low reliability for the production of risk analyses and its implications for certain groups who may be unduly targeted or represented in the output of risk analysis products”.

    “Such undue representation could have negative impacts on individuals and groups through operational actions as well as the policy decision-making process,” the EU watchdog said.

    The new investigation results from fieldwork occurred in late 2022 at the Frontex headquarters in Warsaw.

    It is not the first time that the body has raised serious concerns about the data processing practices of an EU agency. In 2020, the supervisor initiated an investigation on Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, that resulted in the European Commission revising the agency’s mandate.

    Lack of protection

    The report explains that Frontex uses as its “main source of personal data collection” interviews that it conducts jointly with the member state they are operating in. Interviews are carried out on an ad hoc basis with people intercepted while trying to cross a border “without authorisation”.

    The EU agency collects information about their journey, the causes of the departure and any other information that can be relevant to the agency’s risk analysis.

    Despite Frontex carrying out interviews without putting the name of individuals, the information the exchanges contain “would allow for the identification of the interviewee and thus constitutes personal data within the meaning of data protection law”, the report argued.

    Among others, the EU agency collects personal data about individuals suspected to be involved in cross-border crimes, such as human smuggling, whose data are shared with Europol.

    According to the report, the EU agency may not “systematically” collect information about cross-border crimes since it “must be strictly limited to” Europol, Eurojust, and the member states’ “identified needs”.

    However, evidence shown by the EDPS indicates “that Frontex is automatically exchanging the debriefing reports with Europol without assessing the strict necessity of such exchange”.

    Since the latter constitutes a breach of Frontex rules themselves, the authority said that it would open an investigation on the matter.

    The authority also considers the arrangements that should be put in place when data are collected jointly between Frontex and member states to be “incomplete”.

    According to the EDPS, there are “no arrangements between the joint controllers for the allocation of their respective data protection obligations regarding the processing of personal data of interviewees”.

    “The audit report challenges the fundamental legality of risk analysis systems used against migrant people, and it highlights the serious harms that derive from their use,” Caterina Rodelli, EU Policy Analyst at the NGO Access Now told EURACTIV.

    Rodelli sees the EDPS report as an “important step” to set a limit to Frontex’s “disproportionate power” and it comes in a pivotal moment of risk assessment of data collecting tools regarding migratory flows.

    The authority sent Frontex 32 recommendations, of which 24 must to be implemented by the end of 2023.

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-privacy/news/frontex-risk-analyses-based-on-unreliable-information-eu-watchdog-says
    #chiffres #statistiques #méthodologie #fiabilité #europol #données_personnelles #frontières #migrations #réfugiés

    –—

    voir aussi ce fil de discussion auquel cet article a été ajouté :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/705957

  • Est-ce que vous n’avez pas stupéfaits de constater à quelle vitesse le « drame » des quelques centaines de migrants noyés a disparu de l’« actualité » ? Alors même que commençaient à sortir des articles mettant en cause des gardes-côtes accusés d’avoir eux-même provoqué le naufrage durant une opération de push back (c’est vrai, c’est pas vrai ? Juste on n’en cause plus.)

    On n’a même pas de Une claire pour savoir de combien de morts on parle (70 ? 700 ?…). Ça a gueulé à la faute des « passeurs », et dès que la rôle de Frontex et des garde-côtes a commencé à être évoqué (et alors que sortaient sur les interwebz plusieurs vidéos d’autres épisodes de push back parfaitement criminel), hop hop on est passés au fait divers du Titanic.

    Je suis généralement assez blasé face à la nullité de nos médias, mais là je trouve stupéfiant que ce qui devrait être un énorme scandale, au niveau européen, a déjà totalement disparu des écrans.

  • Who profits from brutal and muderous Pushbacks?

    The podcast is in English

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

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

    #podcast #audio

    ping @_kg_ @kaparia

  • Bulgaria and Romania speed up asylum and deportation procedures with EU support

    #Pilot_projects” intended to beef up border controls, accelerate asylum and deportation proceedings, and reinforce the role of EU agencies in Bulgaria and Romania have just begun - yet EU legislation intended to do the same is yet to be approved.

    Pilot projects

    In February the European Council confirmed its support for Commission-funded “border management pilot projects,” and two such projects have been launched in recent months, in Bulgaria (€45 million) and Romania (€10.8 million).

    As revealed by Statewatch in March, “the key border between Bulgaria and Turkiye,” was to be the first target of €600 million being made available to reinforce border controls and speed up removals.

    Of that funding, the Commission recently announced that it will make €140 million available “for the development of electronic surveillance systems at land external borders” and €120 million to “support reception and asylum systems,” in particular for the reception of unaccompanied minors and “reception capacity at the border”.

    Both Bulgaria and Romania have recently circulated notes within the Council to update other member states on the projects, and the Commission also trumpeted the “progress made” in a press release.

    Bulgaria

    According to the Bulgarian note, (pdf) the project “foresees the implementation by Bulgaria of targeted tools for border management and screening of third country nationals, conduct of an accelerated asylum and return procedure and cooperation in the fight against migrant smuggling.”

    The project is being implemented “with the operational and technical support of the relevant JHA agencies (EUAA, Europol and Frontex). It builds on Bulgaria’s good practices and experience, including its excellent cooperation with its neighboring countries and the EU agencies present in Bulgaria. The duration of the pilot is 6 months.”

    The country is “improving the digitalization of the asylum and return systems,” while:

    “Work is ongoing on legislative amendments for issuing of a return decision at the same time with a negative decision for international protection. Bulgaria is also working on drawing up a list with designated safe countries of origin in line with the Asylum Procedure Directive. Negotiations are ongoing with EUAA on an updated Operational plan in the field of asylum.”

    A “Roadmap for strengthened cooperation” with Frontex is “pending finalization”, which will allow for “provision of technical equipment and increased deployment of personnel.”

    However, Frontex presence in the country has already been stepped up, according to the Commission’s press release, with the agency providing “additional support to Bulgaria through return counsellors and interpreters.”

    The note also states an intention to a sign a Joint Action Plan on Return “in the margins of JHA Council,” presumably the meeting on 8 and 9 June, but the Council’s press release makes no mention of this.

    Romania

    While the Bulgarian note is not particularly detailed, it offers more information than the one circulated by Romania (pdf).

    The Romanian note states that agreement with the European Commission on launching the pilot project was reached on 17 March, and that it aims to implement “key operational actions in the area of border protection, asylum and return. One of the targeted operational actions foresees setting up pilot projects in interested Member States for fast asylum and return procedures.”

    While the Bulgarian note mentions the need for legal reforms to accelerate asylum and removal proceedings, the Romanian note says that this “showcase” of “Romania’s best practices in the areas of asylum, return, border management and international cooperation.. is based on EU and applicable Romanian legislation, as well as on Romania’s very good cooperation with neighbouring countries and EU agencies.”

    According to the Commission, however, Romania has changed national law in two respects: “to allow for the participation of EUAA [EU Asylum Agency] experts in the registration and assessment of asylum applications,” and - as in Bulgaria - “to allow for the issuing of a negative decision on international protection together with a return decision.”

    The country has also been cooperating with Frontex on align its national IT systems for deportations with the agency’s own, and “Romanian authorities will host and use the first Frontex Mobile Surveillance Vehicles at Romanian - Serbian border section of the Terra 2023 operational area.”

    Terra 2023 is presumably a continuation of the Frontex operation Terra 2022.

    Documentation

    - European Commission press release: Migration management: Update on progress made on the Pilot Projects for asylum and return procedures and new financial support for Bulgaria and Romania: https://www.statewatch.org/media/3932/eu-com-pilot-projects-bulgaria-romania-pr-7-6-23.pdf
    - Bulgarian delegation: Pilot project at the Bulgarian-Turkish border. Council doc. 9992/23, LIMITE, 5 June 2023, pdf: https://www.statewatch.org/media/3930/eu-council-bulgaria-pilot-project-migration-asylum-9992-23.pdf
    - Romanian delegation: Pilot project in the area of asylum, returns, border management and international cooperation, Council doc. 9991/23, LIMITE, 5 June 2023: https://www.statewatch.org/media/3931/eu-council-romania-pilot-project-migration-asylum-09991-23.pdf

    https://www.statewatch.org/news/2023/june/bulgaria-and-romania-speed-up-asylum-and-deportation-procedures-with-eu-
    #Bulgarie #Roumanie #renvois #expulsions #contrôles_frontaliers #financement #EU #UE #aide_financière #JHA #Europol #Frontex #EUAA #externalisation #externalisation_des_contrôles_frontaliers #digitalisation #directive_procédure #pays_sûrs #militarisation_des_frontières #Joint_Action_Plan_on_Return #Frontex_Mobile_Surveillance_Vehicles #Mobile_Surveillance_Vehicles #Terra_2023 #frontières

  • 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗲̀𝘀 𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘂𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗲́𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀-𝗰𝗼̂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘀 𝗲𝘁 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅

    𝐿𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑟 𝑙’𝑢𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑎𝑢𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑒𝑛 𝑀𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑒́𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑎̀ 𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑒́𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠. 𝐿𝑒 𝑟𝑜̂𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑥, 𝑙’𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑒𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒́𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒́𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑒̀𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒́𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑒́𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒́ 𝑑𝑢 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑔𝑡. 𝑈𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑒̂𝑡𝑒 𝑎 𝑒́𝑡𝑒́ 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒.

    Pavlos Kapantais
    17 juin 2023

    Kalamata (Grèce).– Plus de quatre jours après le naufrage d’un bateau de pêche en provenance de Libye, où s’étaient embarquées jusqu’à 750 personnes – notamment des ressortissantes et ressortissants égyptiens, syriens et pakistanais –, l’espoir est mince de retrouver des survivant·es au large des côtes sud de la Grèce.

    Les questions sont nombreuses en particulier sur l’action des gardes-côtes grecs, accusés par certains témoignages d’avoir provoqué l’accident. La Cour suprême grecque a ordonné une enquête sur les circonstances du drame, l’un des pires naufrages en Méditerranée avec des centaines de morts. Pour l’heure, 104 personnes ont été rescapées et 78 corps récupérés.

    Jeudi après-midi, Kriton Arsenis, ancien eurodéputé, a rencontré des survivants dans le port de Kalamata, sur la péninsule du Péloponnèse, en tant que membre de la délégation de Mera25, le parti de Yánis Varoufákis. « Les réfugiés nous ont dit que l’embarcation a chaviré pendant qu’elle était tirée par le bateau des gardes-côtes », a-t-il raconté.

    « Les survivants nous disent que le bateau a basculé alors qu’il faisait l’objet d’une manœuvre où il était tiré par les gardes-côtes helléniques, a déclaré de son côté Vincent Cochetel, envoyé spécial du Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés pour la Méditerranée occidentale et centrale. Ils nous disent qu’il était tiré non pas vers les côtes grecques, mais en dehors de la zone de secours en mer grecque. »

    Ces témoignages vont à l’encontre de la version officielle, qui, jusqu’à vendredi, expliquait que les gardes-côtes n’étaient pas intervenus.

    La Grèce est régulièrement accusée de refouler des migrant·es en mer, provoquant la crainte, derrière une aide supposée, d’être en réalité éloigné·es du territoire – une pratique illégale au regard du droit international maritime et de la Convention de Genève, qui doivent permettre à toute personne en situation de détresse d’être secourue et acheminée vers un port dit « sûr » et de pouvoir, si elle le souhaite, déposer une demande d’asile dans le pays qu’elle tentait de rallier.

    En mai dernier, des révélations du New York Times ont mis en lumière cette pratique, grâce à une vidéo d’un « push-back » prise sur le fait. Mediapart avait documenté un cas semblable en 2022, qui avait provoqué la mort de deux demandeurs d’asile.

    𝗟𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅 𝘀𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲

    Le rôle de Frontex, l’agence européenne chargée des frontières extérieures, est également mis en question, car selon les autorités portuaires grecques, un avion de surveillance de Frontex avait repéré le bateau mardi après-midi mais les secours ne sont pas intervenus car les passagers ont « refusé toute aide ». Son patron Hans Leijtens s’est rendu à Kalamata pour établir les faits et « mieux comprendre ce qui s’est passé car Frontex a joué un rôle » dans ce naufrage « horrible ».

    « On ne demande pas aux personnes à bord d’un bateau à la dérive s’ils veulent de l’aide […], il aurait fallu une aide immédiate », a affirmé pour sa part à la télévision grecque ERT Nikos Spanos, expert international des incidents maritimes. D’après Alexis Tsipras, le chef de l’opposition grecque de gauche, qui s’est entretenu avec des rescapés, « il y a eu un appel à l’aide ».

    Le HCR et l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), deux agences des Nations unies, se sont félicités des enquêtes « qui ont été ordonnées en Grèce sur les circonstances qui ont conduit au chavirement du bateau et à la perte de tant de vies », tout en rappelant que « le devoir de secourir sans délai les personnes en détresse en mer est une règle fondamentale du droit maritime international ».

    "𝑶𝒖𝒊, 𝒄̧𝒂, 𝒊𝒍𝒔 𝒎𝒆 𝒍’𝒐𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒅𝒊𝒕, 𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒆́𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒅𝒆 𝒇𝒆𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒆𝒕 𝒅’𝒆𝒏𝒇𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔." - 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖 𝐺𝑙𝑒𝑧𝑜𝑢, 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑒 𝑙’𝑂𝑁𝐺 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑜

    Le HCR et l’OIM ont rappelé vendredi que depuis le début de l’année, au moins 72 778 migrants sont arrivés en Europe (dont 54 205 en Italie), par les routes migratoires en Méditerranée orientale, centrale, et occidentale ou par le nord-ouest de l’Afrique. Dans le même temps, au moins 1 037 migrants sont morts ou portés disparus.

    Neuf Égyptiens ont été arrêtés dans le port de Kalamata. Ils sont âgés de 20 à 40 ans et soupçonnés de « trafic illégal » d’êtres humains. Parmi les suspects, qui devraient comparaître lundi devant le juge d’instruction, figure le capitaine de l’embarcation qui a chaviré, d’après une source portuaire à l’AFP.

    Areti Glezou, travailleuse sociale au sein de l’ONG grecque Thalpo était en première ligne aux côtés des rescapés. Manifestement choquée, elle se souviendra longtemps de certains détails à glacer le sang. « Un homme me racontait qu’il a nagé pendant deux heures au côté de corps d’enfants avant d’être secouru. » Elle s’arrête, reprend son souffle et, les larmes aux yeux, elle poursuit : « Oui, ça, ils me l’ont tous dit, les cales étaient remplies de femmes et d’enfants. » Aucun n’aura été retrouvé vivant.

    Plus de 120 Syriens se trouvaient à bord et un grand nombre d’entre eux sont portés disparus, ont indiqué vendredi à l’AFP des membres de leurs familles et des militants locaux. La plupart sont originaires de la province instable de Deraa dans le sud du pays. Berceau du soulèvement antirégime déclenché en 2011, elle est revenue sous le contrôle des forces gouvernementales en juillet 2018. Plusieurs d’entre eux ont gagné la Libye, d’où était parti le bateau, en transitant par des pays voisins comme le Liban, la Jordanie ou encore l’Arabie saoudite.

    Vendredi matin, on a cependant vu des larmes de joie sur le port de Kalamata. Des deux côtés des barrières qui entourent le hangar où logent les rescapés, deux frères se sont aperçus. Fardi a retrouvé Mohamed vivant. Le grand a retrouvé le petit. Autour d’eux les sourires fleurissent sur les visages. Pour quelques brefs instants, journalistes, humanitaires et hommes en uniformes redeviennent d’abord des êtres humains. Comme un rayon de lumière qui illumine soudain un océan de tristesse.

    Une demi-heure plus tard, des bus viennent chercher les rescapés pour les emmener au camp de Malakasa dans la région d’Athènes. Le hangar est désormais vide.

    #frontières #naufrage #Grèce #migrants #migrations #Frontex #Méditerranée

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/170623/apres-le-naufrage-des-survivants-denoncent-les-gardes-cotes-grecs-et-front

  • Grèce : au moins 78 morts dans un naufrage, le plus meurtrier de l’année dans le pays

    Au moins 78 migrants se sont noyés mercredi dans le naufrage de leur embarcation en mer méditerranée, dans le sud-ouest de la Grèce, tandis que 104 ont pu être secourus par les garde-côtes grecs. Selon des médias locaux, le bateau transportait au moins 600 personnes. Les recherches se poursuivaient mercredi pour tenter de retrouver d’autres survivants. Il s’agit du naufrage le plus meurtrier de l’année en Grèce.

    Au moins 78 personnes ont trouvé la mort dans un naufrage dans la nuit de mardi 13 à mercredi 14 juin au large de la Grèce. Quelques 104 naufragés ont pu être secourus par les garde-côtes grecs et transférés vers la ville de Kalamata, un port situé au sud ouest du pays.

    Les chaînes de télévision grecques ont montré les images de rescapés, couvertures grises sur les épaules et masques hygiéniques sur le visage, descendre d’un yacht portant l’inscription Georgetown, la capitale des îles Caïmans. D’autres étaient évacués sur des civières. Quatre d’entre eux ont été conduits à l’hôpital de Kalamata en raison de symptômes d’hypothermie.

    D’après les informations délivrées par les autorités grecques, les exilés sont majoritairement originaires d’Égypte, de Syrie et du Pakistan. Selon les premières informations, le bateau aurait quitté Tobrouk, à l’est de la Libye, en direction de l’Italie, vendredi 9 juin.

    600 migrants à bord du bateau

    Le nombre de passagers présents sur le bateau n’a pas été confirmé par les autorités grecques. Mais des médias locaux parlent d’au moins 600 personnes, ce qui laisse craindre la disparition de centaines de naufragés.

    L’opération de sauvetage se poursuivait mercredi après-midi dans les eaux internationales situées au large de la ville grecque de Pylos. Elle implique six navires des garde-côtes, un avion et un hélicoptère militaires ainsi qu’un drone de Frontex, l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières.

    https://twitter.com/alarm_phone/status/1668913096667144193

    La Grèce a connu de nombreux naufrages d’embarcations de migrants, souvent vétustes et surchargées, mais il s’agit jusqu’ici du bilan humain le plus lourd depuis un précédent le 3 juin 2016 au cours duquel au moins 320 personnes avaient péri ou disparu.

    L’embarcation avait été repérée une première fois mardi par les garde-côtes italiens, qui ont alerté leurs homologues grecs et européens. Les migrants à bord « ont refusé toute aide », selon les autorités grecques. La plateforme d’aide aux migrants en mer, Alarm Phone, a signalé sur Twitter avoir été alertée le même jour par des exilés en détresse, non loin du lieu du naufrage.

    Selon une journaliste basée en Grèce, chaque passager avait payé 4 500 dollars (environ 4 000 euros) la traversée.

    Une année particulièrement meurtrière

    Depuis un an, on observe de plus en plus de départs de bateaux de migrants depuis l’est de la Libye. « Ce n’est pas inhabituel que des bateaux fassent cette route. Les départs depuis l’est de la Libye sont plus fréquents » depuis l’été dernier, expliquait l’an dernier à InfoMigrants Frederico Soda, chef de mission Libye auprès de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM). Les exilés prennent désormais la mer depuis cette zone, afin d’éviter les interceptions des garde-côtes libyens, qui se concentrent à l’ouest du pays.

    Mais la traversée n’est pas sans risque. L’est de la Libye est considérablement plus éloigné de l’Italie que la partie ouest, d’où embarquent la majorité des migrants. À titre d’exemple, 1 200 km séparent les deux villes côtières de Tobrouk (à l’Est) et Tripoli (à l’Ouest), situé en-dessous de la Sicile. Un trajet démarré depuis l’est de la Libye est ainsi « beaucoup plus long », précisait encore Federico Soda.

    La route méditerranéenne reste la plus meurtrière au monde. En 2022, 2 406 migrants ont péri dans cette zone maritime, soit une augmentation de 16% sur un an, selon le dernier rapport de l’OIM. Et l’année 2023 risque d’établir un nouveau record : depuis janvier, ce sont déjà 1 166 personnes qui ont péri ou ont disparu dans ces eaux, dont 1030 en Méditerranée centrale. Un tel nombre n’avait pas été observé depuis 2017.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/49667/grece--au-moins-78-morts-dans-un-naufrage-le-plus-meurtrier-de-lannee-
    #Pylos #Grèce #naufrage #asile #migrations #décès #morts #tragédie #mourir_aux_frontières #morts_aux_frontières #14_juin_2023 #Méditerranée #Mer_Méditerranée #13_juin_2023

    • Après le naufrage en Grèce, les autorités grecques et européennes sous le feu des critiques

      À la suite de l’annonce de la disparition de plusieurs centaines de personnes dans un naufrage survenu mercredi au large de la Grèce, des dirigeants européens ont fait part de leurs condoléances. Ils ont reçu de nombreuses critiques condamnant les politiques migratoires européennes.

      C’est sans doute le naufrage le plus meurtrier depuis 2013. Mercredi 14 juin, vers 2h du matin, un bateau surchargé de migrants a fait naufrage au large de Pylos, dans le sud-ouest de la Grèce. Au moins 78 personnes sont mortes dans le drame et des centaines d’autres sont toujours portées disparues. Selon les témoignages des rescapés, qui ont donné des chiffres différents, entre 400 et 750 exilés se trouvaient sur le bateau parti de Tobrouk, dans l’est de la Libye.

      À la suite de ce drame, de nombreuses personnalités politiques grecques et européennes ont exprimé leur émotion sur les réseaux sociaux. La présidente de la Commission européenne Ursula von der Leyen s’est dit « profondément attristée par la nouvelle du naufrage au large des côtes grecques et par les nombreux décès signalés ». « Nous devons continuer à travailler ensemble, avec les États membres et les pays tiers, pour éviter de telles tragédies », a-t-elle ajouté.

      Ylva Johansson, commissaire européenne aux Affaires intérieures, s’est quant à elle dit « profondément affectée par cette tragédie meurtrière au large des côtes grecques ». « Nous avons le devoir moral collectif de démanteler les réseaux criminels. La meilleure façon d’assurer la sécurité des migrants est d’empêcher ces voyages catastrophiques... », a également indiqué la responsable.

      Les messages de soutien des deux dirigeantes ont entraîné de très nombreuses critiques d’internautes. Des défenseurs des droits des migrants, avocats et journalistes ont notamment dénoncé le « cynisme » des autorités européennes, les accusant de promouvoir une politique migratoire européenne dure.

      « Vies innocentes »

      La classe politique grecque a également réagi au drame. En campagne électorale en vue des législatives du 25 juin, l’ancien Premier ministre conservateur, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, a décidé d’annuler un rassemblement électoral prévu pour la fin de journée à Patras, le grand port de cette région du Péloponnèse, a annoncé son parti Nouvelle Démocratie (ND).

      « Nous sommes tous choqués par le tragique naufrage survenu aujourd’hui dans les eaux internationales de la Méditerranée, au sud-ouest du Péloponnèse. Je suis attristé par la perte de tant de vies innocentes », a-t-il déclaré sur Twitter.

      Ce responsable politique s’est par ailleurs entretenu au téléphone avec le Premier ministre par intérim, Ioannis Sarmas. Il a également décrété trois jours de deuil dans le pays.

      Sur les réseaux sociaux, l’ancien Premier ministre n’a pas non plus été épargné par des internautes l’accusant d’hypocrisie face au drame de Pylos. Le dirigeant a mené une politique très dure envers les exilés durant ses quatre années à la tête du gouvernement. Athènes a été à de très nombreuses reprises accusée de pratiquer des refoulements illégaux de migrants en mer Égée et dans la région de l’Evros.
      Des bateaux escortés hors des SAR zones

      De nombreux membres d’organisations internationales ont également réagi au drame de Pylos. Vincent Cochetel, envoyé spécial du Haut-commissariat des nations unies aux réfugiés (HCR), en charge de la Méditerranée de l’ouest et centrale s’est dit « très attristé par cette nouvelle tragédie ». Le responsable a également confié son inquiétude « de voir ces derniers mois certains États côtiers escorter des bateaux en mauvais état en dehors de leur zone SAR pour s’assurer qu’ils atteignent d’autres zones SAR ».

      De son côté, Federico Soda, directeur du département des urgences à l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), a plaidé pour la mise en place de « mesures concrètes pour donner la priorité à la recherche et au sauvetage » et de « voies d’accès sûres pour les migrants ».

      L’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières (Frontex) s’est, quant à elle, déclarée « profondément touchée » par le drame. Dans le même message posté sur Twitter, l’agence assure que son avion de surveillance a repéré le bateau le mardi 13 juin au matin et affirme avoir « immédiatement informé les autorités compétentes ».

      Selon les autorités portuaires grecques, un avion de surveillance de Frontex avait effectivement vu le bateau mardi mais il n’est pas intervenu car les passagers ont « refusé toute aide ».

      Les ONG actives dans l’aide aux exilés ont également fait part de leur effroi face au drame de Pylos. Interrogé par Libération, le président de SOS Méditerranée France, François Thomas, a condamné une « nouvelle tragédie insupportable ». « Il n’existe aucune solidarité européenne. Les moyens de sauvetage sont de moins en moins importants, alors que l’Europe a des moyens. Quand est-ce que tout cela va s’arrêter ? », a-t-il dénoncé.

      Médecins sans frontières (MSF), qui intervient en Méditerranée centrale avec son navire humanitaire le Geo barents , a déclaré être « attristé et choqué » par le drame survenu mercredi. L’ONG précise que ses équipes en Grèce se tiennent prêtes à intervenir pour aider autant que possible les rescapés.

      Enquête ouverte

      Enfin, le pape François, très sensible à la thématique migratoire, est « profondément consterné » par le naufrage, a rapporté jeudi le Vatican dans un communiqué.

      « Sa sainteté le pape François envoie ses prières sincères pour les nombreux migrants qui sont morts, leurs proches et tous ceux qui ont été traumatisés par cette tragédie », peut-on lire dans un télégramme signé par le N.2 du Saint-Siège, le cardinal Pietro Parolin, et publié par le Vatican.

      Les opérations de secours se poursuivaient jeudi matin pour tenter de retrouver des survivants. Des moyens aériens et maritimes sont déployés mais les espoirs s’amenuisent à mesure que le temps passe. Jusqu’à présent, 104 personnes ont pu être secourues mais Athènes redoute que des centaines d’autres ne soient portées disparues, d’après les témoignages des survivants.

      Une enquête a été ouverte par la justice grecque sur le sauvetage de l’embarcation. La Cour suprême grecque a également ordonné une enquête pour définir les causes du drame qui a choqué le pays.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/49698/apres-le-naufrage-en-grece-les-autorites-grecques-et-europeennes-sous-

    • “They are urgently asking for help”: the SOS that was ignored

      The Hellenic Coast Guard attributed its failure to proceed to a rescue mission of the migrants before their trawler sunk to their refusal to receive assistance. International law experts, as well as active and former Coast Guard officials, refute the argument. And emails sent by the Alarm Phone group to authorities which are in Solomon’s possession, prove that the passengers of the vessel had sent out an SOS – one that was ignored.

      The first recovered bodies of the people who lost their lives 80 km southwest of Pylos between the 13th and 14th of June are transferred to the cemetery of Schisto. At least 78 dead and hundreds remain missing. 104 people have been rescued so far, while the search for survivors continues.

      But critical questions about possible mishandling by the Hellenic Coast Guard of the tragedy that led to the deadliest shipwreck recorded in recent years in the Mediterranean remain.

      The same goes for the responsibilities of Greece and Europe, whose policies have diverted asylum seekers to the deadly Calabria route, which bypasses Greece (for obvious reasons), while also failing to establish legal and safe routes.
      “Denied assistance“

      In the briefings and timeline of the events leading up to the tragedy, the HCG attributes the failure to rescue the migrants before the sinking of the fishing boat to their repeated “refusal to receive assistance” in their communications with the vessel.

      The HCG had been aware of the vessel since the early morning hours of Tuesday, 13/6, and was, according to its own log, in contact with the vessel from as early as 14:00 local time. But no rescue action was undertaken, because “the trawler did not request any assistance from the Coast Guard or Greece,” the HCG reported.

      The same argument is repeated at 18:00: “Repeatedly the fishing boat was asked by the merchant ship if it required additional assistance, was in danger or wanted anything else from Greece. They replied, “we want nothing more than to continue to Italy”.

      But does this absolve the Coast Guard of responsibility?

      International law experts as well as former and active members of the Coast Guard question the legal and humanitarian basis of this argument, even if there was indeed a “refusal of assistance”. And they point out to Solomon that the rescue operation should have begun immediately upon detection of the fishing vessel. For the following reasons, among others:

      - The vessel was obviously overloaded and unseaworthy, with the lives of the peopled on board, who did not even have life-saving equipment, being in constant danger.

      – Accepting a denial of rescue or other intervention by the HCG could make sense only if the vessel carried a state flag, had proper documents, had a proper captain and was safe. None of these applies in the case of the sunk trawler.

      - Coast Guard officials had to objectively assess the situation and take the necessary actions regardless of how the passengers of the trawler – or, to be precise, whoever the Coast Guard was in contact with- themselves assessed their own situation.

      - The fishing vessel was undoubtedly in a state of distress that mandated its rescue at the latest from the moment the Coast Guard received, through Alarm Phone, an SOS message, which was transmitted to the group by the passengers. This SOS call is not mentioned anywhere in the Coast Guard’s communications.

      Proof the Coast Guard knew of the danger

      In its own chronology of events, Watch the Med-Alarm Phone says it contacted the authorities at 17:53 local GR time.

      The email to the competent authorities, which is available to Solomon, indicates the coordinates where the overloaded vessel was located. It states that there are 750 people on board, including many women and children, and includes a telephone number for contacting the passengers themselves.

      “They are urgently asking for help,” the email reads.

      From this message, it follows also that FRONTEX, the HQ of the Greek Police and the Ministry of Citizen Protection, as well as the Coast Guard in Kalamata, were also informed.

      The message was also communicated to the UNCHR in Greece and Turkey, to NATO, as well as to Greece’s Ombudsman.

      Listen to the interview given to Solomon by Maro, an Alarm Phone member:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4SptggF2U&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwearesolomon.com%2F

      Solomon contacted the Hellenic Coast Guard, asking detailed questions: why was there no rescue operation after the migrants’ distress signal via Alarm Phone? Does a refusal to rescue exculpate the HCG? Why was the vessel (for security and identification purposes) not even checked, given it was not flying a flag? Why was the operation launched only after the vessel sank?

      A spokesman for the HCG did not answer the specific questions but instead referred to the Coast Guard’s press release.

      Solomon also contacted UNHCR, which confirmed receipt of the email.

      “Our Office was indeed notified yesterday (ed. note: 13/06) afternoon in correspondence received from Watch The Med – Alarm Phone, which referred to a vessel in distress southwest of the Peloponnese with a large number of passengers. We immediately informed the competent Greek authorities requesting urgent information about the coordination of a search and rescue operation to bring the people to safety”.

      “Please be informed that Frontex has immediately relayed the message to the Greek authorities,” Frontex responded to Alarm Phone’s message, in an email seen by Solomon.

      “Duty of rescue, not stand by and watch”

      The Coast Guard had to treat the incident as a vessel in distress from the very first moment and take all measures to rescue the people, explains Nora Markard, Professor of International Public Law and International Human Rights at the University of Münster.

      “As soon as the distress call was received via Alarm Phone, there was clearly distress. But when a ship is so evidently overloaded, it is in distress as soon as it leaves port, because it is unseaworthy. Even if the ship is still moving. And when there is distress, there is a duty to rescue, not to stand by and watch.

      International law defines distress as a situation where there is a reasonable certainty that a vessel or a person is threatened by grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

      “That requires an objective assessment. If a captain completely misjudges the situation and says the ship is fine, the ship is still in distress if the passengers are in grave danger by the condition of the ship,” Dr. Markard explains.

      International law unambiguously states that, on receiving information ‘from any source’ that persons are in distress at sea, the master of a ship that is in a position to render assistance must ‘proceed with all speed to their assistance’.

      In this particular case, the fishing vessel was not flying a flag, so the incident does not even fall under the category of respect for the sovereignty of the flag state.

      “When a ship doesn’t fly a flag at all, as it appears to be the case here, the law of the sea gives other states a right to visit the ship. This includes the right to board the ship to check it out,” says Markard.

      Apart from the distress call itself, the Hellenic Coast Guard, therefore, had the additional authority to examine the situation.

      “All ships and authorities alerted of the distress have an obligation to rescue, even if the ship in distress is not in their territorial waters but at high sea. Search and rescue zones often include waters that belong to the high sea,” explains Markard.

      “If the distress occurs in a state’s search and rescue zone, that state also has an obligation to coordinate the rescue. For example, it can requisition merchant ships to render assistance.”
      Coast Guard officer: “This was the definition of a vessel in distress”

      A former senior officer of the Greek Coast Guard with vast relevant experience seconds this and raises additional questions.

      Speaking to Solomon on condition of anonymity, he explained that the vessel was manifestly unseaworthy and the people on board in danger. Even a refusal to accept assistance was not a reason to leave it to its fate.

      The same official also points out there were delays in the response of the HCG (“valuable time was lost”) and an inadequate force of assets. He confirmed that refusal of assistance would only make sense in the case of a legal, documented, seaworthy and flagged vessel. “This was the definition of a vessel in distress”.

      Similar statements regarding the claims of the Greek Coast Guard were made by retired admiral of the Coast Guard and international expert, Nikos Spanos, to Greece’s public broadcaster ERT:

      “It’s like saying I can just watch you drown and do nothing. We don’t ask the crew on a boat in distress if they need help. They absolutely need help, from the moment the boat is adrift.”

      https://wearesolomon.com/mag/focus-area/migration/they-are-urgently-asking-for-help-the-sos-that-was-ignored

    • Chi c’era a bordo della barca naufragata al largo della Grecia

      Moshin Shazad, 32 anni, era un uomo con l’espressione seria, due figli piccoli, la moglie e la madre da mantenere. Per questo aveva deciso di partire da Lalamusa, una città nel Punjab, in Pakistan. Non riusciva a trovare un lavoro stabile e le bocche da sfamare erano diventate troppe, dopo la nascita del secondo figlio. Voleva raggiungere il cugino, Waheed Ali, che dal 2019 vive in Norvegia.

      È partito con altri quattro ragazzi, quattro amici, tra cui Abdul Khaliq e Sami Ullah. Ha telefonato al cugino poco dopo essere salito sul peschereccio stracarico che è partito da Tobruk, in Libia, ed è naufragato il 14 giugno, a 47 miglia da Pylos, in Grecia. “Diceva che sarebbe arrivato in Italia”, racconta Waheed Ali, che ora sta cercando il cugino tra i 108 sopravvissuti, di cui molti sono stati sistemati in un magazzino abbandonato di Kalamata, in Grecia, mentre una trentina sono stati trasferiti in ospedale. Molti erano in ipotermia. Ma Shazad potrebbe anche essere tra i dispersi.

      Shawq Muhammad al Ghazali, 22 anni, era uno studente originario di Daraa, in Siria, ed era rifugiato in Giordania, dove al momento vivono la sua famiglia e suo zio Ibhraim al Ghazali. Il ragazzo era partito da Amman per la Libia, e da lì, da Tobruk, si era imbarcato per raggiungere l’Europa. “Non ho sue notizie dall’8 giugno, il giorno della partenza dalla Libia”, dice lo zio. Secondo molti familiari, le autorità greche non stanno aiutando le famiglie ad avere notizie dei parenti o a capire se sono tra i vivi o tra i dispersi.

      I superstiti sono per lo più siriani (47) ed egiziani (43), poi ci sono dodici pachistani e due palestinesi, secondo le autorità greche. Tutti uomini. “Non riesco a sapere se è sopravvissuto, sono io che sto dando notizie alla famiglia in Pakistan, ma sono disperato, non riesco a capire e a sapere nulla. Del naufragio ho saputo dalla televisione”, afferma Waheed Ali.

      L’imbarcazione su cui viaggiavano Moshin Shazad e gli altri era partita da Tobruk l’8 giugno, era diretta in Italia, lungo una rotta da cui sono arrivati nel 2023 la metà dei migranti partiti dalla Libia.

      “Secondo le prime testimonianze sarebbe corretta la stima di 700-750 persone a bordo, tra cui almeno quaranta bambini, che probabilmente erano nella stiva. Se questi numeri fossero confermati, si tratterebbe del secondo naufragio più grave avvenuto nel Mediterraneo dopo quello dell’aprile 2015”, racconta Flavio Di Giacomo, dell’Organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni (Oim). Settantotto corpi sono stati recuperati finora in mare al largo della penisola del Peloponneso. Ma l’Oim ha affermato di “temere che altre centinaia di persone” siano annegate. Il portavoce della guardia costiera greca Nikos Alexiou ha detto che l’imbarcazione è naufragata, dopo che le persone si sono spostate bruscamente su un lato. L’imbarcazione è affondata in quindici minuti.

      Frontex li aveva avvistati
      Secondo le autorità greche, un aereo di sorveglianza dell’agenzia europea Frontex aveva avvistato la barca il 13 giugno. In un comunicato Frontex ha confermato di avere visto l’imbarcazione in mattinata, alle 9.47 del giorno precedente al naufragio e di averlo comunicato alle autorità preposte al soccorso, cioè alla guardia costiera greca. Anche la guardia costiera italiana e due mercantili avevano segnalato alle autorità greche l’imbarcazione in difficoltà. Ma secondo la guardia costiera greca, i passeggeri dell’imbarcazione “hanno rifiutato qualsiasi aiuto”, perché i migranti si stavano dirigendo verso l’Italia.

      “Nel pomeriggio, una nave mercantile si è avvicinata alla barca e le ha fornito cibo e rifornimenti, mentre i (passeggeri) hanno rifiutato ogni ulteriore assistenza”, ha detto la guardia costiera greca in un comunicato. Una seconda nave mercantile in seguito ha offerto più rifornimenti e assistenza. Ma anche questa volta sono stati rifiutati, secondo i greci.

      In serata, una motovedetta della guardia costiera ha raggiunto la nave “e ha confermato la presenza di un gran numero di migranti sul ponte”, è scritto nel comunicato delle autorità greche. “Ma hanno rifiutato qualsiasi assistenza e hanno detto che volevano continuare in Italia”. Tuttavia le leggi internazionali sul soccorso in mare avrebbero imposto in ogni caso ai greci di intervenire per le condizioni in cui l’imbarcazione stava navigando. Diverse testimonianze contestano la versione delle autorità greche.

      Il motore della barca si è rotto poco prima delle 23 (gmt) del 13 giugno, da quel momento la barca è andata alla deriva. I naufraghi hanno chiesto aiuto, telefonando alla rete di volontari Alarmphone, già dal 13 giugno, dicendo di avere contattato anche “la polizia”. L’attivista Nawal Soufi, che vive in Italia, ha raccontato che i migranti con cui era in contatto telefonico le hanno detto che alcune imbarcazioni si sono avvicinate, distribuendo delle bottigliette di acqua.

      “Il 13 giugno 2023, nelle prime ore del mattino, i migranti a bordo di una barca carica di 750 persone mi hanno contattata comunicandomi la loro difficile situazione. Dopo cinque giorni di viaggio, l’acqua era finita, il conducente dell’imbarcazione li aveva abbandonati in mare aperto e c’erano anche sei cadaveri a bordo. Non sapevano esattamente dove si trovassero, ma grazie alla posizione istantanea del telefono Turaya (telefono satellitare, ndr), ho potuto ottenere la loro posizione esatta e ho allertato le autorità competenti”, scrive Soufi, condividendo la sua ricostruzione su Facebook.

      “La situazione si è complicata quando una nave si è avvicinata all’imbarcazione, legandola con delle corde su due punti della barca e iniziando a buttare bottiglie d’acqua. I migranti si sono sentiti in forte pericolo, poiché temevano che le corde potessero far capovolgere la barca e che le risse a bordo per ottenere l’acqua potessero causare il naufragio. Per questo motivo, si sono leggermente allontanati dalla nave per evitare un naufragio sicuro”, continua l’attivista nel suo post.

      “Durante la notte, la situazione a bordo dell’imbarcazione è diventata ancora più drammatica. Io sono rimasta in contatto con loro fino alle 23 ore greche, cercando di rassicurarli e di aiutarli a trovare una soluzione”. Fino all’ultima chiamata in cui “l’uomo con cui parlavo mi ha espressamente detto: ‘Sento che questa sarà la nostra ultima notte in vita’”, conclude. Il parlamentare greco Kriton Arsenis, che ha parlato con i sopravvissuti a Kalamata, ha confermato la versione dell’attivista Soufi e ha dichiarato che l’imbarcazione si è ribaltata dopo essere stata trainata con delle corde dai greci. Secondo Arsenis, i greci volevano spingere l’imbarcazione di migranti nelle acque di ricerca e soccorso italiane.

      https://www.internazionale.it/notizie/annalisa-camilli/2023/06/15/naufragio-grecia
      #Frontex

    • Grecia, strage di Pylos. «Nessuna pace per gli assassini»

      Mentre il mare inghiotte i corpi e lo Stato rinchiude i sopravvissuti si riempiono le strade delle città greche

      Da tempo, definiamo la politica migratoria europea “necropolitica”, ovvero – seguendo Achille Mbembe – una politica che crea le condizioni strutturali per produrre la morte di un gruppo di persone.

      Un’architettura di morte, che vediamo ogni giorno nel regime europeo del confine, sempre più legale, sofisticata, diffusa. Ci accorgiamo ora che ci hanno tolto anche la morte, nel senso che personalmente e collettivamente – noi “vivi” – le diamo, facendo esperienza di quella degli altri, vicini e lontani. Ci hanno tolto anche la morte perché hanno tolto il lutto a chi ha perso una persona cara, la possibilità di piangere un corpo morto, la possibilità di conoscerne il nome, di sapere chi, dove, quando, quanti.

      Probabilmente non sapremo mai quante persone sono affogate nella strage avvenuta tra martedì 13 e mercoledì 14 giugno ad 80 chilometri al largo del porto di Pylos. Gli stessi migranti, al telefono con l’attivista Nawal Soufi, parlavano di 750 persone a bordo, di cui molti bambini. La Guardia costiera ellenica dice 646. Le foto e le informazioni disponibili fino ad ora confermano quest’ordine di grandezza, ma le cifre sono destinate a rimanere indicative. Il naufragio è avvenuto nella zona con il mare più profondo di tutto il Mediterraneo: circa 60 km a sud-ovest di Pylos si trova la Fossa di Calipso, una depressione che supera i 5.000 metri di profondità. Gli esperti dicono che il recupero dei corpi sarà quindi particolarmente difficoltoso, il mare li inghiottirà per sempre. Ad oggi, sono solo 104 i superstiti, difficilmente questo numero aumenterà.

      Oltre la produzione della morte si situa forse l’annullamento, l’annientamento della persona (della vita). Sono parole che, chiaramente, richiamano il nazismo. Non sapere chi, non sapere quanti, non poter riavere i corpi – massivamente e sistematicamente – è qualcosa che, credo, si avvicina all’annientamento.

      I dettagli che iniziano a trapelare dipingono un quadro dei fatti che non solo seppellisce ogni retorica della “tragica fatalità”, ma svela le responsabilità dirette della HCG (Hellenic Coast Guard) nel causare il “capovolgimento” della barca. Come ricostruito dall’attivista Iasonas Apostolopoulos, sulla base delle dichiarazioni del parlamentare Kriton Arsenis, che ha potuto parlare con i sopravvissuti a Kalamata, la HCG avrebbe legato il peschereccio con delle corde e provato a trascinarlo. Sarebbe stato proprio questo tentativo di rimorchio a far ribaltare la barca. Queste ricostruzioni si allineano con i primi racconti di Nawal Soufi.

      https://twitter.com/ABoatReport/status/1669301668259741696/history

      Evidentemente, la differenza – se esiste – tra uccidere e lasciar morire sfuma: non è “solo” indifferenza complice, non è “semplicemente” girarsi dall’altra parte. L’omissione di soccorso è la punta dell’iceberg di un sistema complesso – quello dei confini europei – progettato per annientare la vita. Sistema di cui la guardia costiera è solo un tassello. Non è l’Europa che finge di non vedere, è l’Europa che, strutturalmente, con delle politiche precise e radicate nel tempo, produce morte.

      La versione ufficiale della HCG descrive invece il capovolgimento come frutto di una maldestra manovra – in mare piatto – del peschereccio stesso. Dall’altra parte, puntano tutto sulla colpevolizzazione delle vittime: “Ripetevano costantemente di voler salpare per l’Italia e di non volere alcun aiuto dalla Grecia”, si ribadisce ossessivamente nel comunicato. Ma è assodato che questo improbabile “non volevano essere aiutati”, secondo il diritto del mare, non giustifica il mancato soccorso, come chiarito dall’ordine degli avvocati di Kalamata – che si è offerto di supportare gratuitamente i sopravvissuti. Così come è assodato che la HCG sapeva tutto dalla mattina di martedì 13 giugno, alla luce dell’avvistamento da parte del velivolo di Frontex e degli SOS diffusi da Alarm Phone – pubblicati da wearesolomon – e inoltrati anche ad UNCHR, NATO, e al difensore civico greco.

      Ma non lasciamo non detti: probabilmente l’HCG voleva trascinare il peschereccio in zona SAR maltese o italiana. Questa volontà è stata più forte di quella di salvare 750 vite umane in evidente pericolo. Forse anche per questo, ai giornalisti è stato impedito di parlare con i sopravvissuti. Dopo delle pressioni, è stato permesso solo ai parlamentari.

      Come da copione, nove di loro, egiziani, sono stati arrestati accusati di traffico di esseri umani ed omicidio 1, mentre la maggior parte (71 persone) è stata trasferita nel campo di Malakasa 2, nel “centro di accoglienza e identificazione”: una struttura chiusa, controllata, isolata, priva di supporto psicologico e assistenza medica adeguata. Sono siriani, egiziani, pakistani e palestinesi. Non devono poter raccontare, devono capire che non c’è pietà, che nulla gli sarà concesso.

      Nel porto di Kalamata, sembra di rivivere i giorni di Cutro: arrivano i familiari da tutta Europa e non solo. Alcuni trovano i propri cari, molti non li troveranno. Nessun aiuto da parte dello Stato, nessuna informazione, dicono. Non c’è pace per i vivi, non c’è pace per i morti. Finora sono stati recuperati ed identificati 78 corpi, saranno trasportati con dei camion frigorifero al cimitero di Schisto.

      Intanto, si riempiono le strade della Grecia. Dal porto di Pylos ad Atene, Salonicco, Patrasso, Karditsa, Kalamata, migliaia di persone si sono messe in marcia. Ad Atene, giovedì sera, una marea umana si è scontrata con i soliti gangster in divisa.

      La risposta dello Stato è sempre la stessa, anche con i solidali. Sono piazze commosse ma piene di rabbia. Una rabbia degna. Puntano chiaramente il dito verso gli assassini: non solo la guardia costiera, ma lo Stato greco, l’Unione Europea, Frontex, questo sistema coloniale e razzista.

      Domenica 18 giugno nel pomeriggio un altro corteo, chiamato dalla Open Assembly Against Pushbacks and Border Violence, si muoverà dal Pireo verso gli uffici di Frontex: l’agenzia europea non potrà giocare la parte dei “buoni” che avevano segnalato per tempo la barca in pericolo.

      Dalle strade, si leva una promessa: non dimentichiamo, non perdoniamo.

    • Did migrants reject help before deadly Greek wreck, or beg for it? Coast guard, activists disagree

      This undated handout image provided by Greece’s coast guard on Wednesday, June14, 2023, shows scores of people covering practically every free stretch of deck on a battered fishing boat that later capsized and sank off southern Greece. A fishing boat carrying migrants trying to reach Europe capsized and sank off Greece on Wednesday, authorities said, leaving at least 79 dead and many more missing in one of the worst disasters of its kind this year.(Hellenic Coast Guard via AP)
      1 of 14
      This undated handout image provided by Greece’s coast guard on Wednesday, June14, 2023, shows scores of people covering practically every free stretch of deck on a battered fishing boat that later capsized and sank off southern Greece. A fishing boat carrying migrants trying to reach Europe capsized and sank off Greece on Wednesday, authorities said, leaving at least 79 dead and many more missing in one of the worst disasters of its kind this year.(Hellenic Coast Guard via AP)

      This much is clear: On June 9, an old steel fishing trawler left eastern Libya for Italy, carrying far too many people.

      As many as 750 men, women and children from Syria, Egypt, the Palestinian territories and Pakistan were on board, fleeing hopelessness in their home countries and trying to reach relatives in Europe.

      Five days later, the trawler sank off the coast of Greece in one of the deepest parts of the Mediterranean Sea. Only 104 people, all men, survived. The remains of 78 people were recovered.

      There are still more questions than answers about what led up to one of the worst shipwrecks in recent Mediterranean history.

      Activists, migration experts and opposition politicians have criticized Greek authorities for not acting earlier to rescue the migrants, even though a coast guard vessel escorted the trawler for hours and watched helplessly as it sank.

      Below is a timeline of events based on reports from Greek authorities, a commercial ship, and activists who said they were in touch with passengers. They describe sequences of events that at times converge, but also differ in key ways.

      The Greek Coast Guard said that the overcrowded trawler was moving steadily toward Italy, refusing almost all assistance, until minutes before it sank. This is in part supported by the account of a merchant tanker that was nearby.

      But activists said that people on board were in danger and made repeated pleas for help more than 15 hours before the vessel sank.

      International maritime law and coast guard experts said that conditions on the trawler clearly showed it was at risk, and should have prompted an immediate rescue operation, regardless of what people on board may have said.

      Much of these accounts could not immediately be independently verified.

      Missing from this timeline is the testimony of survivors, who have been transferred to a closed camp and kept away from journalists.

      All times are given in Greece’s time zone.

      FIRST CONTACT

      Around 11 a.m. on Tuesday, Italian authorities informed Greece that a fishing trawler packed with migrants was in international waters southwest of the Peloponnese. Greece said the Italian authorities were alerted by an activist.

      Around the same time, human rights activist Nawal Soufi wrote on social media that she had been contacted by a woman on a boat that had left Libya four days earlier.

      The migrants had run out of water, Soufi wrote, and shared GPS coordinates through a satellite phone showing they were approximately 100 km (62 miles) from Greece.

      “Dramatic situation on board. They need immediate rescue,” she wrote Tuesday morning.

      Over the course of the day, Soufi described some 20 calls with people on the trawler in a series of social media posts and a later audio recording. The Associated Press could not reach Soufi.

      A surveillance aircraft from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency Frontex spotted the overcrowded trawler at 11:47 p.m. and notified Greek authorities, the agency told AP. On Saturday, Frontex told AP its plane had to leave the scene after 10 minutes due to a fuel shortage but that it had also shared with Greece details and photos of the “heavily overcrowded” trawler.

      DIFFERING ACCOUNTS OF CONDITIONS ON BOARD

      At 2 p.m., Greek authorities established contact with someone on the trawler. The vessel “did not request any assistance from the Coast Guard or from Greece,” according to a statement.

      But activists said that people on the boat were already in desperate need by Tuesday afternoon.

      At 3:11 p.m., Soufi wrote, passengers told her that seven people were unconscious.

      Around the same time, Alarm Phone, a network of activists with no connection to Soufi who run a hotline for migrants in need of rescue, said they received a call from a person on the trawler.

      “They say they cannot survive the night, that they are in heavy distress,” Alarm Phone wrote.

      At 3:35 p.m., a Greek Coast Guard helicopter located the trawler. An aerial photo released showed it packed, with people covering almost every inch of the deck.

      From then until 9 p.m., Greek authorities said, they were in contact with people on the trawler via satellite phone, radio, and shouted conversations conducted by merchant vessels and a Coast Guard boat that arrived at night. They added that people on the trawler repeatedly said they wanted to continue to Italy and refused rescue.

      MERCHANT SHIPS BRING SUPPLIES

      At 5:10 p.m., Greek authorities asked a Maltese-flagged tanker called the Lucky Sailor to bring the trawler food and water.

      According to the company that manages the Lucky Sailor, people on the trawler “were very hesitant to receive any assistance,” and shouted that “they want to go to Italy.” Eventually, Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Limited wrote in a statement, the trawler was persuaded to accept supplies.

      Around 6 p.m., a Greek Coast Guard helicopter reported that the trawler was “sailing on a steady course and heading.”

      But at 6:20 p.m., Alarm Phone said that people on board reported that they were not moving, and that the “captain” had abandoned the trawler in a small boat.

      “Please any solution,” someone on board told Alarm Phone.

      The Greek authorities’ account suggested the trawler stopped around that time to receive supplies from the Lucky Sailor.

      At 6:55 p.m., Soufi wrote, migrants on board told her that six people had died and another two were very sick. No other account so far has mentioned deaths prior to the shipwreck, and the AP has not been able to verify this.

      Around 9 p.m., Greek authorities asked a second, Greek-flagged, merchant vessel to deliver water, and allowed the Lucky Sailor to leave.

      Then, at around 10:40 p.m., a Coast Guard boat from Crete reached the trawler, and remained nearby until it sank. According to the Coast Guard, the vessel “discreetly observed” the trawler from a distance. Once again, the Coast Guard said, the trawler did not appear to have any problems and was moving “at a steady course and speed.”

      THE FINAL HOURS

      According to Soufi’s account, attempts to deliver supplies may have contributed to the trawler’s troubles.

      Shortly after 11 p.m., she wrote that the trawler began rocking as its passengers tried to catch water bottles from another vessel. According to people on board, ropes were tied to the ship, destabilizing it and causing a “state of panic,” she said.

      The report from the Lucky Sailor said no lines were tied to the trawler, and supplies were delivered in watertight barrels tied to a rope.

      “Those on board the boat caught the line and pulled,” the company managing the Lucky Sailor told the AP.

      The other merchant vessel did not immediately reply to the AP’s questions.

      A spokesman for the Greek Coast Guard said late Friday that its vessel had briefly attached a light rope to the trawler at around 11 p.m. He stressed that none of the vessels had attempted to tow the trawler.

      Commander Nikos Alexiou told Greek channel Ant1 TV that the Coast Guard wanted to check on the trawler’s condition, but people on board again refused help and untied the rope before continuing course.

      Soufi’s last contact with the trawler was at 11 p.m. She said later in a voice memo that “they never expressed the will to continue sailing to Italy,” or refused assistance from Greece. “They were in danger and needed help.”

      THE WRECK

      According to authorities, the trawler kept moving until 1:40 a.m. Wednesday, when its engine stopped. The Coast Guard vessel then got closer to “determine the problem.”

      A few minutes later, Alarm Phone had a final exchange with people on the trawler. The activists were able to make out only: “Hello my friend … The ship you send is …” before the call cut off.

      At 2:04 a.m., more than 15 hours after Greek authorities first heard of the case, the Coast Guard reported that the trawler began rocking violently from side to side, and then capsized.

      People on deck were thrown into the sea, while others held onto the boat as it flipped. Many others, including women and children, were trapped below deck.

      Fifteen minutes later, the trawler vanished underwater.

      In the darkness of night, 104 people were rescued, and brought to shore on the Mayan Queen IV, a luxury yacht that was sailing in the vicinity of the shipwreck. Greek authorities retrieved 78 bodies. No other people have been found since Wednesday.

      As many as 500 people are missing.

      https://apnews.com/article/migrants-shipwreck-rescue-greece-coast-guard-c160027a00d1ad2f859b97e3e8e7643

    • Après le naufrage, des survivants dénoncent les gardes-côtes grecs et Frontex

      La version officielle grecque sur l’un des pires naufrages en Méditerranée est mise à mal par les témoignages de survivants. Le rôle de Frontex, l’agence européenne chargée des frontières extérieures, est également pointé du doigt. Une enquête a été ouverte.

      Plus de quatre jours après le naufrage d’un bateau de pêche en provenance de Libye, où s’étaient embarquées jusqu’à 750 personnes – notamment des ressortissantes et ressortissants égyptiens, syriens et pakistanais –, l’espoir est mince de retrouver des survivant·es au large des côtes sud de la Grèce.

      Les questions sont nombreuses en particulier sur l’action des gardes-côtes grecs, accusés par certains témoignages d’avoir provoqué l’accident. La Cour suprême grecque a ordonné une enquête sur les circonstances du drame, l’un des pires naufrages en Méditerranée avec des centaines de morts. Pour l’heure, 104 personnes ont été rescapées et 78 corps récupérés.

      Jeudi après-midi, Kriton Arsenis, ancien eurodéputé, a rencontré des survivants dans le port de Kalamata, sur la péninsule du Péloponnèse, en tant que membre de la délégation de Mera25, le parti de Yánis Varoufákis. « Les réfugiés nous ont dit que l’embarcation a chaviré pendant qu’elle était tirée par le bateau des gardes-côtes », a-t-il raconté.

      « Les survivants nous disent que le bateau a basculé alors qu’il faisait l’objet d’une manœuvre où il était tiré par les gardes-côtes helléniques, a déclaré de son côté Vincent Cochetel, envoyé spécial du Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés pour la Méditerranée occidentale et centrale. Ils nous disent qu’il était tiré non pas vers les côtes grecques, mais en dehors de la zone de secours en mer grecque. »

      Ces témoignages vont à l’encontre de la version officielle, qui, jusqu’à vendredi, expliquait que les gardes-côtes n’étaient pas intervenus.

      La Grèce est régulièrement accusée de refouler des migrant·es en mer, provoquant la crainte, derrière une aide supposée, d’être en réalité éloigné·es du territoire – une pratique illégale au regard du droit international maritime et de la Convention de Genève, qui doivent permettre à toute personne en situation de détresse d’être secourue et acheminée vers un port dit « sûr » et de pouvoir, si elle le souhaite, déposer une demande d’asile dans le pays qu’elle tentait de rallier.

      En mai dernier, des révélations du New York Times ont mis en lumière cette pratique, grâce à une vidéo d’un « push-back » prise sur le fait. Mediapart avait documenté un cas semblable en 2022, qui avait provoqué la mort de deux demandeurs d’asile.
      Le patron de Frontex sur place

      Le rôle de Frontex, l’agence européenne chargée des frontières extérieures, est également mis en question, car selon les autorités portuaires grecques, un avion de surveillance de Frontex avait repéré le bateau mardi après-midi mais les secours ne sont pas intervenus car les passagers ont « refusé toute aide ». Son patron Hans Leijtens s’est rendu à Kalamata pour établir les faits et « mieux comprendre ce qui s’est passé car Frontex a joué un rôle » dans ce naufrage « horrible ».

      « On ne demande pas aux personnes à bord d’un bateau à la dérive s’ils veulent de l’aide […], il aurait fallu une aide immédiate », a affirmé pour sa part à la télévision grecque ERT Nikos Spanos, expert international des incidents maritimes. D’après Alexis Tsipras, le chef de l’opposition grecque de gauche, qui s’est entretenu avec des rescapés, « il y a eu un appel à l’aide ».

      Le HCR et l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), deux agences des Nations unies, se sont félicités des enquêtes « qui ont été ordonnées en Grèce sur les circonstances qui ont conduit au chavirement du bateau et à la perte de tant de vies », tout en rappelant que « le devoir de secourir sans délai les personnes en détresse en mer est une règle fondamentale du droit maritime international ».

      Le HCR et l’OIM ont rappelé vendredi que depuis le début de l’année, au moins 72 778 migrants sont arrivés en Europe (dont 54 205 en Italie), par les routes migratoires en Méditerranée orientale, centrale, et occidentale ou par le nord-ouest de l’Afrique. Dans le même temps, au moins 1 037 migrants sont morts ou portés disparus.

      Neuf Égyptiens ont été arrêtés dans le port de Kalamata. Ils sont âgés de 20 à 40 ans et soupçonnés de « trafic illégal » d’êtres humains. Parmi les suspects, qui devraient comparaître lundi devant le juge d’instruction, figure le capitaine de l’embarcation qui a chaviré, d’après une source portuaire à l’AFP.

      Areti Glezou, travailleuse sociale au sein de l’ONG grecque Thalpo était en première ligne aux côtés des rescapés. Manifestement choquée, elle se souviendra longtemps de certains détails à glacer le sang. « Un homme me racontait qu’il a nagé pendant deux heures au côté de corps d’enfants avant d’être secouru. » Elle s’arrête, reprend son souffle et, les larmes aux yeux, elle poursuit : « Oui, ça, ils me l’ont tous dit, les cales étaient remplies de femmes et d’enfants. » Aucun n’aura été retrouvé vivant.

      Plus de 120 Syriens se trouvaient à bord et un grand nombre d’entre eux sont portés disparus, ont indiqué vendredi à l’AFP des membres de leurs familles et des militants locaux. La plupart sont originaires de la province instable de Deraa dans le sud du pays. Berceau du soulèvement antirégime déclenché en 2011, elle est revenue sous le contrôle des forces gouvernementales en juillet 2018. Plusieurs d’entre eux ont gagné la Libye, d’où était parti le bateau, en transitant par des pays voisins comme le Liban, la Jordanie ou encore l’Arabie saoudite.

      Vendredi matin, on a cependant vu des larmes de joie sur le port de Kalamata. Des deux côtés des barrières qui entourent le hangar où logent les rescapés, deux frères se sont aperçus. Fardi a retrouvé Mohamed vivant. Le grand a retrouvé le petit. Autour d’eux les sourires fleurissent sur les visages. Pour quelques brefs instants, journalistes, humanitaires et hommes en uniformes redeviennent d’abord des êtres humains. Comme un rayon de lumière qui illumine soudain un océan de tristesse.

      Une demi-heure plus tard, des bus viennent chercher les rescapés pour les emmener au camp de Malakasa dans la région d’Athènes. Le hangar est désormais vide.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/170623/apres-le-naufrage-des-survivants-denoncent-les-gardes-cotes-grecs-et-front

    • Naufrage de migrants en Méditerranée : ce que l’on sait sur les responsabilités des garde-côtes grecs

      Depuis le naufrage dramatique qui a fait 78 morts et possiblement plusieurs centaines d’autres mercredi 14 juin, les critiques ciblent l’absence d’intervention préalable des gardes-côtes grecs. Ces derniers rejettent la faute sur les passagers du navire.

      Le naufrage d’un bateau de migrants mercredi 14 juin avec des centaines de personnes à bord, au large de la Grèce, a soulevé de nombreuses questions sur les responsabilités des autorités. Voici ce que l’on sait depuis que ce chalutier vétuste a chaviré et coulé dans les eaux internationales, faisant au moins 78 morts.
      L’opération de sauvetage

      Les garde-côtes grecs ont affirmé mercredi matin « avoir été prévenus mardi par les autorités italiennes concernant un bateau avec à bord un grand nombre d’étrangers ». Des patrouilleurs grecs ont été mobilisés pour le repérer. « C’est un appareil aérien de Frontex [la décriée agence européenne de gardes-frontières, ndlr] qui a le premier repéré le bateau mardi après-midi, puis deux bateaux qui naviguaient dans la zone », selon les garde-côtes.

      Nawal Soufi, une bénévole travaillant pour la ligne téléphonique d’assistance à des migrants en danger Alarm Phone, assure sur son compte Facebook avoir reçu un SOS d’un bateau avec 750 personnes à bord en provenance de Libye.

      A 22 h 40 mardi, le chalutier notifie une panne du moteur. Le patrouilleur à proximité « a immédiatement tenté d’approcher le chalutier pour déterminer le problème », ont noté les garde-côtes. Vingt-quatre minutes plus tard, le patron du patrouilleur a annoncé par radio que le bateau avait chaviré. Il a coulé en quinze minutes.
      La défausse grecque contre les migrants

      Selon les garde-côtes grecs, « il n’y a pas eu de demande d’aide » des personnes à bord du bateau de pêche. « Après de nombreux appels du centre opérationnel des garde-côtes grecs pour les secourir, la réponse du bateau de pêche a été négative », selon le communiqué. « La salle des opérations […] a été en contact répété avec le bateau de pêche. Ils ont constamment répété qu’ils souhaitaient naviguer vers l’Italie », selon la même source.

      Le porte-parole du gouvernement a également expliqué vendredi que « les garde-côtes se sont rapprochés du bateau, ils ont jeté une corde pour le stabiliser, mais les migrants ont refusé l’aide ». « Ils disaient ‘‘No help, Go Italy’’ [’’Pas d’aide, on va en Italie’’, ndlr] », a-t-il ajouté.

      Pour sa part, le porte-parole de la police portuaire Nikolaos Alexiou a souligné qu’on ne pouvait « pas remorquer un bateau avec un si grand nombre de gens à bord par la force, il faut qu’ils coopèrent ».

      Selon un réfugié syrien en Allemagne, Reber Hebun, arrivé en Grèce pour retrouver son frère de 24 ans, survivant du naufrage, « les garde-côtes grecs n’ont rien fait pour les aider au début alors qu’ils étaient près d’eux », a-t-il dit après avoir parlé avec son frère. « Un bateau commercial a donné de l’eau et de la nourriture et tout le monde s’est précipité, le bateau a été déstabilisé à ce moment », selon lui.
      Les critiques envers les garde-côtes grecs

      Des experts et des ONG ont mis en cause les garde-côtes grecs qui auraient dû intervenir quoi qu’il arrive, selon eux. Pour Vincent Cochetel, envoyé spécial du Haut-Commissariat de l’ONU pour les réfugiés (HCR) pour la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale, « l’argument grec selon lequel les personnes ne voulaient pas être secourues pour poursuivre leur route vers l’Italie ne tient pas ». « C’est aux autorités grecques qu’il incombait de procéder ou, au moins, de coordonner une opération de sauvetage, en utilisant soit leurs propres navires de sauvetage soit en faisant appel à tout autre bateau sur zone, y compris à des navires marchands », a-t-il jugé. « Selon le droit maritime international, les autorités grecques auraient dû coordonner plus tôt cette opération de sauvetage, dès lors que Frontex avait repéré ce bateau en détresse », a-t-il poursuivi.

      « On ne demande pas aux personnes à bord d’un bateau à la dérive s’ils veulent de l’aide […] il aurait fallu une aide immédiate », a critiqué pour sa part Nikos Spanos, expert international des incidents maritimes.

      Hans Leijtens, le patron de Frontex, s’est rendu jeudi à Kalamata pour chercher à « mieux comprendre ce qui s’est passé car Frontex a joué un rôle » dans cet « horrible » naufrage.

      Vendredi, l’ONU a demandé des investigations rapides et des mesures « urgentes et décisives » pour éviter de nouveaux drames. « Il doit avoir une enquête approfondie sur les événements qui se sont déroulés au cours de cette tragédie. Et j’espère que nous pourrons trouver des réponses et apprendre de l’expérience », a souligné Jeremy Laurence, porte-parole du Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l’homme.
      Des centaines de personnes à bord

      78 corps ont jusqu’ici été retrouvés en mer au large des côtes de la péninsule du Péloponnèse, selon les garde-côtes grecs, et 104 personnes ont pu être secourues à temps. Mais le bilan serait en réalité bien plus lourd. Le porte-parole du gouvernement grec, Ilias Siakantaris, avait assuré mercredi que des informations non confirmées faisaient état de 750 personnes à bord du chalutier. L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) « redoute que des centaines de personnes supplémentaires » se soient noyées « dans l’une des tragédies les plus dévastatrices en Méditerranée en une décennie ».

      Parmi les personnes qui se trouvaient à bord, figuraient notamment plus 120 Syriens, et un grand nombre d’entre eux sont portés disparus, ont déploré vendredi des membres de leurs familles et des militants locaux. La plupart de ces migrants sont originaires de la province instable de Deraa dans le sud de la Syrie. Plusieurs d’entre eux ont gagné la Libye, d’où était parti le bateau, en transitant par des pays voisins comme le Liban, la Jordanie ou encore l’Arabie Saoudite, selon les mêmes sources.

      Les recherches se poursuivent mais les espoirs de retrouver des survivants s’amenuisent, trois jours après le drame. De nombreuses femmes et enfants auraient voyagé dans la cale du navire, qui a sombré dans une zone de la Méditerranée de plusieurs milliers de mètres de profondeur, la fosse Calypso.

      Par ailleurs, 9 personnes de nationalité égyptienne soupçonnées d’être des passeurs ont été arrêtées à la suite du drame.

      https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/naufrage-de-migrants-en-mediterranee-ce-que-lon-sait-sur-les-responsabili

    • Message de Vicky Skoumbi envoyé sur la mailing-list de Migreurop, le 18 juin 2023 :

      une vidéo glaçante avec un #témoignage de survivants qui fait état de la #responsabilité criminelle des #garde-côtes_grecs, avec la traduction d’un post d’Iasonas Apostolopoulos

      https://www.facebook.com/519820384/videos/5877893008981441

      « Les garde-côtes grecs se sont approchés de nous et nous ont lancé une corde bleue. Ils ont commencé à nous remorquer. La façon dont ils nous tiraient n’était pas correcte. Nous criions. Le navire a alors commencé à prendre de la gîte sur la gauche, les garde-côtes se sont tournés vers le côté opposé et notre navire a commencé à prendre de la gîte sur le côté et à couler.

      Nous essayions de grimper sur le bateau, nous voulions survivre.

      Les garde-côtes ont détaché la corde. Nous criions à l’aide. Ils ont fait tourner leur navire, créant une grosse vague, et notre bateau a complètement chaviré. Les personnes qui se trouvaient sur le côté du bateau se sont retrouvées en dessous. Nous pouvions entendre les gens dans la cale frapper sur la tôle en fer.

      Le bateau a complètement coulé ».

      –—

      Le journaliste Fallah Elias de la chaîne allemande WDR a partagé sur Twitter le témoignage absolument choquant et horrifiant d’un naufragé secouru.

      https://twitter.com/falahelias/status/1670127871170322432

      Dans la vidéo, d’autres survivants pakistanais confirment que les garde-côtes grecs ont fait couler le bateau en le remorquant.

      Ni une, ni deux, ni trois, de nombreux témoignages désignent le gouvernement grec et les garde-côtes comme les seuls responsables du naufrage et de la noyade de centaines de personnes à Pylos. Au lieu de les secourir, ils ont tiré le bateau avec une corde jusqu’à ce qu’il chavire. Probablement pour les faire sortir de la zone de sauvetage grecque.

      Selon certaines informations, une centaine d’enfants figureraient parmi les morts.

      Si tout cela est vrai, il s’agit du plus grand homicide de l’histoire de l’Europe d’après-guerre.

      NE LAISSONS PAS L’AFFAIRE ÊTRE ÉTOUFFÉE !

      https://twitter.com/falahelias/status/1670127871170322432?s=46&t=0dqDdxigZeccg_TvNxhfAA

    • Möglicherweise waren Push-Backs der Küstenwache Schuld am Bootsunglück in Griechenland

      Es gibt Vorwürfe, dass das Boot mit Geflüchteten vor Griechenland wegen Push-Backs der griechischen Küstenwache gesunken ist. WDR-Journalist Bamdad Esmaili berichtet im Interview, was Überlebende des Unglücks erzählen.

      Nach dem Bootsunglück vor Griechenland mit hunderten Toten gibt es schwere Vorwürfe gegen die griechische Küstenwache, das Unglück verursacht zu haben. Die Rede ist von so genannten Push-Backs. Darunter versteht man Maßnahmen, mit denen flüchtende Menschen daran gehindert werden, die Grenze zu übertreten und einen Asylantrag zu stellen. In der EU-Grundrechte-Charta wird das Recht auf Asyl gemäß der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention allerdings garantiert.

      Die Küstenwache weist den Vorwurf von Push-Backs zurück - jetzt soll die europäische Polizeibehörde Europol ermitteln. WDR-Journalist Bamdad Esmaili ist in Griechenland und hat mit seinem Team mit Überlebenden sprechen können.

      WDR: Es gibt Vorwürfe gegen die griechische Küstenwache. Worum geht es da?

      Bamdad Esmaili: Es geht darum, dass es Vorwürfe gibt, dass die griechische Küstenwache dieses Boot in die Richtung von italienischem Gewässer gezogen hat - dass sie es sozusagen gepushbackt hat. Diesen Vorwurf hatten wir bislang nur gehört, gestern Abend gelang es meinem Kollegen, der arabisch spricht, dann mit ungefähr zehn überlebenden Geflüchteten zu sprechen. Sie haben unabhängig voneinander berichtet, dass dieses Boot tatsächlich gezogen wurde - nicht nur einmal, nicht nur zweimal, sondern insgesamt dreimal. Und dabei ist das Schiff dann ins Wanken gekommen und ist gesunken.

      WDR: Das heißt, das Ziehen dieses Bootes, der Versuch es nach Italien zu ziehen und damit aus der Zuständigkeit Griechenlands herauszuholen, ist für dieses Unglück - so scheint es zumindest im Moment - verantwortlich?

      Esmaili: Das ist der Vorwurf, der im Raum steht. Das muss natürlich erstmal bewiesen werden. Die Griechen lehnen das vehement ab und dementieren das. Sie sagen nach wie vor immer noch, dass sie Hilfe angeboten haben und das Schiff habe diese Hilfe nicht gewollt, weil sie demnach nach Italien wollten.

      WDR: Wir können davon ausgehen, dass es jetzt eine größere Untersuchung geben wird. Wie wird in Griechenland darüber diskutiert, was hören Sie da?

      Esmaili: Das ist zum Politikum geworden, weil nächste Woche Parlamentswahlen in Griechenland sind. Vor allem die Opposition nutzt dieses Thema jetzt aus und kritisiert die Regierung. Und es ist für drei Tage eine Staatstrauer angeordnet worden. Es gibt auch Proteste, Kundgebungen, es gab einen Trauermarsch in Athen, also das ist ein Riesenthema hier in Griechenland.

      WDR: Sie haben erwähnt, dass Sie mit Überlebenden sprechen konnten. Wie haben diese denn die Situation auf dem Schiff beschrieben? Abgesehen von der Frage, ob sie gezogen wurden und damit das Unglück ausgelöst wurde.

      Esmaili: Man muss sich das so vorstellen: Ein Schiff, das 30 Meter lang ist, war völlig überfüllt. Die Überlebenden erzählen uns, dass sie von den Schleppern gehört haben, dass 747 Personen auf diesem Schiff waren. Deswegen ist auch immer von knapp 750 Personen die Rede und die waren überall: Unten, oben auf dem Deck, seit Tagen unterwegs, ohne Nahrung, ohne Wasser. Da kann man sich vorstellen, wie die Stimmung auf dem Schiff war.

      WDR: Das heißt, man muss davon ausgehen, dass das Unglück zu hunderten Toten geführt hat. Was geschieht jetzt mit den Menschen, die gerettet wurden - auch mit denen, mit denen Sie gesprochen haben?

      Esmaili: Wir sind jetzt in Malakasa in der Nähe von Athen und dort sind 71 Personen untergebracht, die kommen ganz normal ins Asylverfahren. Knapp 30 Personen sind noch in Kalamata im Krankenhaus, die werden behandelt und dann kommen sie vermutlich auch ins ganz normale Asylverfahren.

      WDR: Ganz normale Asylverfahren nach dem, was sie erlebt haben, das ist sicherlich auch eine schwierige Situation. Wurde die Suche nach Überlebenden denn inzwischen eingestellt?

      Esmaili: Das kann ich so nicht bestätigen. Wir haben gestern Abend noch gehört, dass noch weiter gesucht wird, aber natürlich kann man nach so vielen Tagen und bei so vielen Menschen davon ausgehen, dass man kaum noch Überlebende aus dem Meer retten kann. Rund 100 Kinder sollen auch mit an Bord gewesen sein.

      https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/bootsunglueck-mittelmeer-interview-bamdad-esmaili-100.html

    • Frontex statement following tragic shipwreck off Pylos

      We are shocked and saddened by the tragic events that unfolded off the coast of Greece. The Frontex Executive Director, who travelled to Greece after learning about the tragedy, has offered any support the authorities may need.

      People smugglers have once again trifled with human lives by forcing several hundred migrants on a fishing boat not designed to fit such a number of people. Many were trapped underneath the deck. Our thoughts go out to the families of the victims.

      On 13 June before noon, a Frontex plane spotted the fishing vessel inside the Greek search and rescue region in international waters. The ship was heavily overcrowded and was navigating at slow speed (6 knots) direction north-east.

      Frontex immediately informed the Greek and Italian authorities about the sighting, providing them with information about the condition of the vessel, speed and photos.

      The plane kept monitoring the vessel, constantly providing updates to all relevant national authorities until it ran out of fuel and had to return to base.

      As a Frontex drone was to patrol the Aegean on the same day, the agency offered to provide additional assistance ahead of the planned and scheduled flight. The Greek authorities asked the agency to send the drone to another search and rescue incident south off Crete with 80 people in danger.

      The drone, after attending to the incident south off Crete, flew to the last known position of the fishing vessel. The drone arrived at the scene four hours later at 04:05 (UTC) in the morning, when a large-scale search and rescue operation by Greek authorities was ongoing and there was no sign of the fishing boat. No Frontex plane or boat was present at the time of the tragedy.

      https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/frontex-statement-following-tragic-shipwreck-off-pylos-dJ5l9p

      –-
      Commentaire de Lena K. sur twitter :

      This might be important. According to Frontex, they offered a drone to fly over the location of the Pylos shipwreck in the evening of 13th, but the Greek authorities decided to send it to another distress incident south of Crete. Convenient (for both).

      https://twitter.com/lk2015r/status/1670143075040088068

    • Naufrage en Grèce : le bateau dérivait, contrairement à la version des garde-côtes

      Que s’est-il passé dans les heures précédant le terrible naufrage au large du Péloponnèse ? Les garde-côtes grecs affirment que le chalutier bondé faisait route vers l’Italie à une vitesse régulière et n’avait pas besoin d’être secouru. Une enquête de la BBC affirme le contraire : le chalutier était à l’arrêt et nécessitait une aide urgente.

      Version contre version. Depuis le terrible naufrage du mercredi 13 juin au large de la Grèce, qui a coûté la vie à au moins 500 personnes (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/49759/au-moins-200-pakistanais-parmi-les-victimes-du-naufrage-en-grece), les autorités grecques campent sur leurs positions : le chalutier, qui comptait au moins 700 exilés à bord, n’était pas en danger imminent. Du moins, pas dans les heures précédant le naufrage.

      Selon le communiqué officiel du Premier ministre grec (https://www.primeminister.gr/2023/06/14/32002), Kyriakos Mitsotakis, le bateau, parti de Tobrouk en Libye, naviguait en direction de l’Italie. « À 15h35, le navire de pêche a été repéré par l’hélicoptère de la Garde côtière [grecque] naviguant à vitesse régulière », peut-on lire sur le communiqué. Il avait été repéré pour la première fois vers 11h du matin, et depuis, les autorités grecques le surveillait à distance. Pourquoi ne pas le secourir immédiatement ? Parce qu’il ne semblait pas en difficulté, se défendent les Grecs. « Le navire navigu[ait] avec un cap et une vitesse constantes », écrivent-ils dans leur rapport.

      Cette ligne de défense sera la même tout au long de la journée. À partir de 15h30 jusqu’à 21h, les autorités helléniques affirment avoir été à de nombreuses reprises en communication avec le bateau via téléphone satellite. À chaque fois, les garde-côtes notent que le chalutier navigue à vitesse régulière. Et que les exilés ne réclament aucune aide. « Les migrants criaient : ’Pas d’aide, on va en Italie’ », expliquait déjà vendredi 16 juin le porte-parole des garde-côtes grecs, Nikos Alexiou.

      Dans un autre communiqué publié le 19 juin (https://www.hcg.gr/el/drasthriothtes/dieykriniseis-anaforika-me-eyreia-epixeirhsh-ereynas-kai-diaswshs-allodapwn-se-d), Athènes maintient sa position et affirme que le bateau a parcouru une distance de 24 nautiques marins - soit 44 km - depuis le moment où il a été repéré jusqu’à son naufrage.

      « Le navire ne bouge pas »

      Seulement, l’enquête menée par la BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65942426) contredit la version grecque. Grâce aux coordonnées GPS des autres navires présents dans la zone méditerranéenne, la BBC est arrivée à la conclusion que le bateau n’a pas bougé entre 18h et 21h, mardi 13 juin. Un premier chalutier – le Lucky sailor – s’en est approché, sur ordre des garde-côtes grecs, à 18h pour lui fournir des vivres et de l’eau. Trois heures plus tard, c’est au même point de coordonnées maritimes qu’un second navire – le Faithfull Warrior - s’est rendu pour un autre ravitaillement.

      Et la BBC de continuer. « Une vidéo – qui aurait été tournée depuis le Faithful Warrior – prétend montrer des vivres livrés au navire via une corde dans l’eau. La BBC a vérifié ces images et a découvert que le navire - qui ne bouge pas – correspond à la forme du navire de migrants en détresse. Les conditions météorologiques correspondent à celles signalées à l’époque. »

      Pourtant, dans le dernier communiqué du 19 juin, les Grecs ne parlent pas d’immobilisation du navire. « Dans la soirée, le navire de patrouille côtière [...] est arrivé dans la région et a repéré [le chalutier] se déplaçant par ses propres moyens, à faible vitesse », maintiennent-ils.

      Et d’insister. Lors des deux ravitaillements, le navire a dans un premier temps poursuivi sa route avant de finalement s’arrêter. « Une fois le processus [de ravitaillement] terminé, les occupants du bateau ont commencé à jeter les fournitures à la mer », notent-ils encore dans leur document.

      « Navire secoué par le vent et les vagues »

      Enfin, à 22h40, les garde-côtes affirment s’être approché du chalutier tout en restant « à distance ». Là encore, ils ne détectent aucun problème de navigation. Et proposent de l’aide au navire en difficulté. « [Le chalutier] s’est de nouveau arrêté quelques minutes à l’approche [de la garde-côtière] puis a continué son chemin ».

      Entre le dernier ravitaillement et l’immobilisation du chalutier - à cause d’une panne mécanique -, une distance d’environ 6 mille nautiques (11 km) a été parcouru. À aucun moment, selon Athènes, le navire n’a donc été immobile.

      À l’échelle de la Méditerranée, ces dizaines de mille nautiques parcourus par le chalutier ne signifie pas qu’il naviguait de plein gré, insiste la BBC. Mais plutôt qu’il se déplaçait à peine « ce que l’on peut attendre d’un navire en détresse secoué par le vent et les vagues dans la partie la plus profonde de la mer Méditerranée », explique la BBC. Selon le média, les garde-côtes auraient donc dû procéder au sauvetage.

      Vers 2h du matin, dans la nuit du mardi à mercredi, le bateau fera naufrage. Le bilan provisoire fait toujours état de 78 morts, et des centaines de disparus.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/49764/naufrage-en-grece--le-bateau-derivait-contrairement-a-la-version-des-g

    • Il video di Frontex e quel barcone stracarico in balia del mare

      Nel video di Frontex il barcone stracarico di migranti in navigazione tra la Libia, da dove era partito quattro giorni prima, e l’Europa. Le immagini sono state registrate il 13 giugno alle ore 9.48 Utc. Il naufragio è avvenuto la notte tra il 13 e il 14 giugno.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Drz5OVIkWi0&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fw

      Salgono a 80 le vittime accertate del tragico naufragio avvenuto a sud del Peloponneso, in Grecia, la settimana scorsa. I soccorsi hanno recuperato i corpi di altri due uomini a largo di Pylos. Le persone tratte in salvo sono ancora 104, mentre mancano all’appello almeno 600 persone, tra cui 100 bambini che al momento del naufragio si trovavano nella stiva. I corpi sono stati trasportati nel porto di Kalamata. Proseguono intanto le ricerche della Guardia costiera.

      Il racconto di un sopravvissuto

      «La Guardia costiera greca ci ha detto che ci avrebbe portato in acque italiane, che ci stavano spingendo. Era una nave da guerra. Poi la nostra barca si è ribaltata. Sono finito in mare, urlavo, non hanno fatto nulla per salvarci. Ho cercato di rimanere a galla per mezz’ora poi quando sono arrivate le barche della Guardia costiera mi sono allontanato perchè avevo paura. Ho visto la luce di una nave commerciale in lontananza e l’ho raggiunta». E’ la testimonianza-choc che sta circolando in queste ore su twitter. Si Tratta di un sopravvissuto siriano che racconta cosa è successo quella notte, fra martedì e mercoledì di una settimana fa, quando il barcone, partito dalla Libia, si è inabissando portandosi dietro almeno 600 persone (fra cui 100 bambini).

      La ricostruzione della Guardia costiera greca
      «In totale, il peschereccio ha percorso una distanza di circa 30 miglia nautiche dal momento del rilevamento al momento dell’affondamento» ha dichiarato la Guardia costiera greca in un comunicato. «Il chiarimento», precisa la nota, arriva a seguito delle «pubblicazioni della stampa internazionale e nazionale» secondo cui il peschereccio sovraffollato non si è mosso per almeno 7 ore prima di capovolgersi. «Nelle ore pomeridiane» di martedì 13 giugno, l’imbarcazione dei migranti «è stata avvicinata da una nave cisterna per fornire assistenza», continua il comunicato della Guardia costiera costiera sul naufragio del peschereccio a largo di Pylos. Nel testo si specifica nuovamente che i migranti a bordo avevano fatto resistenza e che poi il peschereccio si è fermato ed «è iniziato il rifornimento di viveri». Dalle ricostruzioni delle autorità elleniche si legge anche che una seconda nave cisterna si è impegnata ad avvicinarsi all’imbarcazione dei migranti per fornire provviste, ma il peschereccio avrebbe fatto resistenza e si sarebbe spostato verso ovest. Alla fine, la nave cisterna ha iniziato la procedura di rifornimento ma al termine di questa i migranti «hanno iniziato a gettare le provviste in mare». «L’intero processo di rifornimento di provviste agli occupanti del peschereccio da parte delle due navi commerciali è durato in totale più di quattro ore e trenta minuti», aggiunge la Guardia costiera, specificando che «nelle ore serali» è arrivata nella zona una loro motovedetta e «ha avvistato il peschereccio che si muoveva autonomamente, a bassa velocità». Secondo la ricostruzione delle autorità elleniche, la motovedetta «ha avviato una procedura di avvicinamento all’imbarcazione per accertarsi delle condizioni attuali del natante e dei suoi occupanti», mentre «la nave si è fermata di nuovo per alcuni minuti durante l’avvicinamento da parte della motovedetta e poi ha continuato la sua rotta».
      «Dal momento in cui è stato completato il processo di rifornimento fino all’immobilizzazione del peschereccio a causa di un guasto meccanico, il peschereccio ha percorso una distanza di circa 6 miglia nautiche» conclude la Guardia costiera greca.

      Islamabad: 300 cittadini pachistani annegati a Pylos
      Più di 300 pachistani sono annegati nel naufragio del peschereccio al largo delle coste greche del Peloponneso: il numero delle vittime è stato reso noto dal presidente del Senato di Islamabad Muhammad Sadiq Sanjrani inviando le condoglianze alle famiglie. Lo scrive la Cnn. «I nostri pensieri e le nostre preghiere sono con voi e preghiamo che le anime defunte trovino la pace eterna», ha detto Sanjrani. «Questo devastante incidente sottolinea l’urgenza di affrontare e condannare l’esecrabile traffico illegale di esseri umani». Le autorità greche non hanno ancora confermato il bilancio delle vittime pakistane.

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/naufragio-in-grecia-la-versione-dei-greci

    • A survivor of #Pylos shipwreck shared harrowing details:

      ➡️Two people died from thirst and hunger on the 4th and 5th days of the journey
      ➡️On the 4th day, people started drinking from the boat engine’s water. On the 5th day, a state of “slow death” was announced

      ➡️On 16 June, they started calling for any coastguard as they didn’t know they were in the Greek waters.
      ➡️A luxury yacht provided 4 boxes of water for almost 750 people & this created tension between people due to thirst.

      ➡️A giant Greek ship threw ropes to people & towed the boat. Then, they started throwing water bottles at them leading to an imbalance in the boat
      ➡️The boat started sinking. We started to beg to be rescued and showed them the dead bodies but the ship wasn’t qualified for rescue

      ➡️Around sunset, a Greek military ship with masked people wearing black approached, towed them with only one blue robe & increased their ship’s speed
      ➡️That was when the ship capsized. People started shouting as they sink. People on the Greek military ship were just watching
      Full testimony here:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOzLIXa1cQ8

      https://twitter.com/ecre/status/1670739249417560064

    • I superstiti del naufragio di Pylos accusano la Guardia costiera greca

      Nella notte tra il 13 e il 14 giugno le autorità greche avrebbero tentato di trainare il peschereccio partito dalla Libia con a bordo oltre 700 persone, provocandone l’inabissamento. Le testimonianze dei sopravvissuti, confinati subito dopo aver toccato terra, smontano la versione di Atene. Le vittime sarebbero almeno 643

      Secondo diverse testimonianze dei sopravvissuti il peschereccio con oltre 700 persone a bordo è affondato al largo delle coste greche, nelle prime ore di mercoledì 21 giugno, durante un tentativo fallito di rimorchio da parte della Guardia costiera greca. L’accusa è contenuta nelle dichiarazioni rilasciate da alcuni naufraghi all’autorità giudiziaria di Kalamata, città meridionale greca –visionate dall’Ap news (https://apnews.com/article/greece-migrant-shipwreck-smugglers-9daf86915e8bd89a1697dd1ee75504ac) e dal quotidiano ellenico Kathimerini- che smentiscono la versione delle autorità greche secondo cui la barca non sarebbe stata scortata nelle sue ultime ore di navigazione e non ci sarebbe stato alcun tentativo di abbordarla.

      “La nave greca ha gettato una corda ed è stata legata alla nostra prua -ha spiegato Abdul Rahman Alhaz, 24 anni, palestinese che è riuscito a salvarsi-. Dopo hanno iniziato a muoversi e a tirare, per poco più di due minuti. Noi gridavamo ‘Stop, stop’ perché la barca era sovraccarica. Poi ha cominciato a inclinarsi”.

      L’inabissamento del peschereccio partito dalla Libia avrebbe provocato almeno 643 vittime, secondo quanto è stato possibile ricostruire dalle testimonianze dei 104 sopravvissuti. Sarebbero 100 i bambini, sempre secondo i racconti di chi si è salvato dal naufragio, che con le donne erano stipati nella stiva della nave. Sulle dinamiche dell’incidente, però, fin da subito erano emersi versioni contrastanti.

      Un’inchiesta realizzata dalla BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65942426) mostra che il peschereccio sovraffollato non si è mosso per almeno sette ore prima di capovolgersi mentre la guardia costiera, invece, nel comunicato stampa rilasciato successivamente al naufragio sottolinea che dalle 15.30 all’1.40 la navigazione è proseguita a “velocità e rotta costante”. La versione della BBC si basa sui dati di Marin traffic, che traccia i movimenti delle imbarcazioni nel Mediterraneo, e che confermerebbe che le navi inviate dalle autorità greche per fornire supporto all’imbarcazione carica di naufraghi siano intervenute tutte nella stessa zona e che quindi la nave avrebbe percorso “meno di poche miglia nautiche, come ci si può aspettare da una nave colpita dal vento o dalle onde nella parte più profonda del Mar Mediterraneo”. Inoltre, sempre secondo la testata inglese, la foto dell’imbarcazione pubblicata dai guardacoste ellenici giovedì 15 giugno, riferita a poche ore prima del capovolgimento, dimostra che la nave era ferma e soprattutto smentisce la versione secondo cui le stesse autorità “avevano osservato da una distanza discreta il susseguirsi dei fatti”.

      “Abbiamo lanciato una richiesta di soccorso il giorno prima del naufragio verso le 8 del mattino -ha raccontato un sopravvissuto alla Ong Consolidated rescue group- (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOzLIXa1cQ8

      ). Non sapevamo neanche che fossimo in Grecia”. Alle 9.47 del mattino Frontex, l’Agenzia che sorveglia le frontiere europee, ha comunicato alle autorità italiane e greche la presenza di un peschereccio sovraffollato e la Centrale operativa di Roma intorno alle 11 ha comunicato la posizione della nave, nel Sud del Peloponneso, al centro operativo di Atene. Alle 13.50 da Mitilini si è alzato un elicottero della Guardia costiera greca diretto verso il peschereccio, raggiunto verso le 15.35. Le stesse autorità greche, intanto, stavano chiedendo alle imbarcazioni che navigavano nell’area di cambiare rotta. “Una barca ci ha rifornito di quattro boxes d’acqua da sei bottiglie l’una: le persone si colpivano per prenderla -continua il sopravvissuto-. Questa nave ci ha lanciato una corda per avvicinarci ma ci ha detto che non era loro compito salvarci e che presto sarebbe arrivata la Guardia costiera”. La situazione a bordo era tesa, racconta sempre l’uomo intervistato dal Consolidated rescue group, al quarto giorno di navigazione non c’era né acqua né cibo, due persone erano morte e giacevano sul vascello: al quinto giorno, quello precedente al naufragio, qualcuno beveva dal motore perché l’acqua era finita. Ma anche nel racconto dell’uomo quello che succede al calar del sole di martedì scorso, dopo l’intervento delle navi civili, ripercorre le testimonianze di decine di altri naufraghi. “La Guardia costiera, una volta arrivata, ci ha detto di seguirli così l’Italia ci avrebbe salvato. Lo abbiamo fatto per mezz’ora, poi il motore si è rotto. Erano vestiti di nero e mascherati, senza segni militari. Ci hanno tirati con una corta e poi sono ripartiti, la nave ha perso stabilità e poco dopo è affondata”.

      Da Atene le autorità hanno dichiarato che i naufraghi hanno più volte rifiutato il loro intervento perché volevano proseguire verso l’Italia. Diverse testimonianze dei naufraghi smentiscono questa versione. Nawal Soufi, attivista rifugiata indipendente che quel giorno ha lanciato per prima l’Sos per la barca in avaria, ha dichiarato di essere stata in contatto con le persone sulla barca fino alle 23 di martedì. “L’uomo con cui stavo parlando mi ha detto espressamente: ‘Sento che questa sarà la nostra ultima notte viva’”, ha scritto. Poco prima di mezzanotte il motore si è spento.

      El Pais (https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-06-20/greece-imposes-silence-around-shipwreck-of-overcrowded-migrant-boat.) ha accusato le autorità greche di “imporre il silenzio” ai sopravvissuti al naufragio. Durante la loro permanenza nel porto di Kalamata, i 104 naufraghi avevano infatti mobilità limitata e scarso accesso alle comunicazioni: la Guardia costiera, secondo quanto ricostruito dal quotidiano spagnolo, li avrebbe confinati all’interno di un complesso recintato da cui non è stato permesso loro di uscire. Successivamente, venerdì 16 giugno, sono stati trasferiti a Malakasa, un campo per richiedenti asilo vicino ad Atene. Ma anche in questa nuova sistemazione la possibilità di uscire e avere contatti con l’esterno è risultata limitata

      Intanto martedì 20 giugno il tribunale di Kalamata ha convalidato l’arresto di nove uomini di origine egiziana accusati di essere i membri dell’equipaggio: omicidio colposo, naufragio e partecipazione a un’organizzazione criminale sono i capi d’accusa. L’avvocato Athanassios Iliopoulos, che rappresenta un presunto trafficante di 22 anni, ha dichiarato all’Associated Press che tutti e nove i sospettati hanno negato le accuse in tribunale affermando di essere essi stessi naufraghi. Iliopoulos ha detto che il suo cliente ha riferito di aver venduto il suo camion preso in prestito dai suoi genitori per raccogliere 4.500 euro per il viaggio. Anche in Pakistan, dove è stato proclamato il lutto nazionale per le vittime del naufragio, l’ufficio del primo ministro Shehbaz Sharif ha annunciato che sono state arrestate dieci persone accusate di far parte dell’organizzazione. “Intensificheremo gli sforzi nella lotta contro le persone coinvolte nell’atroce crimine della tratta di esseri umani”, ha dichiarato il capo del governo. Per la presidente della Commissione europea Ursula von der Leyen “è urgente agire”, sottolineando che l’Ue dovrebbe aiutare i Paesi africani come la Tunisia, da cui molte persone partono, a stabilizzare le loro economie. Non ha in questo caso menzionato la Libia, luogo da cui il peschereccio del naufragio è partito.

      La Grecia è stata più volte accusata di violare sui propri confini le norme sul salvataggio in mare e i diritti delle persone in transito. A maggio 2023 un’inchiesta del New York Times ha mostrato, con tanto di video ad alta definizione, le autorità greche riportare indietro verso le coste turche decine di profughi già arrivati sul territorio, tra cui anche bambini, lasciando alla deriva l’imbarcazione. Altro che attività di search and rescue. Il portale di inchiesta Solomon (https://wearesolomon.com/mag/focus-area/migration/just-007-of-819m-border-budget-to-greece-earmarked-for-search-and-resc) ha ricostruito come degli 819 milioni di euro forniti ad Atene all’interno del “Fondo di gestione delle frontiere europee” appena lo 0,07% (neanche 600mila euro) sarà destinato allo sviluppo delle attività di ricerca e soccorso in mare. La maggior parte del denaro riguarda invece l’approvvigionamento di attrezzature di deterrenza come droni, veicoli di ogni tipo, termocamere, elicotteri e sistemi di sorveglianza automatizzati. Tutto ciò che non è servito per salvare 640 persone.

      https://altreconomia.it/i-superstiti-del-naufragio-di-pylos-accusano-la-guardia-costiera-greca

    • Greece shipwreck survivors were ’abandoned for 10 minutes’

      Survivors of the June 14 shipwreck off Greece have made serious accusations against the country’s Coast Guard in witness statements.

      Statements gathered from some of the 104 survivors of a recent shipwreck off Greece contain serious accusations against the Greek Coast Guard.

      Search operations for more corpses continue after the fishing vessel, which is believed to have been carrying up to 800 migrants, capsized last week south of Greece’s Peloponnese.
      Survivors blame Greek Coast Guard

      “When the ship capsized, the Coast Guard cut the rope and continued on its way. It went farther away as we were all screaming. After 10 minutes, they came back with small boats to pick up people but they did not go as far as the ship itself. They only picked up those who managed to swim away,” one survivor told the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, recounting the last minutes of shipwreck that left at least 82 dead and hundreds missing.

      Surviving witnesses have been questioned by the Kalamata port authority.

      Every person interviewed confirmed — with slight variations in their reconstructions — that the shipwreck had been caused by a Greek Coast Guard patrol boat.

      One of the survivors said the Coast Guard’s attempt to tow the overcrowded fishing vessel created turbulence in the water that eventually caused the ship to capsize.

      “They tried to pull it using force for two or three minutes and everyone whistled to try to make them stop, since they were pulling it strongly and creating waves,” one said.

      Another added that, “for the first few minutes we went forward, but then the Coast Guard turned to the right and the ship overturned.”
      Polemics inflame political conflict prior to vote

      These witness statements run counter to the Coast Guard’s official version. Captains aboard the patrol boat say they only hooked up to the vessel for a few minutes to check the situation onboard before the ship wrecked.

      The situation has inflamed political conflict ahead of Greece’s government elections, which will be held Sunday.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/49846/greece-shipwreck-survivors-were-abandoned-for-10-minutes

    • They knew the boat could sink. Boarding it didn’t feel like a choice.

      The story of how as many as 750 migrants came to board a rickety blue fishing trawler and end up in one of the Mediterranean’s deadliest shipwrecks is bigger than any one of the victims. But for everyone, it started somewhere, and for #Thaer_Khalid_al-Rahal it started with cancer.

      The leukemia diagnosis for his youngest son, 4-year-old Khalid, came early last year. The family had been living in a Jordanian refugee camp for a decade, waiting for official resettlement after fleeing Syria’s bitter war, and doctors said the United Nations’ refugee agency could help cover treatment costs. But agency funds dwindled and the child’s case worsened. When doctors said Khalid needed a bone-marrow transplant, the father confided in relatives that waiting to relocate through official channels was no longer an option. He needed to get to Europe to earn money and save his son.

      “Thaer thought he didn’t have a choice,” said his cousin, Abdulrahman Yousif al-Rahal, reached by phone in the Jordanian refugee camp of Zaatari.

      In Egypt, the journey for #Mohamed_Abdelnasser, 27, started with a creeping realization that his carpentry work could not earn enough to support his wife and two sons.

      For #Matloob_Hussain, 42, it began the day his Greek residency renewal was rejected, sending him back to Pakistan, where his salary helped put food on the table for 20 extended family members amid a crippling economic crisis.

      “Europe doesn’t understand,” said his brother Adiil Hussain, interviewed in Greece where they had lived together. “We don’t leave because we want to. There is simply nothing for us in Pakistan.”

      On Matloob’s earlier journey to Europe, he had been so scared of the water that he kept his eyes closed the whole time. This time, the smugglers promised him they would take him to Italy. They said they would use “a good boat.”

      The trawler left from the Libyan port city of #Tobruk on June 8. Just 104 survivors have reached the Greek mainland. Eighty-two bodies have been recovered, and hundreds more have been swallowed by the sea.

      As the Mediterranean became a stage for tragedy on June 14, a billionaire and several businessmen were preparing for their own voyage in the North Atlantic. The disappearance of their submersible as it dove toward the wreckage of the Titanic sparked a no-expenses-spared search-and-rescue mission and rolling headlines. The ship packed with refugees and migrants did not.

      About half the passengers are believed to have been from Pakistan. The country’s interior minister said Friday that an estimated 350 Pakistanis were on board, and that many may have died. Of the survivors from the boat, 47 are Syrian, 43 Egyptian, 12 Pakistani and two Palestinian.

      Some of the people on the trawler were escaping war. Many were family breadwinners, putting their own lives on the line to help others back home. Some were children. A list of the missing from two towns in the Nile Delta carries 43 names. Almost half of them are under 18 years old.

      This account of what pushed them to risk a notoriously dangerous crossing is based on interviews with survivors in Greece and relatives of the dead in Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt, as the news sent ripples of distress throughout communities from North Africa to South Asia. Some people spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they feared being drawn into government crackdowns on human smuggling networks.

      Rahal’s family said they do not know how he contacted the smugglers in Libya, but remember watching as he creased under the fatigue and shame of having to ask anyone he could for the thousands of dollars they were requesting for safe passage to Italy.

      Thirteen men left from El Na’amna village, south of the Egyptian capital, Cairo, in the hope of achieving the same. Ten miles away in Ibrash, another village, Abdelnasser left the house as he usually did for his 2 a.m. factory shift but joined a packed car to Libya instead, along with 29 other young men and boys. “He told us nothing,” said his father, Amr. “We would have stopped him.”

      Many of the families said the departures caught them by surprise and that local intermediaries working for the smugglers later communicated with relatives in Egypt to gather the requested funds.

      In El Na’amna, several people said the figure was $4,500 per person — a sum impossibly high for most rural Egyptians. In Ibrash, Abdelnasser’s uncle said, two of the delegates who arrived to collect the money were disguised in women’s dress. Another woman did the talking. She collected the money, photographed receipts, and then told the family that the deal was done.

      ‘He said the boat was very bad’

      The time spent waiting in Libya was harder than the migrants expected, said family members who spoke with them throughout that period. The port city of Tobruk had become a transit hub for people, and the migrants reported that the smugglers treated them like goods to be traded. The lucky ones rented cramped apartments where they could wait near the bright blue sea.

      Travelers who had arranged to meet their intermediaries in the city of Benghazi were transported in large refrigerator trucks to the desert. One survivor described a house there “with a big yard and big walls and people at the door with guns.” It was so busy that people slept in the yard outside. Inside, a 24-year-old Pakistani migrant, Bilal Hassan, tried to lighten the mood by reciting Punjabi poetry. He is smiling in the video he sent his family, but other men in the room look tense.

      Some migrants told their families they were getting anxious and didn’t trust their smugglers. Others sent brief messages to reassure and say that they were fine.

      Rahal spoke to his wife, Nermin, every day. A month passed with no news of onward passage and his mood darkened. He worried about Khalid. In Jordan, the boy kept asking when he would see his father again. “I don’t know,” Rahal texted in reply. When one smuggler’s offer fell through, he found another who promised to get the job done faster. In voice messages to his cousin, he sounded tired.

      “I’ll manage to get the money,” he said.

      His last call to his wife was June 8. Men from the smuggling network were yelling at the migrants to pack together as closely as possible in rubber dinghies that would take them to the trawler. Up ahead, the blue fishing boat looked like it was already full.

      Matloob Hussein, the Pakistani who had lived in Greece, called his brother from the trawler. “He said the boat was very bad,” Adiil recounted. “He said they had loaded people on the boat like cattle. He said he was below deck and that he preferred it so he didn’t have to see that he was surrounded by water.”

      When Adiil asked why his brother hadn’t refused to board, Matloob said the smugglers had guns and knives. As the boat pulled out of Tobruk’s concrete port, he told Adiil he was turning his phone off — he did not expect to have a signal again until they arrived.

      After the calls to loved ones stopped, from the foothills of Kashmir to the villages of the Nile Delta, families held their breath.

      It felt, said one relative, like a film that had just stopped halfway through.

      In hometowns and villages, waiting for news

      News of the blue trawler’s capsize trickled out on the morning of June 14. The coast guard’s initial report said that at least 17 people had drowned while noting that more than 100 had been saved. On the Greek mainland, relatives waited for updates in the baking sun outside a migrant reception center. Back in hometowns and villages, some people kept their cellphones plugged into the power sockets so they did not risk missing a call.

      The residents of El Na’amna and Ibrash didn’t know what to do. Police arrested a local smuggler but provided no updates on the whereabouts of the missing. Rumors swirled that most were dead. The mother of 23-year-old Amr Elsayed described a grief so full that she felt as if she were burning.

      A Pakistani community leader in Greece, Javed Aslam, said he was in direct contact with more than 200 families asking for news. Accounts from survivors suggested that almost all the Pakistani passengers, along with many women and children, had been stuck on the lower levels of the boat as it went down.

      Adiil came looking for his brother. He was turned away from the hospital where survivors had been treated, but left his details anyway. Outside the Malakasa reception center, where the survivors were staying, 15 miles north of Athens, several Pakistanis seemed to know Matloob as “the man in the yellow T-shirt.” No one had seen him since the wreck.

      Perhaps it was crazy, Adiil said Thursday, but somehow he still had hope. He had registered his DNA with the local authorities and he had spoken to other families there every day. Now he didn’t know what to do with himself. His eyes were red from crying. He carried creased photographs of his brother in his pocket.

      In one image, Matloob is standing with his dark-eyed daughter, 10-year-old Arfa. Adiil had told the girl that her father was in the hospital, but that fiction was weighing more on him by the day as she kept asking why they couldn’t speak.

      Khalid had been asking for his father, too, but no one knew how to make a 4-year-old understand something they barely understood themselves.

      Nermin, relatives said, was “in bad shape.” She had a funeral to organize without a body. But first she had to take Khalid to the hospital for his biopsy, to learn how far the cancer had spread.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/06/24/greek-migrant-boat-victims

    • ‘If they had left us be, we wouldn’t have drowned:’ CNN investigation raises questions about Greek coast guard’s account of shipwreck tragedy

      The hull of the fishing trawler lifted out of the water as it sank, catapulting people from the top deck into the black sea below. In the darkness, they grabbed onto whatever they could to stay afloat, pushing each other underwater in a frantic fight for survival. Some were screaming, many began to recite their final prayers.

      “I can still hear the voice of a woman calling out for help,” one survivor of the migrant boat disaster off the coast of Greece told CNN. “You’d swim and move floating bodies out of your way.”

      With hundreds of people still missing after the overloaded vessel capsized in the Mediterranean on June 14, the testimonies of those who were onboard paint a picture of chaos and desperation. They also call into question the Greek coast guard’s version of events, suggesting more lives could have been saved, and may even point to fault on the part of Greek authorities.

      Rights groups allege the tragedy is both further evidence and a result of a new pattern in illegal pushbacks of migrant boats to other nations’ waters, with deadly consequences.

      This boat was carrying up to 750 Pakistani, Syrian, Egyptian and Palestinian refugees and migrants. Only 104 people have been rescued alive.

      CNN has interviewed multiple survivors of the shipwreck and their relatives, all of whom have wished to remain anonymous for security reasons and the fear of retribution from authorities in both Greece and at home.

      One survivor from Syria, whom CNN is identifying as Rami, described how a Greek coast guard vessel approached the trawler multiple times to try to attach a rope to tow the ship, with disastrous results.

      “The third time they towed us, the boat swayed to the right and everyone was screaming, people began falling into the sea, and the boat capsized and no one saw anyone anymore,” he said. “Brothers were separated, cousins were separated.”

      Another Syrian man, identified as Mostafa, also believes it was the maneuver by the coast guard that caused the disaster. “The Greek captain pulled us too fast, it was extremely fast, this caused our boat to sink,” he said.

      The Hellenic Coast Guard has repeatedly denied attempting to tow the vessel. An official investigation into the cause of the tragedy is still ongoing.

      Coast guard spokesman Nikos Alexiou told CNN over the phone last week: “When the boat capsized, we were not even next to (the) boat. How could we be towing it?” Instead, he insisted they had only been “observing at a close distance” and that “a shift in weight probably caused by panic” had caused the boat to tip.

      The Hellenic Coast Guard has declined to answer CNN’s specific requests for response to the survivor testimonies.

      Direct accounts from those who survived the wreck have been limited, due to their concerns about speaking out and the media having little access to the survivors. CNN interviewed Rami and Mostafa outside the Malakasa migrant camp near Athens, where journalists are not permitted entry.

      The Syrian men said the conditions on board the migrant boat deteriorated fast in the more than five days after it set off from Tobruk, Libya, in route to Italy. They had run out of water and had resorted to drinking from storage bottles that people had urinated in.

      “People were dying. People were fainting. We used a rope to dip clothes into the sea and use that to squeeze water on people who had lost consciousness,” Rami said.

      CNN’s analysis of marine traffic data, combined with information from NGOs, merchant vessels and the European Union border patrol agency, Frontex, suggests that Greek authorities were aware of the distressed vessel for at least 13 hours before it eventually sank early on June 14.

      The Greek coast guard has maintained that people onboard the trawler had refused rescue and insisted they wanted to continue their journey to Italy. But survivors, relatives and activists say they had asked for help multiple times.

      Earlier in the day, other ships tried to help the trawler. Directed by the Greek coast guard, two merchant vessels – Lucky Sailor and Faithful Warrior – approached the boat between 6 and 9 p.m. on June 13 to offer supplies, according to marine traffic data and the logs of those ships. But according to survivors this only caused more havoc onboard.

      “Fights broke out over food and water, people were screaming and shouting,” Mostafa said. “If it wasn’t for people trying to calm the situation down, the boat was on the verge of sinking several times.”

      By early evening, six people had already died onboard, according to an audio recording reviewed by CNN from Italian activist Nawal Soufi, who took a distress call from the migrant boat at around 7 p.m. Soufi’s communication with the vessel also corroborated Mostafa’s account that people moved from one side of the boat to the other after water bottles were passed from the cargo ships, causing it to sway dangerously.

      The haunting final words sent from the migrant boat came just minutes before it capsized. According to a timeline published by NGO Alarm Phone they received a call, at around 1:45 a.m., with the words “Hello my friend… The ship you send is…” Then the call cuts out.

      The coast guard says the vessel began to sink at around 2 a.m.

      The next known activity in the area, according to marine traffic data, was the arrival of a cluster of vessels starting around 3 a.m. The Mayan Queen superyacht was the first on the scene for what soon became a mass rescue operation.

      A responsibility to rescue

      Human rights groups say the authorities had a duty to act to save lives, regardless of what people on board were saying to the coast guard before the migrant boat capsized.

      “The boat was overcrowded, was unseaworthy and should have been rescued and people taken to safety, that’s quite clear,” UNHCR Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Vincent Cochetel told CNN in an interview. “There was a responsibility for the Greek authorities to coordinate a rescue to bring those people safely to land.”

      Cochetel also pointed to a growing trend by countries, including Greece, to assist migrant boats in leaving their waters. “That’s a practice we’ve seen in recent months. Some coastal states provide food, provide water, sometimes life jackets, sometimes even fuel to allow such boats to continue to only one destination: Italy. And that’s not fair, Italy cannot cope with that responsibility alone.”

      Survivors who say the coast guard tried to tow their boat say they don’t know what the aim was.

      There have been multiple documented examples in recent years of Greek patrol boats engaging in so-called “pushbacks” of migrant vessels from Greek waters in recent years, including in a CNN investigation in 2020.

      “It looks like what the Greeks have been doing since March 2020 as a matter of policy, which is pushbacks and trying to tow a boat to another country’s water in order to avoid the legal responsibility to rescue,” Omer Shatz, legal director of NGO Front-LEX, told CNN. “Because rescue means disembarkation and disembarkation means processing of asylum requests.”

      Pushbacks are state measures aimed at forcing refugees and migrants out of their territory, while impeding access to legal and procedural frameworks, according to the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR). They are a violation of international law, as well as European regulations.

      And such measures do not appear to have deterred human traffickers whose businesses prey on vulnerable and desperate migrants.

      In an interview with CNN last month, then Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis denied that his country engaged in intentional pushbacks and described them as a “completely unacceptable practice.” Mitsotakis is widely expected to win a second term in office in Sunday’s election, after failing to get an outright majority in a vote last month.

      A series of Greek governments have been criticized for their handling of migration policy, including conditions in migrant camps, particularly following the 2015-16 refugee crisis, when more than 1 million people entered Europe through the country.

      For those who lived through last week’s sinking, the harrowing experience will never be forgotten.

      Mostafa and Rami both say they wish they had never made the journey, despite the fact they are now in Europe and are able to claim asylum.

      Most of all, Mostafa says, he wishes the Greek coast guard had never approached their boat: “If they had left us be, we wouldn’t have drowned.”

      https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/23/europe/greece-migrant-boat-disaster-investigation-intl-cmd/index.html
      #témoignage

    • Greece shipwreck survivors faced ’unacceptable’ conditions on arrival in country

      NGOs say survivors of sinking are being held in a closed centre with limited access to psychological support

      Survivors of the Pylos shipwreck, which has left an estimated 500 people missing, faced an “unacceptable” reception in Greece and continue to be held in conditions unsuitable for vulnerable people, NGO workers say.

      The overloaded fishing trawler carrying an estimated 750 people capsized and sank in front of the Greek coastguard last week, following an allegedly botched attempt by the coastguard to tow the vessel.

      The survivors, put at 104 and all men - as no women or children are said to have survived the wreck - were taken to Kalamata, a city on the Peloponnese peninsula, where they were kept in a storage warehouse for two to three days before being transferred to an asylum registration facility at Malakasa, north of Athens.

      “We witnessed an unacceptable reception of extremely vulnerable people in Kalamata,” Eleni Spathanaa, a volunteer lawyer for Refugee Support Aegean, an organisation providing legal advice for the survivors of the wreck, told Middle East Eye.

      Survivors slept on mattresses on the warehouse floor, and the area around it was ringed with fencing. A video posted on Twitter showed a Syrian teenager attempting to embrace his brother through the bars.

      According to Spathanaa, in the first few days no concerted effort was made by authorities to facilitate contact with the survivors’ families, although the Greek Red Cross was providing some access to mobile phones.

      A suffocating experience

      The survivors were transported to a registration facility in Malakasa on 16 and 17 June.

      According to Spathanaa, conditions at #Malakasa are not much of an improvement on those at Kalamata. Survivors are housed in shared shipping containers, and, as at #Kalamata, the facility is ring-fenced, with access severely restricted.

      The prison-like conditions came as a shock.

      “We witnessed... people devastated [and in] shock. They could not even understand where they were,” said Spathanaa. "I could not understand why they were put in a closed centre. Of course, these conditions are not suitable for people who have just survived a shipwreck.

      “These people were [contained], after such a suffocating experience - all of them have lost friends, some of them close relatives... they cannot even conceive what has happened.”

      According to Spathanaa, some of the survivors’ basic needs are not being met at the facility, with some reporting that requests for extra clothing to keep warm at night have been refused. Requests for tea, coffee and cigarettes were also reportedly denied.

      Spathanaa and her colleagues also found that, despite suffering from acute distress, the survivors were being “fast-tracked” through the process of registration for asylum applications.

      “This was quite problematic because most of the people [we met] had not even seen a lawyer before passing through this process,” she said.

      Emergency psychological and medical aid at the facility is being provided by the NGO Doctors Without Borders (MSF). “We saw a lot of distress,” MSF head of mission Sonia Balleron told MEE. “The medical team is clear that [the survivors] are all potentially at risk of PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder].”

      The team have reported treating chemical burns, injuries from exposure to the sun and sea water, as well as hypo-glycaemic shock (the effect of low blood sugar), due to the people aboard the boat being deprived of food for up to six days.

      According to Balleron, many of the survivors are suffering from sleep disorders and night terrors in the wake of the disaster.

      “What we hear mostly... is people [recalling] seeing their friends dying in front of their eyes,” said Balleron. “They also talk about not knowing who survived and who died, which is causing a lot of stress. Families are calling a lot to try to understand if their relatives are among the survivors or not.”
      A political choice

      For Spathanaa, the conditions experienced by the survivors of the wreck on arrival in Kalamata and Malakasa are no accident, but a “political choice”.

      At the end of 2022, the ESTIA accommodation scheme, an EU funded housing programme for vulnerable asylum seekers, was terminated. The programme, which was started in 2015, was intended to assist families with children, people with disabilities and survivors of torture with suitable housing and medical care.

      When it closed on 16 December, vulnerable asylum seekers were transferred from ESTIA accommodation to remote camps with as little as 24 hours’ notice. Human rights groups warned that the curtailment of the scheme could exacerbate isolation of asylum seekers and “re-traumatise” survivors of violence and torture.

      “We have these vulnerable survivors, and we don’t have the option of sheltering them in dignified and suitable conditions,” said Spathanaa. “I don’t think if the shipwreck’s passengers were tourists, that they would treat them like that. They wouldn’t put them in a warehouse.”

      This is not lost on the international community. Social media posts in the wake of the disaster have highlighted the discrepancy in the efforts by the Greek coastguard to prevent last week’s wreck with the resources expended on recovering the missing Titan submarine in the Atlantic Ocean.

      Widespread protests in Greece over the authorities’ inaction to the disaster have also highlighted the inequities that play out in the waters of the Mediterranean: on 18 June, two cruise ships were greeted at Thessaloniki port with a banner reading: “Tourists enjoy your cruise in Europe’s biggest migrants cemetery.”

      https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/greece-shipwreck-survivors-unacceptable-conditions-upon-arrival
      #emprisonnement #survivants

    • On the night of June 14, Captain Richard Kirkby is piloting the Mayan Queen IV, a luxury yacht belonging to a Mexican multibillionaire, through the calm, black waters of the Mediterranean when he receives an emergency call. “Ship sinking. Large number of people. Vessels in the vicinity are requested to initiate search and rescue operations.” The crew hears the screams from people drowning before they can see them.

      The shipwreck that takes place that night would turn out to be the deadliest in the Mediterranean in many years. Around 750 people are thought to have been on board the fishing boat that went down off the coast of the Peloponnese. When the Mayan Queen IV reaches the site at 2:55 a.m., only the lights of another ship can be seen. They belong to the Greek Coast Guard, vessel LS 920 – according to investigation files that DER SPIEGEL and its partners have acquired.

      But the Greeks cannot be reached via radio. So three crew members from the Mayan Queen IV climb into a life boat and start searching for survivors, constantly heading toward the cries for help. They stay as quiet as they can so as not to miss a single voice. Ultimately, they will pull 15 people out of the water.

      Early in the morning, the Greek Coast Guard requests permission to bring additional survivors on board. The Greek vessel is too small to safely bring all the survivors to shore. But the Mayan Queen IV – a ship with four decks, tinted windows and a helicopter landing pad – is large enough. At 7:20 a.m., the yacht sets course for Kalamata. On board are 100 of a total of 104 survivors – migrants wrapped in silver emergency blankets cowering where the super-rich are normally sunning themselves.
      Survivors if the shipwreck in the port of Kalamata: “Ship sinking. Large number of people.”

      Hundreds of refugees don’t survive this night – despite the fact that the Greek Coast Guard arrived at the site several hours before the accident. As early as the morning of the previous day, an Italian agency had sent them a warning and a non-governmental organization had forwarded an SOS from the fishing boat. Even the European Union border control agency Frontex had identified the ship’s plight and offered additional assistance. How can it be that hundreds of migrants died anyway? It is a question that has plagued the Greek Coast Guard for the last two weeks.

      The accusations that survivors have leveled at the Greeks are serious: Did the Coast Guard leave the people to their fate for too long? Were they trying to pull the ship into Italian waters – as some testimony seems to indicate? Perhaps to keep hundreds of migrants from landing in Greece?

      A team of reporters from DER SPIEGEL joined forces with the nonprofit newsroom Lighthouse Reports, investigative journalism consortium Reporters United, the Spanish newspaper El País, the Syrian investigative reporting outlet Siraj and the German public broadcaster ARD to explore these questions. The reporters interviewed survivors, many of whom had already turned to the aid organization Consolidated Rescue Group. They examined leaked investigative reports, videos and geodata and spoke with sources inside Frontex.

      The reporting indicates that, at the very least, the Greek Coast Guard may have made grave errors. Sixteen refugees have accused the Greeks, for example, of causing the fishing boat to capsize, while seven are convinced that Greek rescue attempts were hesitant at best – which would mean they were willing to accept the deaths of hundreds of people. There are also serious doubts about the willingness of Greek authorities to thoroughly investigate the disaster. The leaked investigation reports raise questions as to whether Greek officials may have altered testimony in their favor.

      One of those who survived, we’ll call him Manhal Abdulkareem, tells his story in mid-June from the Greek camp Malakasa. He requests that we not use his real name or even describe him out of fear of how the Greek authorities might react. What he has to say does not paint them in a positive light.

      The Syrian once worked as a stonemason in Jordan. Last spring, he decided to risk the crossing to Italy. He traveled to Libya and boarded the vessel in the port city of Tobruk on June 9. Abdulkareem is one of hundreds of people who crowded onto the vessel, and he was one of the lucky ones: He was able to buy himself a place on deck. Later, it would save his life.

      Other refugees crowded into the boat’s cold storage room. According to survivors, women and children were below decks, many of them from Pakistan. For them, the belly of the ship would turn into a coffin.

      Abdulkareem’s account of the initial days onboard the ship is consistent with the stories told by other survivors. He says that they began running out of water on the third of five days onboard, that the motor cut out on several occasions and that the captain seemed to have lost his orientation. The goal of reaching Italy was more distant than ever.

      The Greek Coast Guard was also aware of the dire situation onboard the fishing boat. On the morning of June 13, they received the first warning from the Italian Coast Guard. Frontex agents filmed the ship from the air at midday. At 5:13 p.m. local time, the non-governmental organization Alarmphone wrote an email to the Greek authorities. The email noted that there were 750 people on the ship. “They are requesting urgent assistance.”

      At the time of the call for help, the fishing vessel was around 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of the Peloponnese. Nevertheless, the Greek Coast Guard sent a ship that was anchored in far-away Crete.

      At least two freighters supplied the fishing vessel with water, but they didn’t take anyone onboard. Abdulkareem and other survivors say that by this point, two passengers on the boat had already died. The Greek Coast Guard ship only arrived at 10:40 p.m.

      There are two versions for what then took place.

      Manhal Abdulkareem reports that the Greek Coast Guard escorted their ship for a time, until the fishing boat’s engine again cut out. Then, he says, the Coast Guard attached a rope to the vessel. “We thought they knew what they were doing,” says Abdulkareem.

      The Coast Guard, he says, towed the vessel at a rapid speed, first to the right, then the left, and then back to the right – and then it capsized. Fifteen additional survivors tell a similar story. Some believe the behavior of the Coast Guard was accidental. Others think it was intentional.

      When the vessel capsized, there were people trapped inside its hull. One survivor says he heard them knocking. Those who were on deck jumped into the water. “People were falling on us,” says one man from Egypt. Some clung to the sinking vessel, while others grabbed in a panic for anything that was floating, including other people.

      “I know how to swim, but that wasn’t enough,” Abdulkareem would later say. He says he had to avoid others so that he wouldn’t be pulled down into the depths. Four survivors say that the Coast Guard put those in the water in even greater danger by maneuvering in such a way that created large waves.

      While still in the water, Abdulkareem began searching for his brother, but was unable to find him. As the vessel was sinking, say survivors, the Greek Coast Guard ship pulled back to a distance of hundreds of meters.

      Abdulkareem and six others accuse the Greeks of delayed rescue efforts and only launching inflatable dinghies after significant time had passed. Some estimate that several minutes passed before they took any action at all. Others say the delay was fully half an hour. “They could have saved many people,” says a survivor from Syria. Abdulkareem’s brother still hasn’t been found.

      The Greek Coast Guard has a competing account for what took place. According to an official log from June 14, their ship reported on the evening prior to the disaster that the refugees were “on a stable course” – a claim that video evidence and tracking data refute. The people on board, according to the official account, rejected assistance because they “wanted nothing more than to continue onward to Italy.” If the Greek Coast Guard is to be believed, the fishing boat capsized shortly after 2 a.m. The first official log provides no cause for the accident.

      Later, the Greek government spokesman said that the Coast Guard had attached a rope to the boat. But only to “stabilize” the vessel. By the time of the accident, the rope had already been cast off, the spokesman said, and the fishing vessel had never been towed. The rope, he insists, was not the cause of the shipwreck. In an interview with CNN, a Coast Guard spokesman speculated that panic may have broken out onboard, leading to the boat listing to one side.

      There is no proof for either version. But doubts about the Greek account are significant, even within Frontex. At the agency’s headquarters in Warsaw, EU border guards can follow in real time what is taking place on the EU’s external borders. In this case, the agents must have realized early on the danger that the migrants were in.

      On two occasions – at 6:35 p.m. and at 9:34 p.m. – they offered to send the airplane back to the ship that the migrants had already seen at midday. It was refueled and ready to take off, according to an internal memo that DER SPIEGEL has obtained. But the Greek Rescue Coordination Center in Piraeus, Frontex says, ignored the offer. The plane remained on the ground.

      The only other available aircraft, a Frontex drone, was initially sent to another distress call, according to Frontex. It only arrived at the scene after the fishing vessel had sunk. In Brussels, hardly anyone believes that the rebuff of Frontex was an accident. Many see a pattern: Greek authorities systematically send away Frontex units, says one Brussels official. That happens particularly often, the official says, in situations that later turn out to be controversial.

      The mistrust with which Athens now finds itself confronted – even from EU institutions – has a lot to do with previous violations of international law on the Aegean. The Greek Coast Guard has repeatedly towed groups of refugees back into Turkish waters – before then abandoning them on life rafts with no means of propulsion.

      Proof for such pushbacks has become so overwhelming that the Frontex fundamental rights officer recently recommended that the organization suspend cooperation with the Greek Coast Guard. The “strongest possible measures” are necessary to ensure that the Greeks once again begin complying with applicable law, reads an internal memo that DER SPIEGEL has obtained. Joint missions can only be resumed once a new basis for trust has been established, the memo continues.

      The skepticism has become so great that Frontex has even sent a team to Greece to question survivors itself. Two Frontex officials say that the results of investigations conducted thus far seem to contradict the Greek version of events. One Greek lawyer is even demanding an official state investigation of the Coast Guard for manslaughter through failure to render aid.

      Most survivors, though, don’t believe that the Greek state will investigate the role played by its own Coast Guard. The treatment they received in the days following the catastrophe was too poor for such optimism.

      Sami Al Yafi, a young Syrian, is one of them. He, too, has asked that his real name not be printed out of fear of the Greek authorities. He accuses the Coast Guard of manipulating his statement. He claims to have clearly testified that the Coast Guard had caused the ship to capsize, but he was unable to find that statement in the transcript of his interview. An additional survivor says that he had a similar experience.

      There are also corresponding inconsistencies in the investigation file. In six instances, according to the file, survivors said nothing about a tow rope in their first interview with the Coast Guard – or at least there is no mention of such in the minutes taken by the Coast Guard. Later, in interviews with public prosecutors, they then accused the Coast Guard of causing the capsizing by towing the vessel.

      Moreover, the minutes taken by the Greek Coast Guard frequently include the exact same formulations. According to those minutes, four survivors used exactly the same words in describing the events – despite the fact that the interviews were led by different interpreters. In one case, a member of the Coast Guard apparently acted as an interpreter.

      When approached for comment, Greek officials said they were unable to comment on the accusations. The accounts, they said, are part of a confidential investigation. They said they were also unable to comment on the actions of the Coast Guard.

      Manhal Abdulkareem, the man who lost his brother, isn’t satisfied. “We are a group of 104 survivors,” he says. All of them know, he says, who caused the boat to capsize.

      On at least one occasion, Greek officials have been found guilty of accusations similar to those that have now been lodged by Abdulkareem and other survivors. It was left up to the European Court of Human Rights to pass that verdict. Last year, the court found that the Greek Coast Guard in 2014 towed a refugee boat until it capsized. Three women and eight children died in that incident. Then, too, the Coast Guard claimed that panic had broken out onboard the vessel and that the refugees themselves had caused the boat to capsize. It is the exact same story they are currently telling.

      https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-accusations-against-the-greek-coast-guard-we-thought-they-knew-what-they

    • Everyone Knew the Migrant Ship Was Doomed. No One Helped.

      Satellite imagery, sealed court documents and interviews with survivors suggest that hundreds of deaths were preventable.

      From air and by sea, using radar, telephone and radio, officials watched and listened for 13 hours as the migrant ship Adriana lost power, then drifted aimlessly off the coast of Greece in a slowly unfolding humanitarian disaster.

      As terrified passengers telephoned for help, humanitarian workers assured them that a rescue team was coming. European border officials, watching aerial footage, prepared to witness what was certain to be a heroic operation.

      Yet the Adriana capsized and sank in the presence of a single Greek Coast Guard ship last month, killing more than 600 migrants in a maritime tragedy that was shocking even for the world’s deadliest migrant route.

      Satellite imagery, sealed court documents, more than 20 interviews with survivors and officials, and a flurry of radio signals transmitted in the final hours suggest that the scale of death was preventable.

      Dozens of officials and coast guard crews monitored the ship, yet the Greek government treated the situation like a law enforcement operation, not a rescue. Rather than send a navy hospital ship or rescue specialists, the authorities sent a team that included four masked, armed men from a coast guard special operations unit.

      The Greek authorities have repeatedly said that the Adriana was sailing to Italy, and that the migrants did not want to be rescued. But satellite imagery and tracking data obtained by The New York Times show definitively that the Adriana was drifting in a loop for its last six and a half hours. And in sworn testimony, survivors described passengers on the ship’s upper decks calling for help and even trying to jump aboard a commercial tanker that had stopped to provide drinking water.

      On board the Adriana, the roughly 750 passengers descended into violence and desperation. Every movement threatened to capsize the ship. Survivors described beatings and panic as they waited for a rescue that would never come.

      The sinking of the Adriana is an extreme example of a longtime standoff in the Mediterranean. Ruthless smugglers in North Africa cram people onto shoddy vessels, and passengers hope that, if things go wrong, they will be taken to safety. But European coast guards often postpone rescues out of fear that helping will embolden smugglers to send more people on ever-flimsier ships. And as European politics have swung to the right, each new arriving ship is a potential political flashpoint.

      So even as passengers on the Adriana called for help, the authorities chose to listen to the boat’s captain, a 22-year-old Egyptian man who said he wanted to continue to Italy. Smuggling captains are typically paid only when they reach their destinations.

      The Greek Ministry of Maritime Affairs said it would not respond to detailed questions because the shipwreck was under criminal investigation.

      Despite many hours of on-and-off surveillance, the only eyewitnesses to the Adriana’s final moments were the survivors and 13 crew members aboard the coast guard ship, known as the 920. A Maritime Ministry spokesman has said that the ship’s night-vision camera was switched off at the time. Court documents show that the coast guard captain gave the authorities a CD-ROM containing video recordings, but the source of the recordings is unclear, and they have not been made public.

      Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece defended the coast guard during comments in Brussels this past week, calling its critics “profoundly unfair.” The sinking has brought rare public criticism from officials in the European Union, which has remained silent as the Greek government has hardened its stance toward migrants.

      In Greece, nine Egyptian survivors from the Adriana were arrested and charged with smuggling and causing the shipwreck. In sworn testimonies and interviews, survivors said that many of the nine brutalized and extorted passengers. But interviews with relatives of those accused paint a more complicated picture. At least one of the men charged with being a smuggler had himself paid a full fee of more than $4,000 to be on the ship.

      Collectively paying as much as $3.5 million to be smuggled to Italy, migrants crammed into the Adriana in what survivors recalled was a hellish class system: Pakistanis at the bottom; women and children in the middle; and Syrians, Palestinians and Egyptians at the top.

      An extra $50 or so could earn someone a spot on the deck. For some, that turned out to be the difference between life and death.

      Many of the passengers, at least 350, came from Pakistan, the Pakistani government said. Most were in the lower decks and the ship’s hold. Of them, 12 survived.

      The women and young children went down with the ship.
      Setting Sail

      Kamiran Ahmad, a Syrian teenager, a month shy of his 18th birthday, had arrived in Tobruk, Libya, with hopes for a new life. He had worked with his father, a tailor, after school. His parents sold land to pay smugglers to take him to Italy, praying that he would make it to Germany to study, work and maybe send some money home.
      Editors’ Picks
      We Have a Taylor Swift Concert Crisis. How Do We Solve It?
      You Really Are a Tick Magnet
      How Amazon Taught Alexa to Speak in an Irish Brogue
      Continue reading the main story

      “We had no choice but to send him by sea,” his father said in an interview.

      But as the Adriana set sail at dawn on June 9, Kamiran was worried. His cousin, Roghaayan Adil Ehmed, 24, who went with him, could not swim. And the boat was overcrowded, with nearly twice as many passengers as he had been told.

      No life vests were available, so Roghaayan paid $600 to get himself, Kamiran and a friend to an upper deck.

      They were part of a group of 11 young men and boys from Kobani, a mainly Kurdish city in Syria devastated by more than decade of war. The group stayed in dingy, rented rooms in Beirut, Lebanon, then flew to Egypt and on to Libya.

      The youngest, Waleed Mohammad Qasem, 14, wanted to be a doctor. When he heard that his uncle Mohammad Fawzi Sheikhi was going to Europe, he begged to go. On the flight to Egypt, the two smiled for a selfie.

      Haseeb ur-Rehman, 20, a motorcycle mechanic from the Pakistan-administrated Kashmir, felt he had to leave home to help his family survive. Together with three friends, he paid $8,000 and left for Libya.

      He was one of the few Pakistanis who managed to snatch a spot on deck.

      The journey, if all went well, would take three days.

      As early as the second day, survivors recalled, the engine started breaking down.
      Lost

      By Day 3, food and clean drinking water had run out. Some migrants put dried prunes in seawater, hoping the sweetness would mellow the saltiness. Others paid young men $20 for dirty water.

      Unrest spread as it became clear that the captain, who was spending most of his time on a satellite phone, had lost his way.

      When Pakistanis pushed toward the upper deck, Egyptian men working with the captain beat them, often with a belt, according to testimony. Those men, some of whom are among the nine arrested in Greece, emerged as enforcers of discipline.

      Ahmed Ezzat, 26, from the Nile Delta, was among them. He is accused of smuggling people and causing the shipwreck. In an interview, his brother, Islam Ezzat, said that Ahmed disappeared from their village in mid-May and re-emerged in Libya weeks later. He said a smuggler had sent someone to the family home to collect 140,000 Egyptian pounds, or $4,500, the standard fee for a spot on the Adriana.

      Islam said he did not believe Ahmed had been involved in the smuggling because he had paid the fee. He said the family was cooperating with the Egyptian authorities. Ahmed, like the others who have been charged, has pleaded not guilty.
      ‘They Will Rescue You’

      By Day 4, according to testimonies and interviews, six people in the hold of the ship, including at least one child, had died.

      The next day, June 13, as the Adriana lurched toward Italy between engine breakdowns, migrants on deck persuaded the captain to send a distress call to the Italian authorities.

      The Adriana was in international waters then, and the captain was focused on getting to Italy. Experts who study this migratory route say that captains are typically paid on arrival. That is supported by some survivors who said their fees were held by middlemen, to be paid once they had arrived safely in Italy.

      The captain, some survivors recalled, said the Italian authorities would rescue the ship and take people to shore.

      Just before 1 p.m., a glimmer of hope appeared in the sky. A plane.

      Frontex, the European Union border agency, had been alerted by the Italian authorities that the Adriana was in trouble and rushed to its coordinates. There was no doubt the ship was perilously overloaded, E.U. officials said, and unlikely to make it to any port without help.

      Images of the rusty blue fishing boat appeared in the Frontex command center in Warsaw, where two German journalists happened to be touring, a Frontex spokesman said. The Adriana was a chance to showcase the agency’s ability to detect ships in distress and save lives.

      Now that Frontex had seen the ship, which was in Greece’s search-and-rescue area of international waters, the Greek authorities would surely rush to help.

      Two hours later, a Greek Coast Guard helicopter flew past. Its aerial photographs show the ship’s upper decks crammed with people waving their hands.

      Nawal Soufi, an Italian activist, fielded calls from frantic migrants.

      “I’m sure that they will rescue you,” she told them. “But be patient. It won’t be immediate.”
      Mayday

      Around 7 p.m. on June 13, almost seven hours after Frontex spotted the Adriana, the Greek authorities asked two nearby commercial tankers to bring the migrants water, food and diesel to continue their journey, according to video recordings and court documents.

      A crucial part of the Greek authorities’ explanation for not rescuing the Adriana is their claim that it was actively sailing toward Italy. When the BBC, using data from neighboring vessels, reported that the Adriana had been practically idle for several hours before it sank, the Greek government noted that the ship had covered 30 nautical miles toward Italy since its detection by Frontex.

      But satellite imagery and data from the ship-tracking platform MarineTraffic show that the Adriana was adrift for its final seven hours or so. Radar satellite imagery from the European Space Agency shows that by the time the Greeks summoned the commercial ships, the Adriana had already reached its closest point to Italy.

      From then on, it was drifting backward.

      The first tanker, the Lucky Sailor, arrived within minutes. The second, the Faithful Warrior, arrived in about two and a half hours. The captain of the Faithful Warrior reported that some passengers had thrown back supplies and screamed that they wanted to continue to Italy. How many people actually rejected help is unclear, but they included the Adriana’s captain and the handful of men who terrorized the passengers, according to survivors’ testimonies and interviews.

      Others were placing distress calls. Alarm Phone, a nonprofit group that fields migrant mayday calls, immediately and repeatedly told the Greek authorities, Frontex and the United Nations refugee agency that people on the Adriana were desperate to be rescued. Several passengers testified that they had tried to jump aboard the Faithful Warrior. But the migrants said that the frenzy only destabilized the Adriana, so the Faithful Warrior withdrew.

      As night fell, the Faithful Warrior’s captain told the Greek control center that the Adriana was “rocking dangerously.”

      Radio transmission records show that, over five hours, the Greek control center transmitted five messages across the Mediterranean using a channel reserved for safety and distress calls.

      Henrik Flornaes, a Danish father of two on a yacht far from the area, said he heard two mayday relay signals that night. They provided coordinates near the location of the Adriana, he said.

      A mayday relay directs nearby ships to begin a search and rescue.

      But the Greek Coast Guard itself mounted no such mission at this point.
      An End Foretold

      As midnight of June 14 approached, the Greek Coast Guard vessel 920, the only government ship dispatched to the scene, arrived alongside the Adriana.

      The presence of the 920 did not reassure the migrants. Several said in interviews that they were unsettled by the masked men. In the past, the Greek government has used the coast guard to deter migration. In May, The Times published video footage showing officers rounding up migrants and ditching them on a raft in the Aegean Sea.

      The mission of the 920 is unclear, as is what happened after it arrived and floated nearby for three hours. Some survivors say it tried to tow the Adriana, capsizing it. The coast guard denied that at first, then acknowledged throwing a rope to the trawler, but said that was hours before it sank.

      To be sure, attempts to remove passengers might have backfired. Sudden changes in weight distribution on an overcrowded, swaying ship could have capsized it. And while the 920 was larger was than the Adriana, it was not clear if had space to accommodate the migrant passengers.

      But Greece, one of the world’s foremost maritime nations, was equipped to carry out a rescue. Navy ships, including those with medical resources, could have arrived in the 13 hours after the Frontex alert.

      Exactly what capsized the ship is unclear. The coast guard blames a commotion on the ship. But everyone agrees that it swayed once to the left, then to the right, and then flipped.

      Those on deck were tossed into the sea. Panicking people stepped on each other in the dark, desperately using each other to come up for air, to stay alive.

      At the water’s surface, some clung to pieces of wood, surrounded by drowned friends, relatives and strangers. Others climbed onto the ship’s sinking hull. Coast guard crew members pulled dozens of people from the sea. One person testified that he had initially swum away from the 920, fearing that the crew would drown him.

      Waleed Mohammad Qasem, the 14-year-old who wanted to be a doctor, drowned. So did his uncle, who had posed with him for a selfie. The ship’s captain also died.

      Hundreds of people, including the women and young children, inside the Adriana stood no chance. They would have been flipped upside down, hurled together against the ship as the sea poured in. The ship took them down within a minute.

      Haseeb ur-Rehman, the Pakistani motorcycle mechanic on the top deck, survived. “It was in my destiny,” he said from a migrant camp near Athens. “Otherwise, my body would have been lost, like the other people in the boat.”

      Near the end, Kamiran Ahmad, the teenager who had hoped to study in Germany, turned to his cousin Roghaayan. From the migrant center in Greece, the older cousin remembered his words: “Didn’t I tell you we were going to die? Didn’t I tell you we were already dead?”

      Both went into the water. Kamiran’s body has not been recovered.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/world/europe/greece-migrant-ship.html

  • 330.000 personnes entrées illégalement en Europe en 2022 ? Attention à ce chiffre trompeur

    Frontex n’a pas compté 330.000 personnes entrées illégalement sur le territoire européen en 2022. C’est pourtant ce qu’a affirmé le président du Rassemblement national Jordan Bardella le 16 janvier, en déclarant s’appuyer sur une note de l’agence européenne en charge de la surveillance des frontières publiée le 13 janvier. En réalité, l’agence a recensé non pas 330.000 personnes, mais 330.000 entrées irrégulières dans l’Union européenne sur l’année. Comme l’a expliqué Frontex à l’AFP, « une même personne peut traverser plusieurs fois la frontière » et ainsi être comptabilisée à plusieurs reprises. Par ailleurs, plusieurs spécialistes interrogés soulignent les limites de ce chiffre et de la hausse de 64% mesurée par Frontex. De son côté, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a décompté 187.000 personnes entrées illégalement en 2022 en Europe, soit une hausse de 24% par rapport à 2021. Un « chiffre bien plus fiable pour rendre compte des arrivées réelles » selon plusieurs chercheurs.

    « On est allés beaucoup trop loin dans notre politique d’immigration ». Dans une interview sur la chaîne CNews le 16 janvier, le président du Rassemblement National (RN) Jordan Bardella a fustigé la politique migratoire française et européenne, dénonçant un gouvernement français qui selon lui « renonce à maîtriser ses frontières » et « contrôler sa politique d’immigration ».

    Sur quoi repose l’argumentaire de l’eurodéputé ? Sur de nouveaux chiffres issus d’une note publiée le 13 janvier par Frontex, l’agence européenne chargée du contrôle des frontières de l’Union Européenne.

    « Le rapport de Frontex sorti il y a quelques jours rappelle qu’il y a eu 64% d’entrées illégales supplémentaires sur le territoire européen dans les pays de l’Union européenne, c’est-à-dire 330.000 personnes qui sont rentrées de manière illégale », déclare ainsi l’eurodéputé du RN.

    D’autres publications en ligne ont aussi dénoncé sur Twitter ce supposé laisser-faire : « L’agence d’hôtesses d’accueil Frontex nous fait savoir qu’elle a déroulé le tapis rouge à 330000 clandestins au cours de l’année 2022 », déclare un tweet du 13 janvier partagé plus de 300 fois.

    330.000 passages, et non 330.000 personnes

    Mais que dit cette note ? L’agence de contrôle des frontières a bien annoncé une hausse de 64% des entrées illégales par rapport à 2021. Un chiffre annoncé par Frontex comme au plus haut depuis 2016. « Il s’agit de la deuxième année consécutive avec une forte augmentation du nombre d’entrées irrégulières », a-t-elle affirmé dans son communiqué.

    Mais Frontex n’a donc pas décompté 330.000 personnes, mais 330.000 passages illégaux. L’agence comptabilise en effet uniquement le nombre d’entrées irrégulières détectées sur le territoire européen, et non le nombre de personnes entrées illégalement. Concrètement, cela signifie qu’"une même personne peut traverser plusieurs fois la frontière et ainsi être comptabilisée à plusieurs reprises", est-il indiqué dans la note.

    L’agence a de nouveau confirmé ce point auprès de l’AFP le 13 janvier : « nous indiquons le nombre d’entrées illégales enregistrées, et non le nombre de personnes, alors qu’une personne peut traverser illégalement les frontières de l’Union européenne plusieurs fois ».
    « Des récits de migrants qui ont tenté cinq, dix, vingt fois, c’est extrêmement fréquent »

    Comment est effectué ce chiffrage ? Frontex indique que « la personne doit effectivement franchir la frontière extérieure et entrer dans l’Union européenne » pour que ce passage soit comptabilisé.

    L’agence affirme ainsi décompter chaque fois qu’une personne est détectée par les autorités mais n’est pas appréhendée, mais aussi chaque fois où une personne est arrêtée et renvoyée de l’autre côté de la frontière par les garde-frontières.

    Dès lors, plusieurs entrées peuvent être comptabilisées pour une personne qui a tenté de franchir la frontière à plusieurs reprises. Selon le chercheur au CNRS et spécialiste des migrations Thomas Lacroix, ce type de fréquence n’est pas inhabituel. « Des récits de migrants qui ont tenté cinq, dix, vingt fois, c’est extrêmement fréquent », a-t-il indiqué à l’AFP le 18 janvier, faisant référence à des travaux réalisés notamment à la frontière entre la Serbie et la Croatie.

    De même, une personne peut franchir les frontières de l’Union européenne à plusieurs reprises mais à des points d’entrée différents. C’est notamment le cas des migrants entrant dans l’Union Européenne par la Grèce depuis la Turquie puis sortent de l’UE par les Balkans avant d’y entrer de nouveau par la Croatie ou la Hongrie.
    Les chiffres de l’OIM, « bien plus fiables pour rendre compte des arrivées réelles » irrégulières

    D’autres statistiques remettent en perspective les chiffres avancés par Frontex. C’est le cas de l’organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), l’organisme des Nations Unies chargé des migrations, qui décompte chaque année le nombre d’arrivées illégales sur le territoire européen via sa plateforme Displacement Tracking Matrix.

    En 2022, l’instance, qui compile à la fois ses propres données de terrain, les données des autorités nationales et les données obtenues dans les médias, a comptabilisé"187.993 personnes migrantes et réfugiées entrées illégalement en Europe", comme l’a détaillé l’OIM dans un mail à l’AFP le 18 janvier.

    Soit une hausse de 24% par rapport à 2021, moins importante que celle calculée par Frontex concernant les détections.

    « Ce chiffre est bien plus fiable pour rendre compte des arrivées réelles », souligne Thomas Lacroix. Contrairement à Frontex, l’OIM, dont les chiffres s’avèrent plus stables à travers le temps, tente d’éviter les problèmes de doublons. Un exemple : l’OIM ne comptabilise pas les personnes voyageant dans la région des Balkans.

    L’organisation part en effet du principe que ces arrivées « sont déjà incluses dans les chiffres des arrivées pour la Grèce, la Bulgarie ou Chypre », comme elle l’a expliqué à l’AFP. « Comme une même personne peut traverser plusieurs frontières terrestres de l’UE et de pays non membres de l’UE en se déplaçant dans la région, il n’y a aucun moyen d’éviter un double comptage ».

    Interrogé par l’AFP le 19 janvier, l’OIM explique en partie cette hausse par un « assouplissement des restrictions aux frontières » après la fin des restrictions sanitaires. Elle note que le « nombre global d’arrivées se situe dans la même fourchette que pour la période 2017-2019 », tout en étant « bien inférieur aux arrivées de 2015-2016 » au plus fort de la crise migratoire.

    Beaucoup de ces entrées irrégulières peuvent par ailleurs être le fait de réfugiés pouvant légalement demander l’asile dans l’Union Européenne, rappelle l’OIM.

    Appelé à comparer ses chiffres avec ceux de l’OIM, Frontex n’avait pas répondu aux demandes de l’AFP sur ce point au moment de la publication de cet article.

    https://i.imgur.com/CApAv5N.png

    64% d’augmentation ? Les chiffres de Frontex et leurs limites

    Ce n’est pas la première fois qu’une telle confusion entoure les chiffres de Frontex. En octobre 2022, Libération avait déjà vérifié un article d’Europe 1, dans lequel la radio indiquait que « 228.000 personnes [avaient] franchi la frontière européenne en toute clandestinité » sur les neuf premiers mois de l’année.

    L’association Désinfox Migrations, qui lutte contre les infox entourant l’immigration, avait aussi alerté sur Twitter face à cette mauvaise interprétation des chiffres de Frontex et avait appelé à « relativiser » ces chiffres.

    Plus globalement, les chiffres de Frontex sont aussi contestés par de nombreux observateurs.

    « Les chiffres Frontex doivent être pris avec précaution », souligne Tania Racho, chercheuse-associée à l’Université Paris-Saclay en droit européen et consultante pour l’initiative Désinfox Migrations à l’AFP le 17 janvier. Cette dernière décrit des « chiffres trompeurs », qui « ne permettent pas réellement de savoir combien de personnes ont franchi les frontières ».

    « Frontex est juge et partie. Ce ne sont pas des données indépendantes », explique de son côté Virginie Guiraudon, directrice de recherche au CNRS à Sciences Po Paris à l’AFP le 17 janvier. « Frontex, ce n’est pas Eurostat [service de la Commission européenne chargé de l’information statistique à l’échelle communautaire, NDLR] ».

    Certains spécialistes interrogés soulignent les limites de la hausse de 64% annoncée par Frontex. « Il y a une interprétation hâtive qu’il faut vérifier : c’est de dire que les chiffres sont en forte augmentation », soutient Thomas Lacroix. « Frontex publie ces chiffres pour justifier l’augmentation de leur propre budget. Cela leur sert à la fois à justifier les augmentations passées et à demander des augmentations futures ».

    Le budget de l’agence, en quasi-constante augmentation depuis son lancement en 2005, a atteint 754 millions d’euros en 2022, soit plus du double que son enveloppe de 2020 (364 millions d’euros).

    Dans sa note, l’agence rappelle d’ailleurs son rôle dans la protection des frontières européennes, en soulignant que « l’augmentation constante du nombre de franchissements irréguliers démontre la nécessité de disposer d’un corps de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes européens fort et efficace, avec Frontex en tant que soutien solide des États membres ».
    Une augmentation des moyens de détection de Frontex

    Thomas Lacroix comme Tania Racho soulignent par ailleurs que la hausse des détections peut dès lors aussi en partie s’expliquer par la forte augmentation de ses « moyens humains et budgétaires ». Utilisation de drones, de caméras de surveillance, augmentation des effectifs : « cette augmentation est aussi corrélée à l’augmentation des moyens de Frontex », explique Tania Racho.

    Un point tout de même nuancé par Virginie Guiraudon, qui explique que les données sont aussi fournies par les autorités gouvernementales, et ne proviennent pas uniquement de Frontex : « L’augmentation du budget de Frontex est très importante, mais les garde-frontière de Frontex ne sont que 1500 personnes », rappelle-t-elle, expliquant que la hausse des moyens peut expliquer à moyen terme la hausse des détections, mais pas d’une année sur l’autre.

    « Cela ne veut pas dire que ces chiffres ne disent rien et ne donnent pas des tendances », indique-t-elle par ailleurs, tout en appelant comme les autres chercheurs interrogés à la plus grande vigilance face à ces chiffres.

    https://factuel.afp.com/doc.afp.com.337976P
    #chiffres #statistiques #asile #migrations #passages #personnes #seeing_double #Frontex #arrivées #entrées_irrégulières

    ajouté à ce fil de discussion autour des doubles/triples comptages :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/705957

  • Naufrages de migrants : l’ONU réclame des mesures « urgentes et décisives »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/06/16/le-nombre-de-migrants-en-mediterranee-vers-l-ue-a-double-depuis-2022-selon-f

    Naufrages de migrants : l’ONU réclame des mesures « urgentes et décisives »
    Compte tenu de l’augmentation des mouvements de réfugiés et de migrants en Méditerranée, des efforts collectifs sont essentiels, juge le Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés. Selon Frontex, le nombre de traversées de la Méditerranée a « plus que doublé » en 2023.
    Le Monde avec AFP
    Publié hier à 13h23, modifié hier à 16h32
    L’ONU a réclamé, vendredi 16 juin, des mesures « urgentes et décisives » pour éviter de nouveaux drames, deux jours après le naufrage d’un bateau chargé de migrants au large de la Grèce, qui pourrait avoir coûté la vie à plusieurs centaines de personnes. « Il est clair que l’approche actuelle de la Méditerranée ne fonctionne pas. Année après année, elle continue d’être la route migratoire la plus dangereuse au monde, qui a le taux de mortalité le plus élevé », a déploré Federico Soda, directeur du département des urgences de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) dans un communiqué cosigné par le Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR). Les Etats doivent se mettre d’accord pour coopérer et combler les lacunes en matière de recherche et de sauvetage, mais aussi de promptitude au débarquement et de mise en œuvre de voies migratoires régulières et sûres, insiste-t-il.
    Compte tenu de l’augmentation des mouvements de réfugiés et de migrants en Méditerranée, des efforts collectifs, dont une plus grande coordination entre tous les Etats méditerranéens, la solidarité et le partage des responsabilités sont essentiels, a déclaré Gillian Triggs, haut responsable du HCR chargé de la protection : « Cela comprend un accord sur un mécanisme régional de débarquement et de répartition des personnes qui arrivent par la mer, que nous continuons de défendre », a-t-elle précisé. « Il doit y avoir une enquête approfondie sur les événements qui se sont déroulés au cours de cette tragédie. Et j’espère que nous pourrons trouver des réponses et apprendre de l’expérience », a dit Jeremy Laurence, porte-parole du Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l’homme. « Ce qui s’est passé mercredi rappelle la nécessité d’enquêter sur les passeurs et les trafiquants d’êtres humains et de veiller à ce qu’ils soient traduits en justice », a-t-il ajouté.
    Au-delà des passeurs et trafiquants, l’agence de surveillance des frontières européennes Frontex a été mise en cause, tout comme la Grèce et les pays européens, accusés de ne pas faire le nécessaire pour éviter ces drames. Jusqu’ici, 78 corps ont été retrouvés au large du Péloponnèse, selon les gardes-côtes grecs, et 104 personnes ont pu être secourues.
    L’OIM a dit « redouter que des centaines de personnes supplémentaires » se soient noyées, disant du drame qu’il est « l’une des tragédies les plus dévastatrices en Méditerranée en une décennie ». Ilias Siakantaris, porte-parole du gouvernement grec, avait fait état mercredi d’informations non confirmées selon lesquelles 750 personnes se trouvaient à bord du chalutier. Selon des membres de leur famille et des militants locaux interrogés par l’Agence France-Presse, plus de 120 Syriens étaient à bord.
    Selon Frontex, le nombre de traversées de la Méditerranée centrale vers l’Union européenne (UE) a « plus que doublé » en 2023, par rapport à l’an dernier pour la même période. Au cours des cinq premiers mois de 2023, les pays de l’UE ont recensé plus de 50 300 entrées irrégulières par cette voie, « le nombre le plus élevé enregistré depuis 2017 », a-t-elle précisé.
    « La Méditerrannée centrale reste la principale route migratoire vers l’Union européenne », et cette route a compté pour près de la moitié des arrivées clandestines en 2023, a ajouté Frontex. En tout, le nombre d’arrivées signalées à Frontex entre janvier et la fin de mai a été de 102 000, soit 12 % de plus que pour la même période de l’année dernière. La deuxième route la plus active est celle des Balkans de l’Ouest, avec plus de 30 700 entrées – tout de même 25 % de moins qu’un an plus tôt. Toutes les autres routes ont également été moins empruntées, les baisses allant de − 6 % pour la Méditerranée occidentale à − 47 % pour la route d’Afrique de l’Ouest. Ces baisses sont principalement dues « à la longue période de mauvais temps, qui rendait des voyages toujours dangereux encore plus risqués ». La pression migratoire reste cependant « élevée », et « on peut s’attendre à un regain d’activité des passeurs dans les mois qui viennent », a conclu l’agence.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#mediterranee#HCR#OIM#traversee#mortalité#FRONTEX#routemigratoire#pressionmigratoire#migrationirreguliere#postocovid#politiquemigratoire

  • Naufrage en Grèce : au moins 79 migrants morts, trois jours de deuil décrétés
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/06/14/en-grece-le-naufrage-d-une-embarcation-de-migrants-fait-au-moins-dix-sept-mo

    Naufrage en Grèce : au moins 79 migrants morts, trois jours de deuil décrétés. L’embarcation a chaviré à 87 kilomètres des côtes grecques, dans les eaux internationales. Les rescapés ont déclaré que près de 750 personnes étaient à bord, cent quatre d’entre elles ont été secourues jusqu’ici.
    Le Monde avec AFP
    Publié le 14 juin 2023 à 11h11, modifié le 14 juin 2023 à 22h52
    La Grèce va observer trois jours de deuil après le naufrage mercredi 14 juin d’un bateau de migrants en mer Ionienne, ont annoncé les services du premier ministre par intérim. Les garde-côtes ont déclaré avoir repêché soixante-dix-neuf corps, et sauvé une centaine de personnes, mais les rescapés ont déclaré que près de 750 personnes étaient à bord. Il s’agit du bilan le plus lourd en Grèce depuis le 3 juin 2016, quand au moins 320 personnes avaient péri ou disparu dans un naufrage. L’embarcation à bord de laquelle se trouveraient « des centaines » de migrants, selon une source au sein du ministère des migrations, a chaviré à 47 milles marins (87 kilomètres) des côtes grecques, dans les eaux internationales tandis que cent quatre personnes ont été secourues jusqu’ici. « Le navire faisait vingt-cinq à trente mètres de long. Le pont était bondé, et nous pensons que l’intérieur l’était aussi », a déclaré à la chaîne de télévision ERT le porte-parole des gardes-côtes, Nikolaos Alexiou. Un porte-parole du gouvernement, Ilias Siakantari, a ajouté : « Nous ne savons pas combien de personnes étaient à l’intérieur, mais nous savons qu’il est habituel pour les passeurs de les enfermer, afin de maintenir le contrôle à bord. » L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a aussi tweeté : « Nous craignons d’autres pertes en vies humaines. Des décomptes initiaux font état de 400 passagers ».
    Un avion C-130 de l’armée grecque va continuer de patrouiller les eaux dans lesquelles le bateau a coulé toute la nuit, selon le porte-parole. M. Siakantari a précisé que le moteur du navire était tombé en panne dans la nuit de mardi à mercredi et que le bateau avait coulé en une quinzaine de minutes, dans des eaux très profondes. Les garde-côtes grecs ont ajouté qu’au moment du naufrage de l’embarcation, aucune des personnes à bord n’était équipée de gilet de sauvetage. Selon M. Alexiou, la plupart des survivants étaient originaires de Syrie, du Pakistan ou d’Egypte. (...)
    Le bateau avait été repéré pour la première fois mardi après-midi par un avion de Frontex, l’Agence européenne de surveillance des frontières, mais les migrants à bord « ont refusé toute aide », selon un précédent communiqué des autorités portuaires grecques. Outre les patrouilleurs de la police portuaire, une frégate de la marine de guerre grecque, un avion et un hélicoptère de l’armée de l’air ainsi que six bateaux qui naviguaient dans la zone participaient à cette opération de sauvetage. Selon les premières informations des autorités, le bateau des migrants avait appareillé de la Libye à destination de l’Italie. Aux frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne (UE) en Méditerranée, la Grèce est un passage plus habituel pour des migrants qui cherchent à rejoindre l’UE depuis la Turquie voisine.
    De nombreux naufrages souvent meurtriers ont lieu en mer Egée alors que la Grèce est régulièrement accusée par des organisations non gouvernementales et des médias produisant des vidéos de refouler des migrants, en quête d’asile dans l’Union européenne, hors de son territoire. Outre ce passage, ces personnes tentent également de passer directement en Italie en traversant la Méditerranée dans le sud du Péloponnèse ou au large de l’île de Crète. Depuis le début de l’année, 44 personnes sont mortes noyées en Méditerranée orientale, d’après l’OIM. L’an dernier, le nombre des personnes ayant ainsi péri s’est élevé à au moins 372.(...).

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#mediterranee#grece#italie#UE#turquie#frontex#naufrage#mortalité#politiquemigratoire#postcovid#libye

  • Frontex mette a bando un servizio di traghetti per riportare i migranti in Turchia

    A metà maggio l’Agenzia europea ha indetto una gara da due milioni di euro per un servizio di “trasferimento” via mare dalla Grecia di minimo 100 persone alla volta in forza del patto tra Ue e Turchia del 2016. Una fase inedita che segna l’avvio di respingimenti alla luce del sole e ignora le gravi e documentate violazioni dei diritti

    A metà maggio di quest’anno l’Agenzia europea Frontex ha pubblicato un bando dal valore di due milioni di euro per organizzare il trasferimento di “passeggeri via mare”, almeno 100 per volta, dall’isola greca di Lesbo alla località di Dikili, sulle coste turche. La documentazione di gara consultata da Altreconomia segna l’inizio di una nuova fase alla luce del sole per la “strategia” di respingimento dei migranti verso la Turchia, a pochi giorni dalla rielezione del presidente turco Recep Tayyip Erdoğan e dagli inquietanti video pubblicati dal New York Times sulle brutali modalità di respingimento della Guardia costiera greca.

    È in questo contesto dunque che Frontex è pronta a prendere direttamente in mano la questione, assumendo un ruolo centrale nell’ambito del cosiddetto accordo Ue-Turchia del marzo 2016 sotto il quale “formalmente” dovrebbe rientrare questa nuova attività. “L’Agenzia avrà il monopolio della gestione di queste operazioni assumendo un ruolo che, in questi termini, non ha mai avuto in passato”, spiega Martina Tazzioli, ricercatrice al Goldsmiths College di Londra.

    Le operazioni sono parte del meccanismo “1:1” previsto dall’intesa da sei miliardi di euro annunciata tra le istituzioni comunitarie (Consiglio europeo) e il governo di Ankara nel marzo 2016. Con l’obiettivo dichiarato di scoraggiare le persone ad affidarsi ai trafficanti, lo schema prevedeva che per ogni migrante giunto “irregolarmente” in Grecia e perciò respinto in Turchia, un altro sarebbe dovuto essere ricollocato tramite vie legali in un Paese europeo.

    In realtà non è mai stato implementato in modo significativo: dal 2016 al 2022 sarebbero stati respinti “ufficialmente” indietro, dati dell’International rescue committee, 2.140 rifugiati mentre i reinsediati dal territorio turco verso l’Ue ammonterebbero a 36.763, tutti siriani (fonte è il ministero dell’Intero turco). La “sostanza” di quell’accordo era però quella di bloccare le partenze e, soprattutto, puntare tutto sui respingimenti informali: secondo la Ong Agean boat report, dal 2017 al giugno 2023 più di 284mila persone sarebbero state fermate dalla guardia costiera turca e 60mila respinte da quella greca.

    E la citata inchiesta del New York Times di fine maggio ha ricostruito, con tanto di video in alta definizione, le procedure di respingimento messe in atto dalle autorità di Atene che, dopo aver prelevato a forza i naufraghi arrivati sul territorio, li riportano in mare su assetti della Guardia costiera per poi abbandonarli al largo delle coste turche su “barche di fortuna” per l’ultimo tratto. Una procedura definita “assolutamente inaccettabile” da parte della commissaria europea agli Affari interni Ylva Johansson che però in tutta risposta, attraverso Frontex, investe sui nuovi respingimenti alla luce del sole rispolverando lo zoppicante meccanismo del patto Ue-Turchia.

    “Questi ricollocamenti sono stati sospesi nel marzo 2020 prima con la giustificazione della diffusione del Covid-19 poi perché il presidente Erdoğan ha smesso di accettare i ‘respinti’ di fronte al rifiuto delle istituzioni europee di fornire ulteriori finanziamenti -ricorda Tazzioli-. Evidentemente Frontex ha annunciato che presto queste operazioni riprenderanno”.

    L’appalto da due milioni di euro prevede la fornitura di traghetti che devono garantire “la capacità di imbarcare un minimo di cento passeggeri in aree chiuse [a cui si aggiungono] i ponti aperti e sedili al di fuori delle aree chiuse”. Deve essere prevista la possibilità di “limitare l’accesso al ponte esterno della nave” e i sedili dei “passeggeri” devono essere “singoli, fissi (senza panche) e disposti in file”. I bagni, inoltre, devono essere accessibili direttamente dall’area dei passeggeri senza la necessità di attraversare l’area “aperta”. Almeno uno dei traghetti messi a disposizione deve essere “interamente riservato al personale di Frontex”. Sulla nave deve essere poi garantito un servizio catering per tutti i “passeggeri di Frontex”: nello specifico “due panini confezionati senza carne di maiale: vegetariani o halal”, come se fossero “scontate” le nazionalità dei passeggeri, e soft drinks. Inoltre si sottolinea che è necessaria la presenza di un medico che deve disporre di un “kit di rianimazione di base comprendente farmaci di uso comune”. L’Agenzia sottolinea però che “il servizio medico può non essere richiesto in tutti i trasferimenti”. La stessa tipologia di traghetto utilizzata per i trasferimenti deve essere infine messa a disposizione di Frontex nel porto di Mitilene, a Lesbo, per “permettere all’Agenzia di svolgere esercitazioni per gli ufficiali di scorta al fine di prepararli alle operazioni di ritorno in uno scenario di ‘vita reale’”. Queste esercitazioni dureranno fino a due giorni.

    L’Agenzia stima due servizi di trasporto andata e ritorno al mese e un’esercitazione. Ma queste indicazioni “non sono vincolanti” e possono variare durante i due anni di contratto, rinnovabili per un periodo di 12 mesi e per un massimo di due volte. Appena cinque righe vengono dedicate nel bando al “contesto in cui si rende necessario il servizio” e che quindi giustifica la possibilità di svolgere questi “trasferimenti”. Viene specificato come detto che si tratta di operazioni che avvengono sotto il cappello del mai stipulato accordo Ue-Turchia e che “più informazioni sulla dichiarazione congiunta Ue-Turchia e sul piano per porre fine all’immigrazione irregolare sono disponibili nel comunicato stampa siglato il 18 marzo 2016”.

    Viene citato un “comunicato stampa” perché giuridicamente non è stato firmato nulla di vincolante: come ricordato da Chiara Favilli, professoressa di Diritto dell’Unione europea all’Università di Firenze, è il “paradosso di un accordo che viene definito dichiarazione e sul piano materiale svanisce impedendo che sia contestato sul piano giuridico”. Quello che non c’è nella nota stampa, invece, sono i Paesi di provenienza che nel frattempo sono stati aggiunti tra coloro che vengono ricollocati in forza di quell’accordo: Afghanistan, Siria, Somalia, Bangladesh e Pakistan. “Le persone di queste nazionalità che arrivano in Grecia vivono di fatto in un limbo: la loro richiesta d’asilo viene dichiarata inammissibile ma dal marzo 2020 non venivano neanche riportati sulle coste turche. Una sorta di elefante nella stanza per le autorità greche che non sapevano cosa fare con queste persone”. Ora l’indirizzo dato sembra essere chiaro.

    Il modus operandi è sintetizzato al settimo punto del capitolato. Sono infatti previste condizioni molto rigide per il contraente che deve seguire “prontamente e diligentemente le istruzioni di Frontex e delle autorità greche”, “applicare discrezione e riservatezza in relazione all’attività” con l’impossibilità di “documentare o condividere informazioni sull’attività con mezzi quali foto, video, commenti o condivisioni sui social media” e non può consentire “la presenza a bordo di passeggeri che non siano partecipanti alle attività non espressamente autorizzati da Frontex”.

    Il neo direttore esecutivo Hans Leijtens, che si è insediato all’inizio di aprile di quest’anno, sembra così seguire la via tracciata dal suo predecessore, Fabrice Leggeri. A nulla vale il fatto che il 9 marzo di quest’anno l’Agenzia per la prima volta sia stata costretta a comparire dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea: il caso promosso dall’avvocata tedesca Lisa-Marie Komp riguarda il rimpatrio nel 2016 di una famiglia siriana con quattro bambini piccoli che, pochi giorni dopo aver presentato richiesta d’asilo in Grecia è stata caricata su un aereo e riportata in Turchia su un volo gestito proprio da Frontex sempre nell’ambito dell’accordo Ue-Turchia.

    La stessa “dinamica” che si vorrebbe replicare per mezzo dei traghetti: l’Agenzia, in altri termini, non si fa problemi nel non attendere l’esito di un procedimento che ha come oggetto proprio la stessa attività che verrebbe riproposta con i ferry. Altreconomia ha domandato a Frontex, a seguito dell’inchiesta del New York Times, quali azioni intenda intraprendere in merito alle pratiche della polizia di frontiera greca chiedendo espressamente se sia in discussione l’attivazione dell’articolo 46 del regolamento dell’Agenzia che prevede il ritiro degli agenti da un Paese qualora non vengano rispettati i diritti umani durante le operazioni di “controllo” dei confini. Nessuna risposta anche se il nuovo bando per traghettare centinaia di persone verso la Turchia parla da sé.

    Le offerte per aggiudicarsi la commessa devono giungere a Frontex entro il 29 giugno, il 30 verranno aperte le buste per aggiudicare la gara e assegnare il servizio. I contraenti così come l’affidatario (cioè l’Agenzia) devono garantire che “si comporteranno in conformità con l’ordine pubblico, nel pieno rispetto dei diritti fondamentali sanciti dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea”. Una clausola che sa di farsa.

    https://altreconomia.it/frontex-mette-a-bando-un-servizio-di-traghetti-per-riportare-i-migranti

    #Grèce #Turquie #refoulements #push-backs #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Frontex #Dikili #Lesbos #accord_UE-Turquie #ferry #limbe

  • « #Albanie : enjeux migratoires dans les Balkans. Transit, émigration, retours forcés : des mobilités entravées »

    Cette note d’analyse vise à mieux comprendre les enjeux migratoires actuels en Albanie. Elle propose de contribuer à la compréhension de la place de l’Albanie dans cette double dimension : la situation des personnes étrangères en #transit ainsi que les #expulsions des ressortissant·e·s albanais·e·s depuis la France par le concours de l’agence européenne de garde-côtes et de gardes-frontières, Frontex. Les informations collectées proviennent des constats issus d’une mission de La Cimade menée en Albanie en juin 2022 et du travail de recherche effectué en amont par l’équipe du Pôle Solidarités Internationales-Europe.
    Au Sommaire :

    UE-Albanie : une coopération de longue date maîtrisée par l’UE

    - Albanie : l’Union européenne comme horizon
    - Un laboratoire des contrôles migratoires externalisés dans les Balkans

    La situation des personnes en transit en Albanie

    – Filtrage aux frontières : la procédure de pré-identification
    - 2020 : coup d’arrêt pour la demande d’asile aux frontières

    Les Albanais·es cibles de la #machine_à_expulser de l’UE

    - Les #charters #Frontex : instrument privilégié pour expulser vers l’Albanie
    - Les « charters Frontex du mardi » : la routine de l’expulsion des Albanais·es depuis la France
    – Bannissement de l’UE et interdiction de sortir d’Albanie ?
    – En amont des expulsions : dissuader les projets migratoires

    https://www.lacimade.org/la-cimade-publie-une-note-danalyse-albanie-enjeux-migratoires-dans-les-bal

    #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières #renvois #France #réfugiés_albanais #migrants_albanais #Balkans #route_des_Balkans #machine_à_expulsion #externalisation #dissuasion

    • Enregistrement webinaire Albanie

      A l’occasion de la sortie de la Note d’analyse « Albanie : enjeux migratoires dans les Balkans. Transit, émigration, retours forcés : des mobilités entravées », La Cimade a organisé un webinaire afin de présenter nos observations et analyses.

      https://vimeo.com/826189577

  • The deputy defence minister in #Greece visits the border fence at the #Evros river.
    Interesting for me how #Frontex poses there together with the #military.

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

    https://twitter.com/matthimon/status/1658789440318328833

    –—

    Χαρδαλιάς απ’ τον φράχτη : « Η φύλαξη των συνόρων μας αποτελεί προτεραιότητα, είναι εθνική επιταγή »

    Ο Υφυπουργός Εθνικής Άμυνας Νικόλαος Χαρδαλιάς κατά την επίσκεψη του στον Έβρο την περασμένη Δευτέρα 15 Μαΐου 2023, επισκέφθηκε το Επιτηρητικό Φυλάκιο « ΠΕΤΑΛΟΥ ΠΕΠΛΟΥ » και τον Φράχτη στην περιοχή του ελληνικού προγεφυρώματος Πετάλου.

    Ο κ.Χαρδαλάς, μαζί με τον Ευρωβουλευτή και Αντιπρόεδρο της Κοινοβουλευτικής Ομάδας του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο Ευάγγελο Μεϊμαράκη, ενημερώθηκαν για τα μέτρα επιτήρησης και φύλαξης των ελληνικών και παράλληλα ευρωπαϊκών συνόρων.

    Τον Υφυπουργό Εθνικής Άμυνας συνόδευσαν οι Διοικητές του Δ΄ Σώματος Στρατού Αντιστράτηγος Δημόκριτος Κωνσταντάκος, της XII Μηχανοκίνητης Μεραρχίας Πεζικού Υποστράτηγος Χρήστος Μπακιρτζής και της 31 Μηχανοκίνητης Ταξιαρχίας Ταξίαρχος Λάζαρος Λαζαρίδης.

    Ο κ.Χαρδαλιάς από τον φράχτη στην περιοχή του ελληνικού προγεφυρώματος Πετάλου έκανε την ακόλουθη δήλωση :

    « Η φύλαξη των συνόρων μας αποτελεί προτεραιότητα, είναι εθνική επιταγή. Γιατί πρεσβεύει όλα όσα νοιώθουμε και πιστεύουμε για αυτή την πατρίδα. Και αυτή η πατρίδα πρέπει να είναι θωρακισμένη, να φυλάει τα σύνορά της, και είθε να είναι ασφαλής και πάνω από όλα περήφανη ! ».

    Νωρίτερα είχαν επισκεφθεί το αμερικανικό μεταγωγικό πλοίο “ARC ENDURANCE”, που ελλιμενίζεται στον λιμένα της Αλεξανδρούπολης, όπου τους υποδέχθηκε ο Captain (Κυβερνήτης) Glenn Koshak.

    Κατά την επίσκεψη οι κ.κ. Χαρδαλιάς και Μεϊμαράκης ενημερώθηκαν από τον Κυβερνήτη και το πλήρωμα του θηριώδους πλοίου, για τις μεταφορικές δυνατότητες του και ξεναγήθηκαν στα βασικά διαμερίσματα. Επίσης, ενημερώθηκαν από τον Πρόεδρο του Οργανισμού Λιμένος Αλεξανδρούπολης κ. Κωνσταντίνο Χατζημιχαήλ, για τον γεωστρατηγικό και εμπορικό ρόλο του λιμανιού και για τις δραστηριότητες στο πλαίσιο εφαρμογής της συμφωνίας αμοιβαίας αμυντικής συνεργασίας Ελλάδας – ΗΠΑ και επισκέφθηκαν τερματικό σημείο υποδοχής και προώθησης Αμερικανικών και συμμαχικών στρατευμάτων και στρατιωτικού υλικού στην Κεντρική και Ανατολική Ευρώπη.

    Επιπρόσθετα, οι κ.κ. Χαρδαλιάς και Μεϊμαράκης συναντήθηκαν με αντιπροσωπεία Ιταλών Αξιωματικών του μεταγωγικού πλοίου “SEVERINE”, το οποίο χρησιμοποιεί το λιμάνι της Αλεξανδρούπολης για τη μεταφορά στρατιωτικού υλικού των Ιταλικών Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων, στο πλαίσιο της Βορειοατλαντικής Συμμαχίας.

    https://www.evros-news.gr/2023/05/17/%cf%87%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%b4%ce%b1%ce%bb%ce%b9%ce%ac%cf%82-%ce%b1%cf%80-%cf%8

    #Evros #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #militarisation_des_frontières #Grèce #frontière_terrestre #Turquie #Thraces

  • Nessuno vuole mettere limiti all’attività dell’Agenzia Frontex

    Le istituzioni dell’Ue, ossessionate dal controllo delle frontiere, sembrano ignorare i problemi strutturali denunciati anche dall’Ufficio europeo antifrode. E lavorano per dispiegare le “divise blu” pure nei Paesi “chiave” oltre confine

    “Questa causa fa parte di un mosaico di una più ampia campagna contro Frontex: ogni attacco verso di noi è un attacco all’Unione europea”. Con questi toni gli avvocati dell’Agenzia che sorveglia le frontiere europee si sono difesi di fronte alla Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea. Il 9 marzo, per la prima volta in oltre 19 anni di attività (ci sono altri due casi pendenti, presentati dalla Ong Front-Lex), le “divise blu” si sono trovate di fronte a un giudice grazie alla tenacia dell’avvocata olandese Lisa-Marie Komp.

    Non è successo, invece, per le scioccanti rivelazioni del rapporto dell’Ufficio europeo antifrode (Olaf) che ha ricostruito nel dettaglio come l’Agenzia abbia insabbiato centinaia di respingimenti violenti: quell’indagine è “semplicemente” costata la leadership all’allora direttore Fabrice Leggeri, nell’aprile 2022, ma niente di più. “Tutto è rimasto nel campo delle opinioni e nessuno è andato a fondo sui problemi strutturali -spiega Laura Salzano, dottoranda in Diritto europeo dell’immigrazione presso l’Università di Barcellona-. C’erano tutti gli estremi per portare l’Agenzia di fronte alla Corte di giustizia e invece nulla è stato fatto nonostante sia un’istituzione pubblica con un budget esplosivo che lavora con i più vulnerabili”. Non solo l’impunità ma anche la cieca fiducia ribadita più volte da diverse istituzioni europee. Il 28 giugno 2022 il Consiglio europeo, a soli due mesi dalle dimissioni di Leggeri, dà il via libera all’apertura dei negoziati per portare gli agenti di Frontex in Senegal con la proposta di garantire un’immunità totale nel Paese per le loro azioni.

    A ottobre, invece, a pochi giorni dalla divulgazione del rapporto Olaf -tenuto segreto per oltre quattro mesi- la Commissione europea chiarisce che l’Agenzia “si è già assunta piena responsabilità di quanto successo”. Ancora, a febbraio 2023 il Consiglio europeo le assicura nuovamente “pieno supporto”. Un dato preoccupante soprattutto con riferimento all’espansione di Frontex che mira a diventare un attore sempre più presente nei Paesi chiave per la gestione del fenomeno migratorio, a migliaia di chilometri di distanza dal suo quartier generale di Varsavia.

    “I suoi problemi sono strutturali ma le istituzioni europee fanno finta di niente: se già è difficile controllare gli agenti sui ‘nostri’ confini, figuriamoci in Paesi al di fuori dell’Ue”, spiega Yasha Maccanico, membro del centro di ricerca indipendente Statewatch.

    A fine febbraio 2023 l’Agenzia ha festeggiato la conclusione di un progetto che prevede la consegna di attrezzature ai membri dell’Africa-Frontex intelligence community (Afic), finanziata dalla Commissione, che ha permesso dal 2010 in avanti l’apertura di “Cellule di analisi del rischio” (Rac) gestite da analisti locali formati dall’Agenzia con l’obiettivo di “raccogliere e analizzare informazioni strategiche su crimini transfrontalieri” oltre che a “sostenere le autorità nella gestione dei confini”. A partire dal 2021 una potenziata infrastruttura garantisce “comunicazioni sicure e istantanee” tra le Rac e gli agenti nella sede di Varsavia. Questo è il “primo livello” di collaborazione tra Frontex e le autorità di Paesi terzi che oggi vede, come detto, “cellule” attive in Nigeria, Gambia, Niger, Ghana, Senegal, Costa d’Avorio, Togo e Mauritania oltre a una ventina di Stati coinvolti nelle attività di formazione degli analisti, pronti ad attivare le Rac in futuro. “Lo scambio di dati sui flussi è pericoloso perché l’obiettivo delle politiche europee non è proteggere i diritti delle persone, ma fermarle nei Paesi più poveri”, continua Maccanico.

    Un gradino al di sopra delle collaborazioni più informali, come nell’Afic, ci sono i cosiddetti working arrangement (accordi di cooperazione) che permettono di collaborare con le autorità di un Paese in modo ufficiale. “Non serve il via libera del Parlamento europeo e di fatto non c’è nessun controllo né prima della sottoscrizione né ex post -riprende Salzano-. Se ci fosse uno scambio di dati e informazioni dovrebbe esserci il via libera del Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, ma a oggi, questo parere, è stato richiesto solo nel caso del Niger”. A marzo 2023 sono invece 18 i Paesi che hanno siglato accordi simili: da Stati Uniti e Canada, passando per Capo Verde fino alla Federazione Russa. “Sappiamo che i contatti con Mosca dovrebbero essere quotidiani. Dall’inizio del conflitto ho chiesto più volte all’Agenzia se queste comunicazioni sono state interrotte: nessuno mi ha mai risposto”, sottolinea Salzano.

    Obiettivo ultimo dell’Agenzia è riuscire a dispiegare agenti e mezzi anche nei Paesi terzi: una delle novità del regolamento del 2019 rispetto al precedente (2016) è proprio la possibilità di lanciare operazioni non solo nei “Paesi vicini” ma in tutto il mondo. Per farlo sono necessari gli status agreement, accordi internazionali che impegnano formalmente anche le istituzioni europee. Sono cinque quelli attivi (Serbia, Albania, Montenegro e Macedonia del Nord, Moldova) ma sono in via di sottoscrizione quelli con Senegal e Mauritania per limitare le partenze (poco più di 15mila nel 2022) verso le isole Canarie, mille chilometri più a Nord: accordi per ora “fermi”, secondo quanto ricostruito dalla parlamentare europea olandese Tineke Strik che a fine febbraio ha visitato i due Stati, ma che danno conto della linea che si vuole seguire. Un quadro noto, i cui dettagli però spesso restano nascosti.

    È quanto emerge dal report “Accesso negato”, pubblicato da Statewatch a metà marzo 2023, che ricostruisce altri due casi di scarsa trasparenza negli accordi, Niger e Marocco, due Paesi chiave nella strategia europea di esternalizzazione delle frontiere. “Con la ‘scusa’ della tutela della riservatezza nelle relazioni internazionali e mettendo la questione migratoria sotto il cappello dell’antiterrorismo l’accesso ai dettagli degli accordi non è consentito”, spiega Maccanico, uno dei curatori dello studio. Non si conoscono, per esempio, i compiti specifici degli agenti, per cui si propone addirittura l’immunità totale. “In alcuni accordi, come in Macedonia del Nord, si è poi ‘ripiegato’ su un’immunità connessa solo ai compiti che rientrano nel mandato dell’Agenzia -osserva Salzano-. Ma il problema non cambia: dove finisce la sua responsabilità e dove inizia quella del Paese membro?”. Una zona grigia funzionale a Frontex, anche quando opera sul territorio europeo.

    Lo sa bene l’avvocata tedesca Lisa-Marie Komp che, come detto, ha portato l’Agenzia di fronte alla Corte di giustizia dell’Ue. Il caso, su cui il giudice si pronuncerà nei prossimi mesi, riguarda il rimpatrio nel 2016 di una famiglia siriana con quattro bambini piccoli che, pochi giorni dopo aver presentato richiesta d’asilo in Grecia, è stata caricata su un aereo e riportata in Turchia: quel volo è stato gestito da Frontex, in collaborazione con le autorità greche. “L’Agenzia cerca di scaricare le responsabilità su di loro ma il suo mandato stabilisce chiaramente che è tenuta a monitorare il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali durante queste operazioni -spiega-. Serve chiarire che tutti devono rispettare la legge, compresa l’Agenzia le cui azioni hanno un grande impatto sulla vita di molte persone”.

    Le illegittimità nell’attività dei rimpatri sono note da tempo e il caso della famiglia siriana non è isolato. “Quando c’è una forte discrepanza nelle decisioni sulle domande d’asilo tra i diversi Paesi europei, l’attività di semplice ‘coordinamento’ e preparazione delle attività di rimpatrio può tradursi nella violazione del principio di non respingimento”, spiega Mariana Gkliati, docente di Migrazione e Asilo all’università olandese di Tilburg. Nonostante questi problemi e un sistema d’asilo sempre più fragile, negli ultimi anni i poteri e le risorse a disposizione per l’Agenzia sui rimpatri sono esplosi: nel 2022 questa specifica voce di bilancio prevedeva quasi 79 milioni di euro (+690% rispetto ai dieci milioni del 2012).

    E la crescita sembra destinata a non fermarsi. Frontex nel 2023 stima di poter rimpatriare 800 persone in Iraq, 316 in Pakistan, 200 in Gambia, 75 in Afghanistan, 57 in Siria, 60 in Russia e 36 in Ucraina come si legge in un bando pubblicato a inizio febbraio 2023 che ha come obiettivo la ricerca di partner in questi Paesi (e in altri, in totale 43) per garantire assistenza di breve e medio periodo (12 mesi) alle persone rimpatriate. Un’altra gara pubblica dà conto della centralità dell’Agenzia nella “strategia dei rimpatri” europea: 120 milioni di euro nel novembre 2022 per l’acquisto di “servizi di viaggio relativi ai rimpatri mediante voli di linea”. Migliaia di biglietti e un nuovo sistema informatico per gestire al meglio le prenotazioni, con un’enorme mole di dati personali delle persone “irregolari” che arriveranno nelle “mani” di Frontex. Mani affidabili, secondo la Commissione europea.

    Ma il 7 ottobre 2022 il Parlamento, nel “bocciare” nuovamente Frontex rispetto al via libera sul bilancio 2020, dava conto del “rammarico per l’assenza di procedimenti disciplinari” nei confronti di Leggeri e della “preoccupazione” per la mancata attivazione dell’articolo 46 (che prevede il ritiro degli agenti quando siano sistematiche le violazioni dei diritti umani) con riferimento alla Grecia, in cui l’Agenzia opera con 518 agenti, 11 navi e 30 mezzi. “I respingimenti e la violenza sui confini continuano sia alle frontiere terrestri sia a quelle marittime così come non si è interrotto il sostegno alle autorità greche”, spiega la ricercatrice indipendente Lena Karamanidou. La “scusa” ufficiale è che la presenza di agenti migliori la situazione ma non è così. “Al confine terrestre di Evros, la violenza è stata documentata per tutto il tempo in cui Frontex è stata presente, fin dal 2010. È difficile immaginare come possa farlo in futuro vista la sistematicità delle violenze su questo confine”. Su quella frontiera si giocherà anche la presunta nuova reputazione dell’Agenzia guidata dal primo marzo dall’olandese Hans Leijtens: un tentativo di “ripulire” l’immagine che è già in corso.

    Frontex nei confronti delle persone in fuga dal conflitto in Ucraina ha tenuto fin dall’inizio un altro registro: i “migranti irregolari” sono diventati “persone che scappano da zone di conflitto”; l’obiettivo di “combattere l’immigrazione irregolare” si è trasformato nella gestione “efficace dell’attraversamento dei confini”. “Gli ultimi mesi hanno mostrato il potenziale di Frontex di evolversi in un attore affidabile della gestione delle frontiere che opera con efficienza, trasparenza e pieno rispetto dei diritti umani”, sottolinea Gkliati nello studio “Frontex assisting in the ukrainian displacement. A welcoming committee at racialised passage?”, pubblicato nel marzo 2023. Una conferma ulteriore, per Salzano, dei limiti strutturali dell’Agenzia: “La legge va rispettata indipendentemente dalla cornice in cui operi: la tutela dei diritti umani prescinde dagli umori della politica”.

    https://altreconomia.it/nessuno-vuole-mettere-limiti-allattivita-dellagenzia-frontex

    #Frontex #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #justice #Lisa-Marie_Komp #OLAF #Sénégal #externalisation #Africa-Frontex_intelligence_community (#Afic) #Rac #Nigeria #Gambie #Niger #Ghana #Côte_d'Ivoire #Togo #Mauritanie #status_agreement #échange_de_données #working_arrangement #Serbie #Monténégro #Albanie #Moldavie #Macédoine_du_Nord #CJUE #cours_de_justice #renvois #expulsions

    • I rischi della presenza di Frontex in Africa: tanto potere, poca responsabilità

      L’eurodeputata #Tineke_Strik è stata in Senegal e Mauritania a fine febbraio 2023: in un’intervista ad Altreconomia ricostruisce lo stato dell’arte degli accordi che l’Ue vorrebbe concludere con i due Paesi ritenuti “chiave” nel contrasto ai flussi migratori. Denunciando la necessità di una riforma strutturale dell’Agenzia.

      A un anno di distanza dalle dimissioni del suo ex direttore Fabrice Leggeri, le istituzioni europee non vogliono mettere limiti all’attività di Frontex. Come abbiamo ricostruito sul numero di aprile di Altreconomia, infatti, l’Agenzia -che dal primo marzo 2023 è guidata da Hans Leijtens- continua a svolgere un ruolo centrale nelle politiche migratorie dell’Unione europea nonostante le pesanti rivelazioni dell’Ufficio europeo antifrode (Olaf), che ha ricostruito nel dettaglio il malfunzionamento nelle operazioni delle divise blu lungo i confini europei.

      Ma non solo. Un aspetto particolarmente preoccupante sono le operazioni al di fuori dei Paesi dell’Unione, che rientrano sempre di più tra le priorità di Frontex in un’ottica di esternalizzazione delle frontiere per “fermare” preventivamente i flussi di persone dirette verso l’Europa. Non a caso, a luglio 2022, nonostante i contenuti del rapporto Olaf chiuso solo pochi mesi prima, la Commissione europea ha dato il via libera ai negoziati con Senegal e Mauritania per stringere un cosiddetto working arrangement e permettere così agli “agenti europei” di operare nei due Paesi africani (segnaliamo anche la recente ricerca pubblicata dall’Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull’immigrazione sul tema).

      Per monitorare lo stato dell’arte di questi accordi l’eurodeputata Tineke Strik, tra le poche a opporsi e a denunciare senza sconti gli effetti delle politiche migratorie europee e il ruolo di Frontex, a fine febbraio 2023 ha svolto una missione di monitoraggio nei due Paesi. Già professoressa di Diritto della cittadinanza e delle migrazioni dell’Università di Radboud di Nimega, in Olanda, è stata eletta al Parlamento europeo nel 2019 nelle fila di GroenLinks (Sinistra verde). L’abbiamo intervistata.

      Onorevole Strik, secondo quanto ricostruito dalla vostra visita (ha partecipato alla missione anche Cornelia Erns, di LeftEu, ndr), a che punto sono i negoziati con il Senegal?
      TS La nostra impressione è che le autorità senegalesi non siano così desiderose di concludere un accordo di status con l’Unione europea sulla presenza di Frontex nel Paese. L’approccio di Bruxelles nei confronti della migrazione come sappiamo è molto incentrato su sicurezza e gestione delle frontiere; i senegalesi, invece, sono più interessati a un intervento sostenibile e incentrato sullo sviluppo, che offra soluzioni e affronti le cause profonde che spingono le persone a partire. Sono molti i cittadini del Senegal emigrano verso l’Europa: idealmente, il governo vuole che rimangano nel Paese, ma capisce meglio di quanto non lo facciano le istituzioni Ue che si può intervenire sulla migrazione solo affrontando le cause alla radice e migliorando la situazione nel contesto di partenza. Allo stesso tempo, le navi europee continuano a pescare lungo le coste del Paese (minacciando la pesca artigianale, ndr), le aziende europee evadono le tasse e il latte sovvenzionato dall’Ue viene scaricato sul mercato senegalese, causando disoccupazione e impedendo lo sviluppo dell’economia locale. Sono soprattutto gli accordi di pesca ad aver alimentato le partenze dal Senegal, dal momento che le comunità di pescatori sono state private della loro principale fonte di reddito. Serve domandarsi se l’Unione sia veramente interessata allo sviluppo e ad affrontare le cause profonde della migrazione. E lo stesso discorso può essere fatto su molti dei Paesi d’origine delle persone che cercano poi protezione in Europa.

      Dakar vede di buon occhio l’intervento dell’Unione europea? Quale tipo di operazioni andrebbero a svolgere gli agenti di Frontex nel Paese?
      TS Abbiamo avuto la sensazione che l’Ue non ascoltasse le richieste delle autorità senegalesi -ad esempio in materia di rilascio di visti d’ingresso- e ci hanno espresso preoccupazioni relative ai diritti fondamentali in merito a qualsiasi potenziale cooperazione con Frontex, data la reputazione dell’Agenzia. È difficile dire che tipo di supporto sia previsto, ma nei negoziati l’Unione sta puntando sia alle frontiere terrestri sia a quelle marittime.

      Che cosa sta avvenendo in Mauritania?
      TS Sebbene questo Paese sembri disposto a concludere un accordo sullo status di Frontex -soprattutto nell’ottica di ottenere un maggiore riconoscimento da parte dell’Europa-, preferisce comunque mantenere l’autonomia nella gestione delle proprie frontiere e quindi non prevede una presenza permanente dei funzionari dell’Agenzia nel Paese. Considerano l’accordo sullo status più come un quadro giuridico, per consentire la presenza di Frontex in caso di aumento della pressione migratoria. Inoltre, come il Senegal, ritengono che l’Europa debba ascoltare e accogliere le loro richieste, che riguardano principalmente i visti e altre aree di cooperazione. Anche in questo caso, Bruxelles chiede il mandato più ampio possibile per gli agenti in divisa blu durante i negoziati per “mantenere aperte le opzioni [più ampie]”, come dicono loro stessi. Ma credo sia chiaro che il loro obiettivo è quello di operare sia alle frontiere marittime sia a quelle terrestri.
      Questo a livello “istituzionale”. Qual è invece la posizione della società civile?
      TS In entrambi i Paesi è molto critica. In parte a causa della cattiva reputazione di Frontex in relazione ai diritti umani, ma anche a causa dell’esperienza che i cittadini senegalesi e mauritani hanno già sperimentato con la Guardia civil spagnola, presente nei due Stati, che ritengono stia intaccando la sovranità per quanto riguarda la gestione delle frontiere. È previsto che il mandato di Frontex sia addirittura esecutivo, a differenza di quello della Guardia civil, che può impegnarsi solo in pattugliamenti congiunti in cui le autorità nazionali sono al comando. Quindi la sovranità di entrambi i Paesi sarebbe ulteriormente minata.

      Perché a suo avviso sarebbe problematica la presenza di agenti di Frontex nei due Paesi?
      TS L’immunità che l’Unione europea vorrebbe per i propri operativi dispiegati in Africa non è solo connessa allo svolgimento delle loro funzioni ma si estende al di fuori di esse, a questo si aggiunge la possibilità di essere armati. Penso sia problematico il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dei naufraghi intercettati in mare, poiché è difficile ottenere l’accesso all’asilo sia in Senegal sia in Mauritania. In questo Paese, ad esempio, l’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (Unhcr) impiega molto tempo per determinare il loro bisogno di protezione: fanno eccezione i maliani, che riescono a ottenerla in “appena” due anni. E durante l’attesa queste persone non hanno quasi diritti.

      Ma se ottengono la protezione è comunque molto difficile registrarsi presso l’amministrazione, cosa necessaria per avere accesso al mercato del lavoro, alle scuole o all’assistenza sanitaria. E le conseguenze che ne derivano sono le continue retate, i fermi e le deportazioni alla frontiera, per impedire alle persone di partire. A causa delle attuali intercettazioni in mare, le rotte migratorie si stanno spostando sulla terra ferma e puntano verso l’Algeria: l’attraversamento del deserto può essere mortale. Il problema principale è che Frontex deve rispettare il diritto dell’Unione europea anche se opera in un Paese terzo in cui si applicano norme giuridiche diverse, ma l’Agenzia andrà a operare sotto il comando delle guardie di frontiera di un Paese che non è vincolato dalle “regole” europee. Come può Frontex garantire di non essere coinvolta in operazioni che violano le norme fondamentali del diritto comunitario, se determinate azioni non sono illegali in quel Paese? Sulla carta è possibile presentare un reclamo a Frontex, ma poi nella pratica questo strumento in quali termini sarebbe accessibile ed efficace?

      Un anno dopo le dimissioni dell’ex direttore Leggeri ritiene che Frontex si sia pienamente assunta la responsabilità di quanto accaduto? Può davvero, secondo lei, diventare un attore affidabile per l’Ue?
      TS Prima devono accadere molte cose. Non abbiamo ancora visto una riforma fondamentale: c’è ancora un forte bisogno di maggiore trasparenza, di un atteggiamento più fermo nei confronti degli Stati membri ospitanti e di un uso conseguente dell’articolo 46 che prevede la sospensione delle operazioni in caso di violazioni dei diritti umani (abbiamo già raccontato il ruolo dell’Agenzia nei respingimenti tra Grecia e Turchia, ndr). Questi problemi saranno ovviamente esacerbati nella cooperazione con i Paesi terzi, perché la responsabilità sarà ancora più difficile da raggiungere.

      https://altreconomia.it/i-rischi-della-presenza-di-frontex-in-africa-tanto-potere-poca-responsa

    • «Un laboratorio di esternalizzazione tra frontiere di terra e di mare». La missione di ASGI in Senegal e Mauritania

      Lo scorso 29 marzo è stato pubblicato il rapporto «Un laboratorio di esternalizzazione tra frontiere di terra e di mare» (https://www.asgi.it/notizie/rapporto-asgi-della-senegal-mauritania), frutto del sopralluogo giuridico effettuato tra il 7 e il 13 maggio 2022 da una delegazione di ASGI composta da Alice Fill, Lorenzo Figoni, Matteo Astuti, Diletta Agresta, Adelaide Massimi (avvocate e avvocati, operatori e operatrici legali, ricercatori e ricercatrici).

      Il sopralluogo aveva l’obiettivo di analizzare lo sviluppo delle politiche di esternalizzazione del controllo della mobilità e di blocco delle frontiere implementate dall’Unione Europea in Mauritania e in Senegal – due paesi a cui, come la Turchia o gli stati balcanici più orientali, gli stati membri hanno delegato la gestione dei flussi migratori concordando politiche sempre più ostacolanti per lo spostamento delle persone.

      Nel corso del sopralluogo sono stati intervistati, tra Mauritania e Senegal, più di 40 interlocutori afferenti a istituzioni, società civile, popolazione migrante e organizzazioni, tra cui OIM, UNHCR, delegazioni dell’UE. Intercettare questi soggetti ha consentito ad ASGI di andare oltre le informazioni vincolate all’ufficialità delle dichiarazioni pubbliche e di approfondire le pratiche illegittime portate avanti su questi territori.

      Il report parte dalle già assodate intenzioni di collaborazione tra l’Unione Europea e le autorità senegalesi e mauritane – una collaborazione che in entrambi i paesi sembra connotata nel senso del controllo e della sorveglianza; per quanto riguarda il Senegal, si fa menzione del ben noto status agreement, proposto nel febbraio 2022 a Dakar dalla Commissaria europea agli affari interni Ylva Johansson, con il quale si intende estendere il controllo di Frontex in Senegal.

      L’obiettivo di tale accordo era il controllo della cosiddetta rotta delle Canarie, che tra il 2018 e il 2022 è stata sempre più battuta. Sebbene la proposta abbia generato accese discussioni nella società civile senegalese, preoccupata all’idea di cedere parte della sovranità del paese sul controllo delle frontiere esterne, con tale accordo, elaborato con un disegno molto simile a quello che regola le modalità di intervento di Frontex nei Balcani, si legittimerebbe ufficialmente l’attività di controllo dell’agenzia UE in paesi terzi, e in particolare fuori dal continente europeo.

      Per quanto riguarda la Mauritania, si menziona l’Action Plan pubblicato da Frontex il 7 giugno 2022, con il quale si prospetta una possibilità di collaborare operativamente sul territorio mauritano, in particolare per lo sviluppo di governance in materia migratoria.

      Senegal

      Sin dai primi anni Duemila, il dialogo tra istituzioni europee e senegalesi è stato focalizzato sulle politiche di riammissione dei cittadini senegalesi presenti in UE in maniera irregolare e dei cosiddetti ritorni volontari, le politiche di gestione delle frontiere senegalesi e il controllo della costa, la promozione di una legislazione anti-trafficking e anti-smuggling. Tutto questo si è intensificato quando, a partire dal 2018, la rotta delle Canarie è tornata a essere una rotta molto percorsa. L’operatività delle agenzie europee in Senegal per la gestione delle migrazioni si declina principalmente nei seguenti obiettivi:

      1. Monitoraggio delle frontiere terrestri e marittime. Il memorandum firmato nel 2006 da Senegal e Spagna ha sancito la collaborazione ufficiale tra le forze di polizia europee e quelle senegalesi in operazioni congiunte di pattugliamento; a questo si aggiunge, sempre nello stesso anno, una presenza sempre più intensiva di Frontex al largo delle coste senegalesi.

      2. Lotta alla tratta e al traffico. Su questo fronte dell’operatività congiunta tra forze senegalesi ed europee, la normativa di riferimento è la legge n. 06 del 10 maggio 2005, che offre delle direttive per il contrasto della tratta di persone e del traffico. Tale documento, non distinguendo mai fra “tratta” e “traffico”, di fatto criminalizza la migrazione irregolare tout court, dal momento che viene utilizzato in maniera estensiva (e arbitraria) come strumento di controllo e di repressione della mobilità – fu utilizzato, ad esempio, per accusare di traffico di esseri umani un padre che aveva imbarcato suo figlio su un mezzo che poi naufragato.

      Il sistema di asilo in Senegal

      Il Senegal aderisce alla Convenzione del 1951 sullo status de rifugiati e del relativo Protocollo del 1967; la valutazione delle domande di asilo fa capo alla Commissione Nazionale di Eleggibilità (CNE), che al deposito della richiesta di asilo emette un permesso di soggiorno della durata di 3 mesi, rinnovabile fino all’esito dell’audizione di fronte alla CNE; l’esito della CNE è ricorribile in primo grado presso la Commissione stessa e, nel caso di ulteriore rifiuto, presso il Presidente della Repubblica. Quando il richiedente asilo depone la propria domanda, subentra l’UNHCR, che nel paese è molto presente e finanzia ONG locali per fornire assistenza.

      Il 5 aprile 2022 l’Assemblea Nazionale senegalese ha approvato una nuova legge sullo status dei rifugiati e degli apolidi, una legge che, stando a diverse associazioni locali, sulla carta estenderebbe i diritti cui i rifugiati hanno accesso; tuttavia, le stesse associazioni temono che a tale miglioramento possa non seguire un’applicazione effettiva della normativa.
      Mauritania

      Data la collocazione geografica del paese, a ridosso dell’Atlantico e delle isole Canarie, in prossimità di paesi ad alto indice di emigrazione (Senegal, Mali, Marocco), la Mauritania rappresenta un territorio strategico per il monitoraggio dei flussi migratori diretti in Europa. Pertanto, analogamente a quanto avvenuto in Senegal, anche in Mauritania la Spagna ha proceduto a rafforzare la cooperazione in tema di politiche migratorie e di gestione del controllo delle frontiere e a incrementare la presenta e l’impegno di attori esterni – in primis di agenzie quali Frontex – per interventi di contenimento dei flussi e di riammissione di cittadini stranieri in Mauritania.

      Relativamente alla Mauritania, l’obiettivo principale delle istituzioni europee sembra essere la prevenzione dell’immigrazione lungo la rotta delle Canarie. La normativa di riferimento è l’Accordo di riammissione bilaterale firmato con la Spagna nel luglio 2003. Con tale accordo, la Spagna può chiedere alla Mauritania di riammettere sul proprio territorio cittadini mauritani e non solo, anche altri cittadini provenienti da paesi terzi che “si presume” siano transitati per la Mauritania prima di entrare irregolarmente in Spagna. Oltre a tali interventi, il report di ASGI menziona l’Operazione Hera di Frontex e vari interventi di cooperazione allo sviluppo promossi dalla Spagna “con finalità tutt’altro che umanitarie”, bensì di gestione della mobilità.

      In tale regione, nella fase degli sbarchi risulta molto dubbio il ruolo giocato da organizzazioni come OIM e UNHCR, poiché non è codificato; interlocutori diversi hanno fornito informazioni contrastanti sulla disponibilità di UNHCR a intervenire in supporto e su segnalazione delle ONG presenti al momento dello sbarco. In ogni caso, se effettivamente UNHCR fosse assente agli sbarchi, ciò determinerebbe una sostanziale impossibilità di accesso alle procedure di protezione internazionale da parte di qualsiasi potenziale richiedente asilo che venga intercettato in mare.

      Anche in questo territorio la costruzione della figura del “trafficante” diventa un dispositivo di criminalizzazione e repressione della mobilità sulla rotta atlantica, strumentale alla soddisfazione di richieste europee.
      La detenzione dei cittadini stranieri

      Tra Nouakchott e Nouadhibou vi sono tre centri di detenzione per persone migranti; uno di questi (il Centro di Detenzione di Nouadhibou 2 (anche detto “El Guantanamito”), venne realizzato grazie a dei fondi di un’agenzia di cooperazione spagnola. Sovraffollamento, precarietà igienico-sanitaria e impossibilità di accesso a cure e assistenza legale hanno caratterizzato tali centri. Quando El Guantanamito fu chiuso, i commissariati di polizia sono diventati i principali luoghi deputati alla detenzione dei cittadini stranieri; in tali centri, vengono detenute non solo le persone intercettate in prossimità delle coste mauritane, ma anche i cittadini stranieri riammessi dalla Spagna, e anche le persone presenti irregolarmente su territorio mauritano. Risulta delicato il tema dell’accesso a tali commissariati, dal momento che il sopralluogo ha rilevato che le ONG non hanno il permesso di entrarvi, mentre le organizzazioni internazionali sì – ciò nonostante, nessuna delle persone precedentemente sottoposte a detenzione con cui la delegazione ASGI ha avuto modo di interloquire ha dichiarato di aver riscontrato la presenza di organizzazioni all’interno di questi centri.

      La detenzione amministrativa risulta essere “un tassello essenziale della politica di contenimento dei flussi di cittadini stranieri in Mauritania”. Il passaggio successivo alla detenzione delle persone migranti è l’allontanamento, che si svolge in forma di veri e propri respingimenti sommari e informali, senza che i migranti siano messi nelle condizioni né di dichiarare la propria nazionalità né di conoscere la procedura di ritorno volontario.
      Il ruolo delle organizzazioni internazionali in Mauritania

      OIM riveste un ruolo centrale nel panorama delle politiche di esternalizzazione e di blocco dei cittadini stranieri in Mauritania, tramite il supporto delle autorità di pubblica sicurezza mauritane nello sviluppo di politiche di contenimento della libertà di movimento – strategie e interventi che suggeriscono una connotazione securitaria della presenza dell’associazione nel paese, a scapito di una umanitaria.

      Nonostante anche la Mauritania sia firmataria della Convenzione di Ginevra, non esiste a oggi una legge nazionale sul diritto di asilo nel paese. UNHCR testimonia come dal 2015 esiste un progetto di legge sull’asilo, ma che questo sia tuttora “in attesa di adozione”.

      Pertanto, le procedure di asilo in Mauritania sono gestite interamente da UNHCR. Tali procedure si differenziano a seconda della pericolosità delle regioni di provenienza delle persone migranti; in particolare, i migranti maliani provenienti dalle regioni considerate più pericolose vengono registrati come rifugiati prima facie, quanto non accade invece per i richiedenti asilo provenienti dalle aree urbane, per loro, l’iter dell’asilo è ben più lungo, e prevede una sorta di “pre-pre-registrazione” presso un ente partner di UNHCR, cui segue una pre-registrazione accordata da UNHCR previo appuntamento, e solo in seguito alla registrazione viene riconosciuto un certificato di richiesta di asilo, valido per sei mesi, in attesa di audizione per la determinazione dello status di rifugiato.

      Le tempistiche per il riconoscimento di protezione, poi, sono differenti a seconda del grado di vulnerabilità del richiedente e in taluni casi potevano condurre ad anni e anni di attesa. Alla complessità della procedura si aggiunge che non tutti i potenziali richiedenti asilo possono accedervi – ad esempio, chi proviene da alcuni stati, come la Sierra Leone, considerati “paesi sicuri” secondo una categorizzazione fornita dall’Unione Africana.
      Conclusioni

      In fase conclusiva, il report si sofferma sul ruolo fondamentale giocato dall’Unione Europea nel forzare le politiche senegalesi e mauritane nel senso della sicurezza e del contenimento, a scapito della tutela delle persone migranti nei loro diritti fondamentali. Le principali preoccupazioni evidenziate sono rappresentate dalla prospettiva della conclusione dello status agreement tra Frontex e i due paesi, perché tale ratifica ufficializzerebbe non solo la presenza, ma un ruolo legittimo e attivo di un’agenzia europea nel controllo di frontiere che si dispiegano ben oltre i confini territoriali comunitari, ben oltre le acque territoriali, spingendo le maglie del controllo dei flussi fin dentro le terre di quegli stati da cui le persone fuggono puntando all’Unione Europea. La delegazione, tuttavia, sottolinea che vi sono aree in cui la società civile senegalese e mauritana risulta particolarmente politicizzata, dunque in grado di esprimere insofferenza o aperta contrarietà nei confronti delle ingerenze europee nei loro paesi. Infine, da interviste, colloqui e incontri con diretti interessati e testimoni, il ruolo di organizzazioni internazionali come le citate OIM e UNHCR appare nella maggior parte dei casi “fluido o sfuggevole”; una prospettiva, questa, che sembra confermare l’ambivalenza delle grandi organizzazioni internazionali, soggetti messi innanzitutto al servizio degli interessi delle istituzioni europee.

      Il report si conclude auspicando una prosecuzione di studio e analisi al fine di continuare a monitorare gli sviluppi politici e legislativi che legano l’Unione Europea e questi territori nella gestione operativa delle migrazioni.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/05/un-laboratorio-di-esternalizzazione-tra-frontiere-di-terra-e-di-mare

    • Pubblicato il rapporto #ASGI della missione in Senegal e Mauritania

      Il Senegal e la Mauritania sono paesi fondamentali lungo la rotta che conduce dall’Africa occidentale alle isole Canarie. Nel 2020, dopo alcuni anni in cui la rotta era stata meno utilizzata, vi è stato un incremento del 900% degli arrivi rispetto all’anno precedente. Il dato ha portato la Spagna e le istituzioni europee a concentrarsi nuovamente sui due paesi. La cosiddetta Rotta Atlantica, che a partire dal 2006 era stata teatro di sperimentazioni di pratiche di contenimento e selezione della mobilità e di delega dei controlli alle frontiere e del diritto di asilo, è tornata all’attenzione internazionale: da febbraio 2022 sono in corso negoziazioni per la firma di un accordo di status con Frontex per permettere il dispiegamento dei suoi agenti in Senegal e Mauritania.

      Al fine di indagare l’attuazione delle politiche di esternalizzazione e i loro effetti, dal 7 al 13 maggio 2022 un gruppo di socз ASGI – avvocatз, operatorз legali e ricercatorз – ha effettuato un sopralluogo giuridico a Nouakchott, Mauritania e a Dakar, Senegal.

      Il report restituisce il quadro ricostruito nel corso del sopralluogo, durante il quale è stato possibile intervistare oltre 45 interlocutori tra istituzioni, organizzazioni internazionali, ONG e persone migranti.

      https://www.asgi.it/notizie/rapporto-asgi-della-senegal-mauritania
      #rapport

    • Au Sénégal, les desseins de Frontex se heurtent aux résistances locales

      Tout semblait devoir aller très vite : début 2022, l’Union européenne propose de déployer sa force anti-migration Frontex sur les côtes sénégalaises, et le président Macky Sall y semble favorable. Mais c’était compter sans l’opposition de la société civile, qui refuse de voir le Sénégal ériger des murs à la place de l’Europe.

      Agents armés, navires, drones et systèmes de sécurité sophistiqués : Frontex, l’agence européenne de gardes-frontières et de gardes-côtes créée en 2004, a sorti le grand jeu pour dissuader les Africains de prendre la direction des îles Canaries – et donc de l’Europe –, l’une des routes migratoires les plus meurtrières au monde. Cet arsenal, auquel s’ajoutent des programmes de formation de la police aux frontières, est la pierre angulaire de la proposition faite début 2022 par le Conseil de l’Europe au Sénégal. Finalement, Dakar a refusé de la signer sous la pression de la société civile, même si les négociations ne sont pas closes. Dans un climat politique incandescent à l’approche de l’élection présidentielle de 2024, le président sénégalais, Macky Sall, soupçonné de vouloir briguer un troisième mandat, a préféré prendre son temps et a fini par revenir sur sa position initiale, qui semblait ouverte à cette collaboration. Dans le même temps, la Mauritanie voisine, elle, a entamé des négociations avec Bruxelles.

      L’histoire débute le 11 février 2022 : lors d’une conférence de presse à Dakar, la commissaire aux Affaires intérieures du Conseil de l’Europe, Ylva Johansson, officialise la proposition européenne de déployer Frontex sur les côtes sénégalaises. « C’est mon offre et j’espère que le gouvernement sénégalais sera intéressé par cette opportunité unique », indique-t-elle. En cas d’accord, elle annonce que l’agence européenne sera déployée dans le pays au plus tard au cours de l’été 2022. Dans les jours qui ont suivi l’annonce de Mme Johansson, plusieurs associations de la société civile sénégalaise ont organisé des manifestations et des sit-in à Dakar contre la signature de cet accord, jugé contraire aux intérêts nationaux et régionaux.

      Une frontière déplacée vers la côte sénégalaise

      « Il s’agit d’un #dispositif_policier très coûteux qui ne permet pas de résoudre les problèmes d’immigration tant en Afrique qu’en Europe. C’est pourquoi il est impopulaire en Afrique. Frontex participe, avec des moyens militaires, à l’édification de murs chez nous, en déplaçant la frontière européenne vers la côte sénégalaise. C’est inacceptable, dénonce Seydi Gassama, le directeur exécutif d’Amnesty International au Sénégal. L’UE exerce une forte pression sur les États africains. Une grande partie de l’aide européenne au développement est désormais conditionnée à la lutte contre la migration irrégulière. Les États africains doivent pouvoir jouer un rôle actif dans ce jeu, ils ne doivent pas accepter ce qu’on leur impose, c’est-à-dire des politiques contraires aux intérêts de leurs propres communautés. » Le défenseur des droits humains rappelle que les transferts de fonds des migrants pèsent très lourd dans l’économie du pays : selon les chiffres de la Banque mondiale, ils ont atteint 2,66 milliards de dollars (2,47 milliards d’euros) au Sénégal en 2021, soit 9,6 % du PIB (presque le double du total de l’aide internationale au développement allouée au pays, de l’ordre de 1,38 milliard de dollars en 2021). « Aujourd’hui, en visitant la plupart des villages sénégalais, que ce soit dans la région de Fouta, au Sénégal oriental ou en Haute-Casamance, il est clair que tout ce qui fonctionne – hôpitaux, dispensaires, routes, écoles – a été construit grâce aux envois de fonds des émigrés », souligne M. Gassama.

      « Quitter son lieu de naissance pour aller vivre dans un autre pays est un droit humain fondamental, consacré par l’article 13 de la Convention de Genève de 1951, poursuit-il. Les sociétés capitalistes comme celles de l’Union européenne ne peuvent pas dire aux pays africains : “Vous devez accepter la libre circulation des capitaux et des services, alors que nous n’acceptons pas la libre circulation des travailleurs”. » Selon lui, « l’Europe devrait garantir des routes migratoires régulières, quasi inexistantes aujourd’hui, et s’attaquer simultanément aux racines profondes de l’exclusion, de la pauvreté, de la crise démocratique et de l’instabilité dans les pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest afin d’offrir aux jeunes des perspectives alternatives à l’émigration et au recrutement dans les rangs des groupes djihadistes ».

      Depuis le siège du Forum social sénégalais (FSS), à Dakar, Mamadou Mignane Diouf abonde : « L’UE a un comportement inhumain, intellectuellement et diplomatiquement malhonnête. » Le coordinateur du FSS cite le cas récent de l’accueil réservé aux réfugiés ukrainiens ayant fui la guerre, qui contraste avec les naufrages incessants en Méditerranée et dans l’océan Atlantique, et avec la fermeture des ports italiens aux bateaux des ONG internationales engagées dans des opérations de recherche et de sauvetage des migrants. « Quel est ce monde dans lequel les droits de l’homme ne sont accordés qu’à certaines personnes en fonction de leur origine ?, se désole-t-il. À chaque réunion internationale sur la migration, nous répétons aux dirigeants européens que s’ils investissaient un tiers de ce qu’ils allouent à Frontex dans des politiques de développement local transparentes, les jeunes Africains ne seraient plus contraints de partir. » Le budget total alloué à Frontex, en constante augmentation depuis 2016, a dépassé les 754 millions d’euros en 2022, contre 535 millions l’année précédente.
      Une des routes migratoires les plus meurtrières

      Boubacar Seye, directeur de l’ONG Horizon sans Frontières, parle de son côté d’une « gestion catastrophique et inhumaine des frontières et des phénomènes migratoires ». Selon les estimations de l’ONG espagnole Caminando Fronteras, engagée dans la surveillance quotidienne de ce qu’elle appelle la « nécro-frontière ouest-euro-africaine », entre 2018 et 2022, 7 865 personnes originaires de 31 pays différents, dont 1 273 femmes et 383 enfants, auraient trouvé la mort en tentant de rejoindre les côtes espagnoles des Canaries à bord de pirogues en bois et de canots pneumatiques cabossés – soit une moyenne de 6 victimes chaque jour. Il s’agit de l’une des routes migratoires les plus dangereuses et les plus meurtrières au monde, avec le triste record, ces cinq dernières années, d’au moins 250 bateaux qui auraient coulé avec leurs passagers à bord. Le dernier naufrage connu a eu lieu le 2 octobre 2022. Selon le récit d’un jeune Ivoirien de 27 ans, seul survivant, le bateau a coulé après neuf jours de mer, emportant avec lui 33 vies.

      Selon les chiffres fournis par le ministère espagnol de l’Intérieur, environ 15 000 personnes sont arrivées aux îles Canaries en 2022 – un chiffre en baisse par rapport à 2021 (21 000) et 2020 (23 000). Et pour cause : la Guardia Civil espagnole a déployé des navires et des hélicoptères sur les côtes du Sénégal et de la Mauritanie, dans le cadre de l’opération « Hera » mise en place dès 2006 (l’année de la « crise des pirogues ») grâce à des accords de coopération militaire avec les deux pays africains, et en coordination avec Frontex.

      « Les frontières de l’Europe sont devenues des lieux de souffrance, des cimetières, au lieu d’être des entrelacs de communication et de partage, dénonce Boubacar Seye, qui a obtenu la nationalité espagnole. L’Europe se barricade derrière des frontières juridiques, politiques et physiques. Aujourd’hui, les frontières sont équipées de moyens de surveillance très avancés. Mais, malgré tout, les naufrages et les massacres d’innocents continuent. Il y a manifestement un problème. » Une question surtout le hante : « Combien d’argent a-t-on injecté dans la lutte contre la migration irrégulière en Afrique au fil des ans ? Il n’y a jamais eu d’évaluation. Demander publiquement un audit transparent, en tant que citoyen européen et chercheur, m’a coûté la prison. » L’activiste a été détenu pendant une vingtaine de jours en janvier 2021 au Sénégal pour avoir osé demander des comptes sur l’utilisation des fonds européens. De la fenêtre de son bureau, à Dakar, il regarde l’océan et s’alarme : « L’ère post-Covid et post-guerre en Ukraine va générer encore plus de tensions géopolitiques liées aux migrations. »
      Un outil policier contesté à gauche

      Bruxelles, novembre 2022. Nous rencontrons des professeurs, des experts des questions migratoires et des militants belges qui dénoncent l’approche néocoloniale des politiques migratoires de l’Union européenne (UE). Il est en revanche plus difficile d’échanger quelques mots avec les députés européens, occupés à courir d’une aile à l’autre du Parlement européen, où l’on n’entre que sur invitation. Quelques heures avant la fin de notre mission, nous parvenons toutefois à rencontrer Amandine Bach, conseillère politique sur les questions migratoires pour le groupe parlementaire de gauche The Left. « Nous sommes le seul parti qui s’oppose systématiquement à Frontex en tant qu’outil policier pour gérer et contenir les flux migratoires vers l’UE », affirme-t-elle.

      Mme Bach souligne la différence entre « statut agreement » (accord sur le statut) et « working arrangement » (arrangement de travail) : « Il ne s’agit pas d’une simple question juridique. Le premier, c’est-à-dire celui initialement proposé au Sénégal, est un accord formel qui permet à Frontex un déploiement pleinement opérationnel. Il est négocié par le Conseil de l’Europe, puis soumis au vote du Parlement européen, qui ne peut que le ratifier ou non, sans possibilité de proposer des amendements. Le second, en revanche, est plus symbolique qu’opérationnel et offre un cadre juridique plus simple. Il n’est pas discuté par le Parlement et n’implique pas le déploiement d’agents et de moyens, mais il réglemente la coopération et l’échange d’informations entre l’agence européenne et les États tiers. » Autre différence substantielle : seul l’accord sur le statut peut donner – en fonction de ce qui a été négocié entre les parties – une immunité partielle ou totale aux agents de Frontex sur le sol non européen. L’agence dispose actuellement de tels accords dans les Balkans, avec des déploiements en Serbie et en Albanie (d’autres accords seront bientôt opérationnels en Macédoine du Nord et peut-être en Bosnie, pays avec lequel des négociations sont en cours).

      Cornelia Ernst (du groupe parlementaire The Left), la rapporteuse de l’accord entre Frontex et le Sénégal nommée en décembre 2022, va droit au but : « Je suis sceptique, j’ai beaucoup de doutes sur ce type d’accord. La Commission européenne ne discute pas seulement avec le Sénégal, mais aussi avec la Mauritanie et d’autres pays africains. Le Sénégal est un pays de transit pour les réfugiés de toute l’Afrique de l’Ouest, et l’UE lui offre donc de l’argent dans l’espoir qu’il accepte d’arrêter les réfugiés. Nous pensons que cela met en danger la liberté de circulation et d’autres droits sociaux fondamentaux des personnes, ainsi que le développement des pays concernés, comme cela s’est déjà produit au Soudan. » Et d’ajouter : « J’ai entendu dire que le Sénégal n’est pas intéressé pour le moment par un “statut agreement”, mais n’est pas fermé à un “working arrangement” avec Frontex, contrairement à la Mauritanie, qui négocie un accord substantiel qui devrait prévoir un déploiement de Frontex. »

      Selon Mme Ernst, la stratégie de Frontex consiste à envoyer des agents, des armes, des véhicules, des drones, des bateaux et des équipements de surveillance sophistiqués, tels que des caméras thermiques, et à fournir une formation aux gardes-frontières locaux. C’est ainsi qu’ils entendent « protéger » l’Europe en empêchant les réfugiés de poursuivre leur voyage. La question est de savoir ce qu’il adviendra de ces réfugiés bloqués au Sénégal ou en Mauritanie en cas d’accord.
      Des rapports accablants

      Principal outil de dissuasion développé par l’UE en réponse à la « crise migratoire » de 2015-2016, Frontex a bénéficié en 2019 d’un renforcement substantiel de son mandat, avec le déploiement de 10 000 gardes-frontières prévu d’ici à 2027 (ils sont environ 1 500 aujourd’hui) et des pouvoirs accrus en matière de coopération avec les pays non européens, y compris ceux qui ne sont pas limitrophes de l’UE. Mais les résultats son maigres. Un rapport de la Cour des comptes européenne d’août 2021 souligne « l’inefficacité de Frontex dans la lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière et la criminalité transfrontalière ». Un autre rapport de l’Office européen de lutte antifraude (Olaf), publié en mars 2022, a quant à lui révélé des responsabilités directes et indirectes dans des « actes de mauvaise conduite » à l’encontre des exilés, allant du harcèlement aux violations des droits fondamentaux en Grèce, en passant par le refoulement illégal de migrants dans le cadre d’opérations de rapatriement en Hongrie.

      Ces rapports pointent du doigt les plus hautes sphères de Frontex, tout comme le Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG), une commission d’enquête créée en février 2021 par le Parlement européen dans le but de « contrôler en permanence tous les aspects du fonctionnement de Frontex, y compris le renforcement de son rôle et de ses ressources pour la gestion intégrée des frontières et l’application correcte du droit communautaire ». Ces révélations ont conduit, en mars 2021, à la décision du Parlement européen de suspendre temporairement l’extension du budget de Frontex et, en mai 2022, à la démission de Fabrice Leggeri, qui était à la tête de l’agence depuis 2015.
      Un tabou à Dakar

      « Actuellement aucun cadre juridique n’a été défini avec un État africain », affirme Frontex. Si dans un premier temps l’agence nous a indiqué que les discussions avec le Sénégal étaient en cours – « tant que les négociations sur l’accord de statut sont en cours, nous ne pouvons pas les commenter » (19 janvier 2023) –, elle a rétropédalé quelques jours plus tard en précisant que « si les négociations de la Commission européenne avec le Sénégal sur un accord de statut n’ont pas encore commencé, Frontex est au courant des négociations en cours entre la Commission européenne et la Mauritanie » (1er février 2023).

      Interrogé sur les négociations avec le Sénégal, la chargée de communication de Frontex, Paulina Bakula, nous a envoyé par courriel la réponse suivant : « Nous entretenons une relation de coopération étroite avec les autorités sénégalaises chargées de la gestion des frontières et de la lutte contre la criminalité transfrontalière, en particulier avec la Direction générale de la police nationale, mais aussi avec la gendarmerie, l’armée de l’air et la marine. » En effet, la coopération avec le Sénégal a été renforcée avec la mise en place d’un officier de liaison Frontex à Dakar en janvier 2020. « Compte tenu de la pression continue sur la route Canaries-océan Atlantique, poursuit Paulina Bakula, le Sénégal reste l’un des pays prioritaires pour la coopération opérationnelle de Frontex en Afrique de l’Ouest. Cependant, en l’absence d’un cadre juridique pour la coopération avec le Sénégal, l’agence a actuellement des possibilités très limitées de fournir un soutien opérationnel. »

      Interpellée sur la question des droits de l’homme en cas de déploiement opérationnel en Afrique de l’Ouest, Paulina Bakula écrit : « Si l’UE conclut de tels accords avec des partenaires africains à l’avenir, il incombera à Frontex de veiller à ce qu’ils soient mis en œuvre dans le plein respect des droits fondamentaux et que des garanties efficaces soient mises en place pendant les activités opérationnelles. »

      Malgré des demandes d’entretien répétées durant huit mois, formalisées à la fois par courriel et par courrier, aucune autorité sénégalaise n’a accepté de répondre à nos questions. « Le gouvernement est conscient de la sensibilité du sujet pour l’opinion publique nationale et régionale, c’est pourquoi il ne veut pas en parler. Et il ne le fera probablement pas avant les élections présidentielles de 2024 », confie, sous le couvert de l’anonymat, un homme politique sénégalais. Il constate que la question migratoire est devenue, ces dernières années, autant un ciment pour la société civile qu’un tabou pour la classe politique ouest-africaine.

      https://afriquexxi.info/Au-Senegal-les-desseins-de-Frontex-se-heurtent-aux-resistances-locales
      #conditionnalité #conditionnalité_de_l'aide_au_développement #remittances #résistance

    • What is Frontex doing in Senegal? Secret services also participate in their network of “#Risk_Analysis_Cells

      Frontex has been allowed to conclude stationing agreements with third countries since 2016. However, the government in Dakar does not currently want to allow EU border police into the country. Nevertheless, Frontex has been active there since 2006.

      When Frontex was founded in 2004, the EU states wrote into its border agency’s charter that it could only be deployed within the Union. With developments often described as the “refugee crisis,” that changed in the new 2016 regulation, which since then has allowed the EU Commission to negotiate agreements with third countries to send Frontex there. So far, four Balkan states have decided to let the EU migration defense agency into the country – Bosnia and Herzegovina could become the fifth candidate.

      Frontex also wanted to conclude a status agreement with Senegal based on this model (https://digit.site36.net/2022/02/11/status-agreement-with-senegal-frontex-wants-to-operate-in-africa-for-t). In February 2022, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, announced that such a treaty would be ready for signing by the summer (https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220211-eu-seeks-to-deploy-border-agency-to-senegal). However, this did not happen: Despite high-level visits from the EU (https://digit.site36.net/2022/02/11/status-agreement-with-senegal-frontex-wants-to-operate-in-africa-for-t), the government in Dakar is apparently not even prepared to sign a so-called working agreement. It would allow authorities in the country to exchange personal data with Frontex.

      Senegal is surrounded by more than 2,600 kilometers of external border; like neighboring Mali, Gambia, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, the government has joined the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Similar to the Schengen area, the agreement also regulates the free movement of people and goods in a total of 15 countries. Senegal is considered a safe country of origin by Germany and other EU member states like Luxembourg.

      Even without new agreements, Frontex has been active on migration from Senegal practically since its founding: the border agency’s first (and, with its end in 2019, longest) mission started in 2006 under the name “#Hera” between West Africa and the Canary Islands in the Atlantic (https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-307-frontex-operation-hera.pdf). Border authorities from Mauritania were also involved. The background to this was the sharp increase in crossings from the countries at the time, which were said to have declined successfully under “Hera.” For this purpose, Frontex received permission from Dakar to enter territorial waters of Senegal with vessels dispatched from member states.

      Senegal has already been a member of the “#Africa-Frontex_Intelligence_Community” (#AFIC) since 2015. This “community”, which has been in existence since 2010, aims to improve Frontex’s risk analysis and involves various security agencies to this end. The aim is to combat cross-border crimes, which include smuggling as well as terrorism. Today, 30 African countries are members of AFIC. Frontex has opened an AFIC office in five of these countries, including Senegal since 2019 (https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/frontex-opens-risk-analysis-cell-in-senegal-6nkN3B). The tasks of the Frontex liaison officer stationed there include communicating with the authorities responsible for border management and assisting with deportations from EU member states.

      The personnel of the national “Risk Analysis Cells” are trained by Frontex. Their staff are to collect strategic data on crime and analyze their modus operandi, EU satellite surveillance is also used for this purpose (https://twitter.com/matthimon/status/855425552148295680). Personal data is not processed in the process. From the information gathered, Frontex produces, in addition to various dossiers, an annual situation report, which the agency calls an “#Pre-frontier_information_picture.”

      Officially, only national law enforcement agencies participate in the AFIC network, provided they have received a “mandate for border management” from their governments. In Senegal, these are the National Police and the Air and Border Police, in addition to the “Department for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and Similar Practices.” According to the German government, the EU civil-military missions in Niger and Libya are also involved in AFIC’s work.

      Information is not exchanged with intelligence services “within the framework of AFIC activities by definition,” explains the EU Commission in its answer to a parliamentary question. However, the word “by definition” does not exclude the possibility that they are nevertheless involved and also contribute strategic information. In addition, in many countries, police authorities also take on intelligence activities – quite differently from how this is regulated in Germany, for example, in the separation requirement for these authorities. However, according to Frontex’s response to a FOIA request, intelligence agencies are also directly involved in AFIC: Morocco and Côte d’Ivoire send their domestic secret services to AFIC meetings, and a “#Center_for_Monitoring_and_Profiling” from Senegal also participates.

      Cooperation with Senegal is paying off for the EU: Since 2021, the total number of arrivals of refugees and migrants from Senegal via the so-called Atlantic route as well as the Western Mediterranean route has decreased significantly. The recognition rate for asylum seekers from the country is currently around ten percent in the EU.

      https://digit.site36.net/2023/08/27/what-is-frontex-doing-in-senegal-secret-services-also-participate-in-t
      #services_de_renseignement #données #services_secrets

  • « En Méditerranée, la politique criminelle de l’Union européenne se déploie dans l’indifférence générale »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2023/03/09/en-mediterranee-la-politique-criminelle-de-l-union-europeenne-se-deploie-dan

    Après un énième naufrage d’une embarcation de migrants près des côtes calabraises, le 26 février, les anthropologues Lorenzo Alunni et Didier Fassin s’indignent du fait que l’Europe soit passée, en quelques années, du secours en mer à l’intimidation et à la criminalisation de l’humanitaire.

    Dans Les Suppliants (L’Arche, 2016), le chant des exilés qu’elle a imaginé en écho à la tragédie d’Eschyle, la romancière et dramaturge autrichienne Elfriede Jelinek, Prix Nobel de littérature 2004, évoque ces femmes et ces hommes en quête d’une protection sur le continent européen qui se noient au large de ses côtes. « C’est de l’eau qui leur passe au-dessus de la tête, qui s’abat sur eux avant de les faire réapparaître, hissés à la surface, essorés, brancardés. » Mais sur la terre ferme, l’administration n’a qu’une question à l’adresse des noyés : « Comment avez-vous osé quitter le toit paternel ? »

    C’est la même incompréhension qu’a semblé manifester le ministre italien de l’intérieur, Matteo Piantedosi, après le naufrage, le 26 février, près des côtes calabraises, d’une embarcation chargée d’exilés, dont la plupart fuyaient l’Afghanistan. Aux morts – au moins 72, selon les derniers bilans –, il lançait cette accusation : « Le désespoir ne peut jamais justifier des conditions de voyage qui mettent en danger la vie de ses enfants. » Car, ajoutait-il, il aurait suffi que les naufragés en fassent la demande pour qu’on les amène en terre italienne : « Le sens de mes mots, c’est : “Arrêtez-vous, nous allons venir vous chercher.” »
    Quant à la présidente du conseil, Giorgia Meloni, elle aussi a exprimé sa compassion, annonçant, en contradiction avec son ministre : « Le gouvernement s’est engagé à prévenir les départs et, avec eux, la survenue de ces tragédies, exigeant la plus grande coopération des Etats de départ et d’origine. » Peut-être pensait-elle négocier avec les talibans, pour qu’ils dissuadent de partir les exilés afghans, généralement hazara, qu’ils persécutent, torturent et assassinent, de même qu’avec le gouvernement turc, pour qu’il retienne les candidats au départ et les ajoute aux 3 millions de réfugiés déjà confinés dans ses camps.

    Du sauvetage au refoulement

    Seul au sein des autorités italiennes, le président de la République, Sergio Mattarella, est allé se recueillir devant les cercueils, reconnaissant que les victimes « fuyaient des conditions très difficiles ». S’ils avaient osé quitter le toit paternel, comme paraissaient s’en offusquer les membres de son gouvernement, c’est qu’ils avaient de sérieuses raisons de le faire.

    Comme toujours en pareil cas – on se souvient d’Emmanuel Macron n’ayant comme réponse, au lendemain de la mort de 27 naufragés dans la Manche le 24 novembre 2021, que l’annonce d’un renforcement de l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières Frontex –, les responsables politiques italiens ont exigé plus de contrôles et de sévérité. Or c’est ce qui avait conduit à la tragédie.

    D’une part, l’avion de Frontex qui avait survolé le bateau et identifié la présence de nombreux passagers à son bord n’avait pas signalé sa situation de détresse. D’autre part, les vedettes rapides de la Guardia di finanza, qui avaient été envoyées sur les lieux et avaient rebroussé chemin en raison du mauvais temps, ont une activité douanière. Loin d’être une opération de sauvetage, comme la Guardia costiera [« garde côtière »] aurait pu l’engager, la sortie tardive et avortée des bateaux italiens s’apparentait à une opération de police.

    Il n’en a pourtant pas toujours été ainsi. Après le naufrage survenu le 3 octobre 2013 sur les côtes de Lampedusa, qui avait causé la mort d’au moins 368 personnes, le gouvernement italien, choqué par le drame, avait engagé une grande opération de secours en mer appelée « Mare Nostrum », dont on estime qu’elle a porté assistance à 150 000 personnes. Mais dès l’année suivante, faute de financement européen, le programme avait été interrompu et remplacé par l’opération « Triton » de Frontex, qui avait pour fonction d’intercepter les embarcations.

    On a découvert plus tard que l’agence pratiquait des refoulements illégaux et dangereux, et collaborait avec les prétendus gardes-côtes libyens qui interpellent les naufragés avant de les mener dans des prisons où ils sont souvent victimes de sévices. Pour compenser la quasi-disparition des opérations de secours, plusieurs organisations humanitaires affrétaient alors des navires destinés au sauvetage en mer, mais, très vite, le gouvernement italien les accusait de complicité avec les passeurs, les empêchait d’accoster avec leurs rescapés et même leur intentait des procès.

    Indifférence générale

    Tragique coïncidence, deux jours avant le naufrage sur les côtes calabraises, le Parlement italien, dominé par la droite et l’extrême droite, avait voté une loi interdisant aux navires des organisations non gouvernementales de faire plus d’un sauvetage à la fois, mesure qui s’ajoutait à l’obligation, sous peine de lourdes sanctions, de rejoindre des ports qui leur étaient assignés, loin des lieux de secours, afin de réduire le nombre d’opérations et d’en augmenter le coût. Ainsi, en quelques années, on est passé, sous les auspices de l’Union européenne, d’actions de secours en mer à l’intimidation et à la criminalisation de l’humanitaire.

    La Méditerranée est devenue le plus grand cimetière d’exilés au monde, puisque c’est là qu’est survenue la moitié des 48 000 décès de migrants enregistrés sur la planète depuis 2014, selon l’estimation basse de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations.
    Les enquêtes montrent que plus le contrôle des frontières maritimes s’est renforcé, plus la proportion de morts parmi celles et ceux qui tentent la traversée a augmenté, tandis que les passeurs, à l’abri sur les côtes africaines, non seulement ne sont pas inquiétés, mais font monter le prix des passages. La politique criminelle de l’Union européenne se déploie ainsi dans l’indifférence générale. La disqualification des exilés participe de la banalisation des naufrages.

    Au lendemain du drame, le Forum Lampedusa Solidale a envoyé une lettre de condoléances et de fraternité aux villageois de Cutro, en Calabre, avec lesquels ils partagent la douloureuse expérience d’être les spectateurs impuissants de ces tragédies sur leurs côtes. Elle se terminait par ces vers de la poétesse américaine Emily Dickinson (1830-1886), qu’on peut lire à l’entrée du cimetière de Lampedusa où tant de naufragés, anonymes ou non, sont enterrés : « Ressentir le deuil dans la mort/ De ceux que nous n’avons jamais vus/ Signifie une parenté vitale/ Entre notre âme et la leur/ Les étrangers ne pleurent pas – un étranger. »

    Lorenzo Alunni est chercheur ­en résidence à l’Institute for Advanced Study de Princeton (Etats-Unis) ; Didier Fassin est professeur ­au Collège de France et directeur ­d’études à l’EHESS.

    #migrants #Frontex #Méditerranée

    • Voir aussi : https://seenthis.net/messages/992511

      La trasformazione di eventi di soccorso nel Mediterraneo in “operazioni di polizia” da parte delle autorità italiane, prassi in atto dal 2019, mostra i suoi effetti più letali. E #Frontex aveva già rilevato con le termocamere la presenza di centinaia di persone sulla nave poi naufragata il 26 febbraio. Che cosa non torna nelle ricostruzioni ufficiali

      Lo strumentale e ingiustificato cambio di classificazione e gestione degli eventi di ricerca e soccorso nel Mediterraneo in “operazioni di polizia” da parte delle autorità italiane, prassi in atto dal 2019, come abbiamo raccontato fin dall’inizio su Altreconomia, mostra con la strage di Cutro del 26 febbraio 2023 i suoi effetti più letali.

      Ed è patetico lo scaricabarile in atto in queste ore tra Guardia costiera, Guardia di Finanza, ministero dell’Interno e Agenzia Frontex dopo il naufragio. Sergio Scandura, giornalista di Radio Radicale e faro nella notte del Mediterraneo grazie al suo meticoloso lavoro di monitoraggio e inchiesta su fonti aperte, usa un’immagine efficace per descrivere la pantomima: cioè la scena del film “Le iene” di Quentin Tarantino del 1992, con i sopravvissuti della storia a puntarsi le pistole l’uno contro l’altro.

      Qui però ci sono morti veri, 66 quelli dichiarati alla sera del 28 febbraio, dopo il ritrovamento del corpo di un bambino di nemmeno 10 anni. Secondo la prefettura di Crotone sarebbero 28 le salme identificate: 25 cittadini afghani, un cittadino pachistano, un palestinese e un siriano. I salvati arrivano da Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestina, Siria, Iran, Somalia. Inclusi 14 minori, alcuni dei quali ancora ricoverati a Crotone, altri finiti al Cara di Isola di Capo Rizzuto.

      “Credo che al primo avvistamento abbia seguito un modo di procedere dell’imbarcazione che non ha segnalato il distress e quindi poi si è arenata in una secca all’arrivo: non ha chiesto aiuto da quelle che sono le prime ricostruzioni”, ha detto il 28 febbraio il ministro dell’Interno, Matteo Piantedosi, su Rai1, ospite di Bruno Vespa, dopo aver incolpato i morti per esser partiti con il brutto tempo e non aver fatto come John Fitzgerald Kennedy (“Non chiedete cosa può fare il vostro Paese per voi, chiedete cosa potete fare voi per il vostro Paese”).

      Il primo avvistamento della barca partita il 22 febbraio da Smirne, in Turchia, sarebbe stato in teoria quello dell’Agenzia Frontex, nella tarda serata del 25 febbraio, poche ore prima del naufragio e della strage. L’aereo di pattugliamento Eagle1 dell’Agenzia impiegato nell’ambito dell’operazione Themis avrebbe infatti avvistato l’imbarcazione a 40 miglia dalle coste crotonesi. Scandura ha pubblicato su Twitter la traiettoria disegnata dal velivolo.

  • La strage di #Cutro, i soccorsi mancati e lo scaricabarile tra le autorità italiane e Frontex

    La trasformazione di eventi di soccorso nel Mediterraneo in “operazioni di polizia” da parte delle autorità italiane, prassi in atto dal 2019, mostra i suoi effetti più letali. E #Frontex aveva già rilevato con le termocamere la presenza di centinaia di persone sulla nave poi naufragata il 26 febbraio. Che cosa non torna nelle ricostruzioni ufficiali

    Lo strumentale e ingiustificato cambio di classificazione e gestione degli eventi di ricerca e soccorso nel Mediterraneo in “operazioni di polizia” da parte delle autorità italiane, prassi in atto dal 2019, come abbiamo raccontato fin dall’inizio su Altreconomia, mostra con la strage di Cutro del 26 febbraio 2023 i suoi effetti più letali.

    Ed è patetico lo scaricabarile in atto in queste ore tra Guardia costiera, Guardia di Finanza, ministero dell’Interno e Agenzia Frontex dopo il naufragio. Sergio Scandura, giornalista di Radio Radicale e faro nella notte del Mediterraneo grazie al suo meticoloso lavoro di monitoraggio e inchiesta su fonti aperte, usa un’immagine efficace per descrivere la pantomima: cioè la scena del film “Le iene” di Quentin Tarantino del 1992, con i sopravvissuti della storia a puntarsi le pistole l’uno contro l’altro.

    Qui però ci sono morti veri, 66 quelli dichiarati alla sera del 28 febbraio, dopo il ritrovamento del corpo di un bambino di nemmeno 10 anni. Secondo la prefettura di Crotone sarebbero 28 le salme identificate: 25 cittadini afghani, un cittadino pachistano, un palestinese e un siriano. I salvati arrivano da Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestina, Siria, Iran, Somalia. Inclusi 14 minori, alcuni dei quali ancora ricoverati a Crotone, altri finiti al Cara di Isola di Capo Rizzuto.

    “Credo che al primo avvistamento abbia seguito un modo di procedere dell’imbarcazione che non ha segnalato il distress e quindi poi si è arenata in una secca all’arrivo: non ha chiesto aiuto da quelle che sono le prime ricostruzioni”, ha detto il 28 febbraio il ministro dell’Interno, Matteo Piantedosi, su Rai1, ospite di Bruno Vespa, dopo aver incolpato i morti per esser partiti con il brutto tempo e non aver fatto come John Fitzgerald Kennedy (“Non chiedete cosa può fare il vostro Paese per voi, chiedete cosa potete fare voi per il vostro Paese”).

    Il primo avvistamento della barca partita il 22 febbraio da Smirne, in Turchia, sarebbe stato in teoria quello dell’Agenzia Frontex, nella tarda serata del 25 febbraio, poche ore prima del naufragio e della strage. L’aereo di pattugliamento Eagle1 dell’Agenzia impiegato nell’ambito dell’operazione Themis avrebbe infatti avvistato l’imbarcazione a 40 miglia dalle coste crotonesi. Scandura ha pubblicato su Twitter la traiettoria disegnata dal velivolo.

    “L’unità risultava navigare regolarmente, a sei nodi e in buone condizioni di galleggiabilità, con solo una persona visibile sulla coperta della nave”, sostiene la Guardia costiera in un comunicato diramato nel pomeriggio del 28 febbraio e che avrebbe dovuto far chiarezza. In realtà fa acqua da tutte le parti e omette un “particolare” che poche ore dopo la stessa Frontex ci ha tenuto a precisare (a proposito di scaricabarile).

    Su quella nave le persone a bordo erano almeno 200 e attraverso le sue “telecamere termiche” installate a bordo, il velivolo di pattugliamento dell’Agenzia europea aveva anche rilevato “una risposta termica significativa dai portelli aperti a prua e altri segni che indicavano la presenza di persone sotto il ponte”, ha risposto Frontex ad Altreconomia. Nonostante questa circostanza (altro che una persona visibile), che pure a quanto riferisce Frontex avrebbe “insospettito” i suoi “esperti”, l’Agenzia stessa si è ben guardata dall’emettere un mayday per avvisare tutte le imbarcazioni vicine del possibile pericolo, cosa che avrebbe potuto fare in base al diritto internazionale. Trincerandosi dietro alla tesi per la quale “l’imbarcazione navigava da sola e non c’erano segni di pericolo”, Frontex si è dunque limitata a “informare immediatamente dell’avvistamento il Centro di coordinamento internazionale dell’operazione Themis e le altre autorità italiane competenti, fornendo la posizione dell’imbarcazione, la rotta e la velocità”. E “per conoscenza” anche la centrale operativa della Guardia costiera di Roma. “Il nostro aereo ha continuato a monitorare l’area fino a quando è dovuto rientrare alla base per mancanza di carburante”, ha aggiunto Frontex.

    In quel momento però è successo qualcosa che si gioca a far finta di non cogliere. La Guardia costiera scrive che “a seguito di tale segnalazione, la Guardia di Finanza comunicava l’avvenuta attivazione del proprio dispositivo, già operante in mare, per intercettare l’imbarcazione”. Da chi è arrivato l’input, anche se non lo si vuole dire, pare palese, e cioè da quello che sempre la Guardia costiera chiama il “punto di contatto nazionale preposto per l’attività di law enforcement“. Si tratterebbe del Centro nazionale di coordinamento (Ncc) – Sala Eurosur, insediato presso il ministero dell’Interno, punto nevralgico della strategia che negli anni ha beneficiato tra le altre cose di ingenti finanziamenti europei per il suo ammodernamento tecnologico (Fondo sicurezza interna).

    L’operazione viene classificata perciò come “operazione di polizia” e non come evento Sar ed è attivato il dispositivo che porta due mezzi navali della Guardia di Finanza a tentare, per riprendere il primo comunicato stampa del Reparto operativo aeronavale di Vibo Valentia delle 11 di mattina circa del 26 febbraio, “l’intercetto dell’imbarcazione”. Si tratta della vedetta V.5006 e del pattugliatore veloce PV6 Barbarisi. Le due imbarcazioni tentano di “raggiungere il target“, che all’ora non ci si vergognava di associare al “traffico di migranti”, ma le condizioni del mare “proibitive” le avrebbero costrette a far “rientro agli ormeggi di base”.

    In poche ore dunque si passa dalle “buone condizioni di galleggiabilità” riferite dalla Guardia costiera e dal “non c’erano segni di pericolo” di Frontex al mare grosso. “Mare forza 4, con onde alte fino a 2,5 metri”, ci ha scritto Frontex indignata contro quei “trafficanti di persone senza scrupoli che hanno stipato le persone a bordo in condizioni meteorologiche avverse”. Condizioni meteo che mutano a seconda degli attori coinvolti. Ipocrisia forza 4.

    Il resto è tristemente noto. La Guardia costiera, fino ad allora fuori dall’operazione coordinata dall’Ncc del Viminale, avrebbe ricevuto solo alle 4.30 circa del 26 febbraio “alcune segnalazioni telefoniche da parte di soggetti presenti a terra relative ad un’imbarcazione in pericolo a pochi metri dalla costa”. “I carabinieri, precedentemente allertati dalla Guardia di Finanza, giunti in zona, riportavano alla Guardia costiera l’avvenuto naufragio”. A cose fatte.

    Sarebbe stata questa secondo la Guardia costiera “la prima informazione di emergenza pervenuta riguardante l’imbarcazione avvistata dal velivolo Frontex”. Solo dopo queste “segnalazioni ricevute” sarebbe stato allora immediatamente attivato il “dispositivo Sar, sotto il coordinamento della Guardia costiera di Reggio Calabria, con l’invio di mezzi navali e aerei, uomini e mezzi terrestri, nella zona indicata”.

    Ed è qui che la Guardia costiera si ingarbuglia fino a tradirsi. Perché quella dei carabinieri a persone ormai in mare non può essere considerata la “prima informazione di emergenza”. Perché fin dalla notte del 25 febbraio la Guardia costiera sapeva, informata per conoscenza da Frontex, che su quella nave c’erano almeno 200 persone stipate su un mezzo inadatto a trasportarle in sicurezza, diretta peraltro nella bocca di condizioni meteomarine “proibitive”, “particolarmente avverse” per citare il comunicato dello stesso Comando generale del Corpo delle Capitanerie di Porto del 26 febbraio (ore 11.41). È un tradimento perché “Ogni imbarcazione sovraffollata è un caso Sar (Ricerca e soccorso) di per sé e una possibile situazione di pericolo anche in assenza di un segnale di pericolo in base al principio di precauzione”. Sono parole della stessa Guardia costiera del 2017. Naufragate.

    Mentre resta ambiguo l’epilogo del “dispaccio generico di allerta distress, senza coordinate”, diramato alle navi transitanti in area Mare Ionio via “InmarSAT C” dal Centro di coordinamento di ricerca e soccorso di Roma nella prima mattinata del 25 febbraio, 24 ore prima della strage, recuperato e pubblicato ancora da Scandura. Al 28 febbraio non risultano sbarchi legati a eventi provenienti dal Mar Ionio.

    https://altreconomia.it/la-strage-di-cutro-i-soccorsi-mancati-e-lo-scaricabarile-tra-le-autorit
    #naufrage #décès #morts #morts_aux_frontières #Méditerranée #Calabre #26_février_2023 #mourir_en_mer #Themis #opération_Thermis #Mar_Ionio #Mer_Ionienne

    • Italie : après le naufrage de migrants, les autorités italiennes se défendent de toute responsabilité

      Alors que le bilan du naufrage de dimanche est désormais d’au moins 67 morts, le gouvernement italien continue de se défendre de toute responsabilité dans le drame. Le ministre italien de l’Intérieur, #Matteo_Piantedosi, a suscité un tollé en pointant la responsabilité des migrants embarquant leurs familles dans de périlleux voyages en mer.

      Trois jours après le naufrage qui a coûté la vie à plusieurs dizaines de migrants dimanche, au large de la Calabre dans le sud de l’Italie, le bilan continue de s’alourdir. Les autorités italiennes ont annoncé, mercredi 1er mars, qu’il grimpait désormais à 67 morts, après la découverte des cadavres de deux enfants.

      La plupart des personnes décédées dans le naufrage venaient d’Afghanistan. D’autres étaient originaires du Pakistan, d’Iran, de Somalie et de Syrie, selon les services de secours.

      Le drame se double désormais d’une controverse sur le terrain politique : les garde-côtes et la police sont accusés de n’avoir pas fait tout le nécessaire pour prévenir le naufrage, alors que la présence du navire au large de la Calabre avait bien été signalée.

      En réponse à ces critiques, les autorités ont déclaré que le mauvais temps en mer avait contraint les patrouilleurs de la garde-côtes à rebrousser chemin.

      Toutes les procédures ont été correctement appliquées, a déclaré le commandant de l’autorité portuaire de Crotone, Vittorio Aloi. « Je suis humainement éprouvé par cette tragédie mais sur un plan professionnel, je peux vous assurer que je suis serein », a-t-il déclaré à la presse avant de pénétrer dans le gymnase de Crotone dans lequel sont entreposés les corps des victimes.

      Ligne dure du gouvernement

      Le gouvernement italien, dirigé par l’extrême droite, affiche une ligne dure sur l’immigration et a adopté des décrets restreignant l’action des organisations caritatives pour secourir les migrants en Méditerranée.

      Le ministre de l’Intérieur, Matteo Piantedosi, a suscité un tollé après le naufrage, en pointant la responsabilité des migrants embarquant leurs familles dans de périlleux voyages en mer. De son côté, la cheffe du gouvernement, Giorgia Meloni, a fait part de sa « profonde douleur » mais a également jugé, dimanche, qu’il était « criminel de mettre en mer une embarcation de 20 mètres à peine avec 200 personnes à bord et une mauvaise prévision météo ».

      Plusieurs centaines de milliers de demandeurs d’asile fuyant la guerre ou la pauvreté sont arrivés en Italie par bateau au cours de la dernière décennie.

      D’après le projet « Migrants Disparus » de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations, 20 333 personnes ont été retrouvées mortes ou ont été portées disparues depuis 2014 en Méditerranée centrale, réputée comme l’une des routes maritimes les plus dangereuses au monde, dont 1 417 en 2022.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/47178/italie--apres-le-naufrage-de-migrants-les-autorites-italiennes-se-defe
      #Piantedosi

    • Drame de #Crotone : la réponse tardive et inadaptée des secours mise en cause

      Trois jours après le drame, le bilan du naufrage au sud de l’Italie continue de s’alourdir, alors que la question du retard des secours fait de plus en plus polémique.

      Les cercueils sont alignés dans un vieux gymnase de Crotone. Mercredi matin, on en dénombrait déjà soixante-six dont quelques-uns, plus petits, de couleur blanche, pour les corps d’enfants. Sur l’un d’eux est posé un carton indiquant KR46M0. Comprendre « Crotone, 46e cadavre, sexe : masculin, âge : zéro ». Non loin de là, sur la plage de Steccato di Cutro, les secouristes tentent encore de retrouver des corps après le naufrage qui, dimanche à l’aube, a englouti des dizaines de vies (sans doute plus de cent) à une centaine de mètres seulement de la rive. Mercredi après-midi, un soixante-septième corps, celui d’une enfant, a été rejeté par la mer sur le sable. On ne dénombre que 79 survivants.

      Entre la morgue et l’hôpital, des parents déjà installés en Europe des migrants disparus circulent en quête de nouvelles de leurs proches. L’un d’eux, Misan, un trentenaire afghan accouru depuis Amsterdam, a reconnu mardi le cadavre de son neveu Hadi, douze ans, qui selon le Corriere della Sera, avait entrepris seul le voyage : « Hadi n’avait plus personne. Ses parents sont morts depuis longtemps. C’est pour cela que j’avais décidé qu’il vienne me rejoindre ». Comme Hadi, la plupart des passagers du navire surchargé venaient d’Afghanistan mais aussi d’Irak, d’Iran, du Pakistan, des Territoires palestiniens et de Syrie. Ils étaient partis le 23 février d’Izmir, en Turquie, sur cette embarcation de bois.

      Trop tard

      Trois passeurs présumés, deux Pakistanais et un Turc, soupçonnés d’avoir fait payer leur passage entre 5 000 et 8 000 euros par personne, ont été interpellés par les forces de l’ordre italiennes. Mais la polémique enfle à propos de la responsabilité du naufrage. Les autorités transalpines sont en effet soupçonnées de ne pas avoir tout mis en œuvre pour empêcher la tragédie. « Les hommes, les femmes, les enfants de Cutro pouvaient-ils être sauvés ? La réponse est sur le bout des lèvres, imprononçable. Nous sommes pour le moins tout proche de la non-assistance à personne en danger », a attaqué mercredi matin le quotidien La Stampa. Le journal progressiste La Repubblica titrait lui « Personne n’a voulu les sauver. » La séquence du naufrage est en effet accablante.

      Dès le samedi matin à l’aube, soit vingt-quatre heures avant la tragédie, le centre de coordination des secours maritimes lance une alerte générique à propos d’une embarcation se dirigeant vers les côtes italiennes. Le soir à 22h30, un avion de patrouille de Frontex, l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières, repère un bateau « en forte surcharge de passagers » et alerte les autorités. « Il n’y avait pas de signe de détresse », a précisé l’agence dans un communiqué, ajoutant que l’avion, à court de carburant, avait dû quitter la zone. Deux heures plus tard, soit dimanche à minuit trente, deux vedettes de la brigade financière – généralement employée pour lutter contre les trafics plus que pour le secours en mer – appareillent à la recherche de l’embarcation sur laquelle se trouvent les migrants.

      Mais la mer est agitée, le vent proche de force 4. Face à la houle, les deux navires préfèrent rentrer au bout de trente minutes dans leurs ports respectifs de Crotone et Tarente. A 4 heures du matin, le centre de brigade financière reçoit par téléphone un appel au secours, dans un anglais approximatif, sans doute d’un passager. Les carabiniers sont alors mobilisés. Mais apparemment trop tard. A 5h30, un pêcheur, Antonio Conbariati, reçoit un appel d’un de ses amis garde-côtes : « Va voir sur la plage s’il s’est passé quelque chose. Nous savons qu’un navire a subi une avarie », lui dit-il. « J’ai couru vers la plage et vu des cadavres entre les vagues. Pas le temps de les prendre que le ressac les ramenait au large », a raconté le marin aux médias italiens. « J’ai pris une enfant de six ou sept ans qui respirait encore, mais elle est morte quelques minutes plus tard sur la plage. » Rejoint par un ami pêcheur, les deux hommes tentent de sauver quelques vies. « La barque ne s’était pas encore cassée en deux, mais il y avait des corps partout, des enfants, des jeunes, des femmes et nous qui, dans la pénombre, essayions de les attraper. […] Une quinzaine de minutes plus tard, les secours sont arrivés mais le pire était déjà advenu. »

      « Pourquoi ne pas être intervenu ? »

      Frontex n’a-t-elle pas correctement lancé l’alarme ? Les autorités italiennes ont-elles sous-estimé la gravité de la situation ? Et surtout pourquoi la brigade financière est-elle intervenue, avec des embarcations ne pouvant affronter une mer houleuse, plutôt que les gardes-côtes qui disposent de navires supportant des vents de force 8 ? « Personne ne nous a alertés », a indiqué le commandant de la capitainerie du port de Crotone. La polémique rappelle celle qui avait suivi le naufrage dans la Manche d’une embarcation de migrants. A proximité de la frontière maritime entre la France et l’Angleterre, 27 personnes avaient trouvé la mort sans recevoir les secours qu’elles appelaient.

      L’opposition au gouvernement d’extrême droite de Giorgia Meloni exige désormais des réponses, alors que depuis son entrée en fonction, l’exécutif mène la guerre contre les ONG qui sauvent en mer les migrants. La cheffe du gouvernement a exprimé « sa douleur profonde », invitant à ne pas « instrumentaliser les morts » et a rejeté toute la responsabilité sur les passeurs. Quant à son ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Piantedosi, il s’est retranché derrière les informations de Frontex qui, selon lui, « n’avait pas signalé une situation de danger ou de stress à bord, en indiquant la présence d’une seule personne visible et d’autres dans la cale et une bonne flottabilité de l’embarcation. Puis, il y a eu une détérioration de la météo ».

      Quoi qu’il en soit, pour le gouvernement Meloni, la solution reste de « bloquer les départs ». Mais la nouvelle secrétaire du Parti démocrate, Elly Schlein, demande des explications, en particulier au ministre des Transports, ayant la tutelle des gardes-côtes : le leader de la Ligue d’extrême droite Matteo Salvini. Elle demande en outre la démission du ministre de l’intérieur Piantedosi pour ses propos au lendemain du drame. Celui-ci avait en partie rejeté la faute sur les migrants eux-mêmes, déclarant : « Le désespoir ne peut jamais justifier des conditions de voyage qui mettent en danger la vie des enfants. »

      https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/drame-de-crotone-la-reponse-tardive-et-inadaptee-des-secours-mise-en-cause-20230301_DF4N73HLKBECJJF2MYG3424CWI/?redirected=1

    • Children among 59 people killed in boat wreck off Italy’s coast

      Boat believed to be bringing refugees from Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan struck rocks off coast of Calabria

      Fifty-nine people, including a newborn baby and other children, have died after a wooden boat believed to be carrying refugees wrecked against rocks off the coast of Italy’s Calabria region.

      Many of the bodies were reported to have washed up on a tourist beach near Steccato di Cutro, while others were found at sea.

      According to survivors, there were about 140 to 150 people onboard the boat before it crashed into the rocks. Eighty-one people survived, with 20 of them taken to hospital, Manuela Curra, a provincial government official, told Reuters.

      A Turkish national has been detained on suspicion of human trafficking, according to the Ansa news agency. The vessel is believed to have left Turkey four days ago with people from Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan onboard.

      The bodies of the victims were being transported to a sports hall in nearby Crotone on Sunday afternoon. Ansa reported that 20 children, including twins and a newborn baby, were among those who died.

      Antonio Ceraso, the mayor of Cutro, told reporters: “It is something one would never want to see. The sea continues to return bodies. Among the victims are women and children.”

      The wreck of the boat was reportedly seen by fishers early on Sunday. “You can see the remains of the boat along 200-300 metres of coast,” Ceraso added. “In the past there have been landings but never such a tragedy.”

      Rai News reported that the boat “snapped in two”, citing sources as saying that those onboard “didn’t have time to ask for help”.

      The Italian coastguard, firefighters, police and Red Cross rescue workers attended the scene.

      As rescuers continued their search, Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees, called for European governments to “stop arguing” and “agree on just, effective, shared measures to avoid more tragedies”.

      “Another terrible shipwreck in the Mediterranean off the Italian coast,” he tweeted. “Dozens of people have died, many children. We mourn them and stand in solidarity with the survivors.”

      The Italian president, Sergio Mattarella, said the “umpteenth tragedy in the Mediterranean shouldn’t leave anyone indifferent”, while urging the EU to “finally take concrete responsibility for governing the phenomenon of migration in order to rescue it from human traffickers”.

      The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said that “we must redouble our efforts” on the migration pact and “plan of action” on the central Mediterranean.

      “Member states must step forward and find a solution. Now,” she wrote on Twitter. “The EU needs common and up-to-date rules that will allow us to face the challenges of migration.”

      Italy is one of the main landing points for people trying to enter Europe by sea. The so-called central Mediterranean route is known as one of the world’s most dangerous.

      More than 100,000 refugees arrived in Italy by boat in 2022. The rightwing government of the prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, which came to power in October, imposed tough measures against sea rescue charities, including fining them up to €50,000 (£44,000) if they flout a requirement to request a port and sail to it immediately after undertaking one rescue instead of remaining at sea to rescue people from other boats in difficulty.

      Rescues in recent months have resulted in ships being granted ports in central and northern Italy, forcing them to make longer journeys and therefore reducing their time at sea saving lives. Charities had warned that the measure would lead to thousands of deaths.

      In a statement, Meloni expressed her “deep sorrow” for the lives cut short by “human traffickers” while repeating her government’s commitment to “preventing departures and along with them the tragedies that unfold”.

      “It is criminal to launch a boat of just 20 metres long with as many as 200 people onboard in adverse weather forecasts,” she added.

      “It is inhumane to exchange the lives of men, women and children for the price of a ‘ticket’ paid by them on the false perspective of a safe journey.”

      Meloni said her government would demand “maximum collaboration” with the countries of departure and origin.

      Matteo Piantedosi, Italy’s interior minister, said the shipwreck in Calabria was a “huge tragedy” that “grieves me deeply”, while adding that it was “essential to continue with every possible initiative to prevent departures [of migrants]”.

      Piantedosi told Il Giornale on Thursday that the government measures, including agreements with Libya and Tunisia, had “averted the arrival” of almost 21,000 people.

      According to the International Organization for Migration’s Missing Migrants project, 20,333 people have died or gone missing in the central Mediterranean since 2014.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/26/dozens-of-bodies-believed-to-be-refugees-found-on-beach-in-southern-ita

    • Naufrage de Crotone : l’Italie n’a pas jugé « urgents » les messages d’alerte de Frontex

      L’Italie n’a pas considéré comme « urgents » les messages d’alerte lancés par Frontex au sujet d’un bateau avec à son bord une centaine de migrants, selon la Première ministre italienne Giorgia Meloni.

      L’agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes aurait signalé aux autorités italiennes qu’un bateau menaçait de couler, incapable de faire face à un vent de force 4, a confié une source de Frontex à EURACTIV.

      « Aucune communication d’urgence de Frontex n’est parvenue à nos autorités. Nous n’avons pas été avertis que ce bateau risquait de couler », a déclaré Mme Meloni, qui faisait sa première déclaration depuis la tragédie.

      Parmi les passagers du bateau, qui n’a jamais atteint les côtes, figuraient principalement des familles originaires d’Afghanistan et de Syrie. Le nombre exact de personnes à bord n’est pas encore connu. Le bateau de 20 mètres de long, qui avait à son bord 200 personnes environ, arrivait de Turquie. Environ 80 personnes ont survécu et au moins 68 sont décédées.
      Intempéries

      Selon les informations fournies par Frontex à EURACTIV, l’agence européenne a communiqué certains éléments concernant l’interception du bateau qui révèlent une possible détresse en mer.

      Certains éléments ont par exemple montré que le bateau transportait potentiellement un nombre élevé de personnes avec une mer agitée de vagues pouvant atteindre 2,50 mètres — soit un niveau d’état de la mer de 4 sur 7.

      « Nos experts ont repéré certains signes indiquant que le bateau était susceptible de transporter un grand nombre de personnes. Par exemple, la caméra thermique à bord de l’avion a détecté une réponse significative », a expliqué Frontex. L’agence a également confirmé à EURACTIV que les autorités italiennes avaient accès à ces données thermiques.

      EURACTIV a demandé à Frontex si elle avait communiqué un signal de détresse du navire, mais l’agence de l’UE a répondu que « en ce qui concerne la classification de l’événement en tant qu’opération de recherche et sauvetage (SAR), conformément au droit international, cela relève de la responsabilité des autorités nationales ».

      L’Italie a mobilisé deux patrouilleurs de la Garde des finances (Guardia di Finanza, GDF), engageant une opération de police, dite de « maintien de l’ordre ». Toutefois, en raison des conditions météorologiques et de l’état de la mer, les bateaux ont dû rentrer au port, comme indiqué par la GDF dans un communiqué de presse lundi (27 février).

      La GDF n’est pas habilitée et équipée pour procéder à des opérations SAR (recherche et sauvetage), cette compétence relevant des garde-côtes italiens.

      Aucune opération de SAR n’a été lancée au moment de la communication de Frontex.
      Le silence de l’Italie sur les images thermiques

      La GDF et les garde-côtes italiens n’ont pas mentionné les indices thermiques dans leurs communiqués de presse suivant la tragédie.

      La GDF a évoqué l’observation d’un bateau par Frontex « prétendument impliqué dans un trafic de migrants, à environ 40 miles de la côte de Crotone ».

      Les garde-côtes italiens ont déclaré mardi (28 février) que le bateau « semblait naviguer de manière régulière, à 6 nœuds et dans de bonnes conditions de flottabilité, avec une seule personne visible sur le pont du navire ».

      EURACTIV a pris contact avec les garde-côtes italiens à plusieurs reprises depuis mardi dernier (28 février) — leur demandant s’ils avaient eu accès aux images des caméras thermiques — mais n’a pas reçu de réponse.

      Aux mêmes questions, la Garde des Finances italienne a déclaré à EURACTIV qu’« à ce stade, [elle] ne ferait aucune déclaration concernant les événements qui se sont produits à Crotone ».

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/naufrage-de-crotone-litalie-na-pas-juge-urgents-les-messages-dalerte-de-fro

    • Cutro. I fiori del mare contro lo Stato di decomposizione

      Da loro apprenderemo a sopravvivere e a lottare

      Le circa tre settimane che seguono il naufragio di Steccato di Cutro sono state e continuano ad essere costellate da diversi falsi allarmi e notizie fittizie e frammentarie.

      La guardia costiera italiana ha messo in moto una macchina – per quanto estremamente operativa – non sufficiente al recupero dei corpi che con molta probabilità ancora giacciono sul fondo di quei 150 metri d’acqua che separano la spiaggia dal relitto dell’imbarcazione inabissata.

      Si cerca senza sosta dal cielo e da terra ma in profondità, ancora nessun sommozzatore ha ottenuto il consenso per attivare le complesse operazioni di rimozione del barcone e degli almeno 30 corpi che potrebbe trattenere.

      Il mare li sta restituendo autonomamente, poco per volta, con estrema difficoltà, in avanzatissimo stato di decomposizione.

      L’ultimo, quello di un uomo recuperato grazie ad un’operazione estremamente complessa, le cui probabilità di riuscita si riducono drasticamente ogni giorno che passa.

      Ci aggiorna sulle operazioni la stessa equipe operativa – tra polizia scientifica, organizzazioni del terzo settore, giornalisti – che senza sosta incrocia i pochi dati in possesso per poter risalire all’identità delle salme recuperate.

      E’ soprattutto per questo motivo che come Mem.Med abbiamo enfatizzato sin da subito sull’urgenza e la necessità immediata di ottenere da parte della procura di Crotone l’autorizzazione per prelevare il campione di DNA dei familiari ancora in loco, fondamentale a restituire un nome e un volto alle persone non più identificabili.

      Non si tratta ormai solo di ricostruire generalità biografiche e dettagli fisici: segni particolari sul corpo potrebbero non bastare all’esame autoptico per cui solo il sesso, l’abbigliamento e il confronto del materiale genetico dei familiari può garantirlo.

      In queste infinite settimane, in cui il tempo si è fermato per morti e vivi, abbiamo monitorato con attenzione ogni fase di ricerca, recupero e identificazione delle vittime restituite dal mare. I familiari e gli amici accorsi a Crotone hanno sospeso la propria vita non solo per quanto accaduto ai cari, ma anche perché provati e provocati da attese indefinite sulla loro sorte, privati di risposte a domande lecite circa rimpatrio delle salme, dalle ricerche in mare e il ricongiungimento con le persone sopravvissute, tuttora reiterate tra oblio e dimenticanze.

      Le famiglie e gli amici giunti in Italia per ritrovare le persone che attendevano da questo lato del mare, stanno lasciando la Calabria ancora col dubbio che quei corpi possano essere abbandonati in mare. Qualcuna non ha avuto la possibilità di partire. Ci scrivono ininterrottamente dal Pakistan, dall’Iran, dalla Palestina, dalla Germania per avere aggiornamenti costanti, per avere risposta sui loro figli e figlie, fratelli e sorelle che lo Stato trattiene da settimane.

      Shahid ha riconosciuto suo fratello attraverso una video chiamata, proprio come la famiglia tunisina di Siwar che, partita per raggiungere l’amore, ha trovato la morte.

      Shahid non ha ancora comunicato a nessuno della famiglia che il fratello non è in vita, ma rinchiuso in un campo tra i sopravvissuti, come aveva voluto credere dai primi giorni dal naufragio.

      È suo il primo messaggio che leggo al risveglio, perché fiducioso del fatto che potremmo velocizzare le procedure ed alleggerire quel peso che porta dentro di sé per non gettarlo sulla madre.

      I giorni precedenti al rinvenimento, era stato aggirato da chi lo ricattava per soldi, minacciato di non rivedere più suo fratello “sequestrato“, se non avesse pagato la somma richiesta.

      Senza un corpo che affermi la verità sulle sorti dei propri familiari, le persone che non possono raggiungere l’Italia cercano di darsi una speranza, anche credendo alla peggiore delle ipotesi, fuorché alla sparizione.

      Ed ora che lo ha ritrovato, l’ennesima violenza lo separa dalla salma del fratello, nell’attesa senza tempo che rientri in Pakistan.

      L’ultima segnalazione è quella di un ragazzino di 17 anni. Voi ve li ricordate i vostri 17 anni, fremere di entusiasmo man mano che si avvicinavano ai 18?

      Atiqullah non potrà mai raggiungerli. Aveva modificato il suo passaporto affinché potesse partire da maggiorenne per Dubai dove la sua famiglia avrebbe voluto che lavorasse.

      Ma Atiqullah fuggiva anche da questo, da una vita sacrificata per viverla in maniera più dignitosa.

      La sorella ci ha fornito ogni particolare utile all’eventuale riconoscimento, ne descrive ogni centimetro del corpo affinché, una volta recuperato, possa essere riconosciuto dalle cicatrici sui piedi.

      Quei piedi instancabili che solo le persone migranti sanno valorizzare, perché indispensabili a proseguire il cammino, la rotta verso la libertà. Ma il mare tradisce, ed è probabilmente già tardi perchè possa essere riconosciuto dai suoi piedi.

      Nell’ininterrotta impresa per la verità e la giustizia che perseguiamo, un modello efficace è impegnato per sopperire alla gravissima negligenza di uno Stato di decomposizione politica che ancora oggi oltraggia il rispetto e la dignità delle persone disperse.

      Dall’incontro con i familiari a palazzo Chigi in cui il Presidente Meloni si è concessa il privilegio di domandare – a chi quel mare lo attraversa perchè altrove rischierebbe la sua vita – se conoscessero le avversità a cui andavano incontro, fino alle risposte belle e fatte nel question time che i ministri si sono limitati a offrire ai parlamentari sull’ennesimo, non ultimo, naufragio nel Mar mediterraneo che conta la vita di ulteriori 30 persone.

      Mentre alla Camera i ministri impegnano con imbarazzo il tempo ad eludere le responsabilità nonché la capacità di soccorrere in mare – e lo abbiamo visto a Crotone con il salvataggio delle oltre 1.000 persone scortate dalla Guardia costiera – si ribadisce l’attacco inconcludente e infondato alla “mafia degli scafisti”.

      Ma è troppo facile puntare il dito a dei giovani ribelli, a quel compagno di viaggio che nelle aule di tribunale è testimone come gli altri sopravvissuti di questo delitto.

      Forse i ministri italiani dimenticano che le zone SAR non corrispondono a una competenza sovrana ma a un’indicazione operativa. Laddove le autorità libiche, maltesi o più prossime ad un’imbarcazione non sopraggiungano per il soccorso in mare, la responsabilità è, e deve essere, delle autorità italiane e di tutte coloro che possono intervenire. La domanda, dunque, non è se pensiamo che lo stato non abbia intenzionalmente salvato le vite, come ha ribaltato ai giornalisti durante il CDM tenuto a Cutro, perché lo abbiamo già affermato. La vera questione da porre, è se davvero è stato fatto e si continua a fare tutto il possibile per salvare le vite in quel mare e in qualsiasi punto del Mediterraneo.

      E’ difficile credere alla parole di chi non molto tempo fa, affermava di voler affondare le navi delle ONG e installare blocchi navali contro le persone migranti.

      La più assidua accusa rivolta alle antropologhe fa spesso enfasi sul simbolismo utilizzato nell’interpretazione della realtà. Ebbene, malgrado gli elementi simbolici non sempre siano il grado massimo di espressione utile a restituire la lettura più vicina al contenuto semantico e concreto dell’agire umano, si predispone ancora una volta come uno degli strumenti più immediati e verosimili per la descrizione di uno stato dell’arte che anche questa volta vede nascere fiori da uno Stato in putrefazione.

      Linguaggio, immagini e suoni ribaltati di un significante insignificante, che non ha ancora capito qual’è la sua più antica etimologia: la vita.

      Abbiamo teso le braccia alla morte e ne abbiamo tirato fuori memoria. Ci siamo immerse con corpo e spirito nel fondo del dolore di chi resta e racconta chi è andatə via. Ci siamo ritrovate a raccogliere frammenti di vita – biologica e non – dalle mani dei familiari e dei sopravvissuti nelle auspicabili ipotesi che si potesse restituire l’identità alle persone ancora in mare. Perché sappiamo, come scrive Erri De Luca, che quelle acque hanno volti, i volti di Iona e della ribellione.

      Ho letto da qualche parte che non bisogna mai fidarsi dei libri, e forse è un consiglio che terrò presente più spesso quando, anziché leggere di cosa gli altri hanno da dire di terzi, sentirò questi ultimi parlare per sé, di sé, del mondo che abitiamo.

      Potrebbero chiedermi, quindi, chi parlerà per le morti: Saranno loro a parlare di sé, di noi, di tutto. “I morti sono più eloquenti dei vivi”, scrive Cristina Cattaneo in un suo libro ormai divenuto una guida sul tema dell’identificazione dei naufraghi.

      Queste morti non tacciono, parlano del proprio coraggio, della sfida, del movimento. Queste morti sono e restano persone, ci parlano in prima persona, di come sono partite, tendendo la mano ai sacrifici, alla dignità e alla dissidenza, per ribellarsi, per opporsi a ciò che non andava bene, a ciò che opprime e spinge via la vita che resiste.

      Queste morti parlano di quanto non vogliamo che parlino, di come non le si voglia vedere, sentire, pregare, piangere, riconoscere, ricordare.

      Ma la morte è potente quanto la vita, così potente da risuscitare anche i vivi che muoiono ciechi di indifferenza.

      Allande scriveva a sua figlia Paula che la separazione non è mai definitiva finché esiste il ricordo, la memoria viva che tessiamo nel cammino per la verità e la giustizia.

      Queste morti non saranno testimoni ma sono epistemi e da loro apprenderemo a sopravvivere e a lottare. La resistenza dei vivi è la giustizia per i morti e noi non dimentichiamo la rabbia!

      Chi lotta non muore. Chi lotta è fiore.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/03/cutro-i-fiori-del-mare-contro-lo-stato-di-decomposizione

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

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

    Summary

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

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

    Air Partner: Home Office deportation broker

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

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

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

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

    Flying for Frontex

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

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

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

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

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

    The contract stipulates the need for total secrecy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The business: from military money to deportation dealer

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

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

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

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

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

    Ferrying the mega-rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The parent company: Wheels Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

    Footnotes

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

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

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

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

    5 Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    via @isskein

  • #Frontex : « Sa #mission première est bien de garantir un contrôle des frontières extérieures », rappelle le Sénat

    C’est une enquête de l’Office de lutte antifraude (OLAF), mettant notamment en évidence cas présumés illégaux de « pushback » (refoulements) de migrants, notamment en mer Egée, qui avait précipité la démission de Fabrice Leggeri, l’ancien directeur français de Frontex, en mai dernier. Aija Kalnaja, directrice par intérim de Frontex, avait assuré il y a quelques semaines devant les sénateurs que 46 vérificateurs avaient été recrutés en octobre dernier, afin de vérifier la bonne garantie des droits fondamentaux aux frontières de l’Europe.
    Droits fondamentaux contre contrôles aux frontières : « Ce débat est en grande partie artificiel »

    La proposition de résolution européenne (PPRE) du Sénat, présentée par Jean-François Rapin, président LR de la commission des Affaires européennes, et François-Noël Buffet, président LR de la commission des Lois, « regrette » que ce rapport de l’OLAF « n’ait toujours pas été rendu public », alors qu’il « fait l’objet de ‘fuites’ régulières dans la presse. » Toujours est-il que l’exposé des motifs de cette PPRE rappelle que M. Leggeri avait mis sa démission sur le compte d’un « glissement », depuis 2019, des missions de l’Agence vers le respect des droits fondamentaux plutôt que sur le contrôle des frontières extérieures.

    Un « glissement » que le Sénat réfute dans cette proposition de résolution européenne, qui n’est pas un texte juridique contraignant, mais un message politique envoyé à l’Union européenne. « Ce débat, qui existe bel et bien, est toutefois en grande partie artificiel : en effet, Frontex doit exercer ses missions dans le respect des droits de l’Homme mais sa mission première est bien de garantir un contrôle efficace des frontières extérieures contre l’immigration irrégulière », expliquent ainsi Jean-François Rapin et François-Noël Buffet.

    « L’agence n’a aucunement vocation à surveiller le respect des droits fondamentaux par les États membres »

    Dans cette résolution, la majorité sénatoriale propose ainsi certaines pistes pour améliorer le fonctionnement de Frontex dans la « crise » actuelle que l’agence traverse. Premièrement, les présidents Rapin et Buffet préconisent de mettre en place un « pilotage » plus « politique » de l’agence, en regrettant l’absence de candidature française au poste de directeur et « l’excessive longueur » de la procédure de désignation.

    La proposition de #résolution entend aussi réaffirmer le rôle de soutien aux Etats-membres de Frontex, « qui intervient exclusivement en réponse aux demandes d’un Etat membre et sous son autorité. » Les sénateurs estiment, par conséquent, que « les personnels de Frontex ne sauraient être tenus responsables d’éventuelles violations des droits fondamentaux commises par les services de l’État partenaire » et que « l’agence n’a aucunement vocation à surveiller le respect des droits fondamentaux par les États membres. »

    Jean-François Rapin et François-Noël Buffet proposent de mettre en place, dans chaque Parlement national, un « groupe de contrôle parlementaire conjoint, sur le modèle de celui établi pour contrôler les activités d’Europol », afin de garantir « la nécessaire association des parlements nationaux au contrôle de Frontex. »

    https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/politique/frontex-sa-mission-premiere-est-bien-de-garantir-un-controle-des-frontie

    #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #migrations #asile #réfugiés
    #le_mérite_d'être_clair #missions #surveillance_des_frontières

  • Europe’s Black Sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    METHODS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Migrants : un général néerlandais nommé nouveau chef de l’agence européenne #Frontex

    Le commandant de la gendarmerie royale néerlandaise #Hans_Leijtens a été nommé mardi nouveau #directeur exécutif de l’agence européenne des frontières externes Frontex, a annoncé son conseil d’administration dans un communiqué.

    Nommé par ce conseil, Hans Leijtens succède à l’actuelle responsable par interim de Frontex, #Aija_Kalnaja, occupant ce poste depuis juillet 2022 à la suite de la démission de François Leggeri, régulièrement accusé de tolérer des refoulements illégaux de migrants.

    L’Office européen de lutte antifraude (OLAF) avait confirmé vendredi avoir ouvert une enquête contre Frontex, sans pourtant davantage de précision.

    Selon les médias Mediapart, Der Spiegel et le collectif Lighthouse Reports, cette enquête concerne Mme Kalnaja.

    Dans un communiqué reçu par l’AFP, Mme Kalnaja a indiqué avoir été informée par l’OLAF qu’elle est la « personne concernée dans un cas, qui consiste en deux événements distincts », sans autres détails.

    « Je coopère pleinement, ouvertement et inconditionnellement avec OLAF pour clarifier les faits », a-t-elle ajouté.

    De son côté, le général Leijtens s’est vu féliciter mardi pour sa nomination par la commissaire européenne aux Affaires intérieures Ylva Johanssonq, qui a remercié Mme Kalnaja « pour son excellente gouvernance (de Frontex) durant une période difficile ».

    « Nous nous engageons à continuer d’améliorer la gouvernance de Frontex, afin de protéger au mieux la frontière extérieure de l’UE », a ajouté Mme Johansson.

    Le général de corps d’armée Hans Leijtens, qui commande la Royal Netherlands Marechaussee depuis 2019, rejoindra Frontex pour un mandat de cinq ans, selon le communiqué de l’agence basée à Varsovie.

    Hans Leijtens est titulaire d’un doctorat en administration publique et possède plus de 30 ans d’expérience dans le domaine du maintien de l’ordre. Il avait été membre du conseil d’administration de Frontex entre 2011-2015 et 2019-2022, précise le texte.

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/fil-dactualites/201222/migrants-un-general-neerlandais-nomme-nouveau-chef-de-l-agence-europeenne-

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers

    sur #Aija_Kalnaja :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966439