#g4s

  • #Biden and the Border Security-Industrial Complex

    Successive administrations have poured money into the business of militarizing immigration control—and lobbyists have returned the favors. Will this president stop the juggernaut?

    There are many ways I wish I’d spent my last days of freedom before the coronavirus’s inexorable and deadly advance through the US began last year, but attending the 2020 Border Security Expo was not one of them. On March 9, 2020, President Trump told us the flu was more deadly than coronavirus and that nothing would be shut down. “Think about that!” he tweeted. On March 13, he declared the pandemic a national emergency. In the days between, I flew to San Antonio, Texas, to attend the Expo in an attempt to better understand the border security industry and its links to government. I soon found myself squeezing through dozens of suited men with buzz cuts clapping each other on the back and scarfing bagels at the catering table, with scant mention of the coming catastrophe.

    Instead, the focus was on how best to spend the ever-increasing budgets of the Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which had discretionary spending allocations that totaled $27 billion. Together, that was up 20 percent on the previous year’s budgets; and for decades now, under Democrats and Republicans alike, the border security industry has generally received more and more money each year. For the first time in years, the agencies’ latest combined budget records a modest reduction, of $1.5 billion (though the expenditure on ICE continues to grow unchecked).

    President Biden is working to undo some of the most violent anti-immigrant policies of his predecessor, including lifting the travel ban on thirteen nations, almost all in the Middle East or Africa, and working to end the Migrant Protection Protocols, which forced some 25,000 asylum seekers to stay in Mexico as they awaited their day in court. He has also created a task force to reunite families separated at the US–Mexico border and has already sent a comprehensive immigration reform bill to lawmakers. And he has halted construction of Donald Trump’s notorious border wall.

    Does this all signify that he is ready to consider taming the vast militarized machine that is the border security industry? Or will he, like Democratic presidents before him, quietly continue to expand it?

    (#paywall)

    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2021/03/02/biden-and-the-border-security-industrial-complex

    #USA #complexe_militaro-industriel #Etats-Unis #migrations #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #business #réfugiés #migrations #militarisation_des_frontières #Joe_Biden #Customs_and_Border_Protection_agency (#CBP) #Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement (#ICE)

    • Biden’s Border. The industry, the Democrats and the 2020 elections

      This briefing profiles the leading US border security contractors, their related financial campaign contributions during the 2020 elections, and how they have shaped a bipartisan approach in favor of border militarization for more than three decades. It suggests that a real change in border and immigration policies will require the Democrats to break with the industry that helps finance them.

      Key findings:

      – Early into his presidency, Joe Biden has already indicated through 10 executive orders that he wants to end the brutality associated with Trump’s border and immigration policies. However undoing all the harmful dimensions of the US border regime will require substantial structural change and an end to the close ties between the Democrats and the border industry.

      - The border security and immigration detention industry has boomed in the last decades thanks to constant increases in government spending by both parties—Democrats and Republicans. Between 2008 and 2020, CBP and ICE issued 105,997 contracts worth $55.1 billion to private corporations.The industry is now deeply embedded in US government bodies and decision-making, with close financial ties to strategic politicians.

      – 13 companies play a pivotal role in the US border industry: #CoreCivic, #Deloitte, #Elbit_Systems, #GEO_Group, #General_Atomics, #General_Dynamics, #G4S, #IBM, #Leidos, #Lockheed_Martin, #L3Harris, #Northrop_Grumman, and #Palantir. Some of the firms also provide other services and products to the US government, but border and detention contracts have been a consistently growing part of all of their portfolios.

      - These top border contractors through individual donations and their #Political_Action_Committees (PACs) gave more than $40 million during the 2020 electoral cycle to the two parties ($40,333,427). Democrats overall received more contributions from the big border contractors than the Republicans (55 percent versus 45 percent). This is a swing back to the Democrats, as over the last 10 years contributions from 11 of the 13 companies have favored Republicans. It suggests an intention by the border industry to hedge their political bets and ensure that border security policies are not rolled back to the detriment of future profits.

      – The 13 border security companies’ executives and top employees contributed three times more to Joe Biden ($5,364,994) than to Donald Trump ($1,730,435).

      - A few border security companies show preferences towards one political party. Detention-related companies, in particular CoreCivic, G4S and GEO Group, strongly favor Republicans along with military contractors Elbit Systems and General Atomics, while auditing and IT companies Deloitte, IBM and Palantir overwhelmingly favor the Democrats.

      – The 13 companies have contributed $10 million ($9,674,911) in the 2020 electoral cycle to members of strategic legislative committees that design and fund border security policies: the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the House Homeland Security Committee. The biggest contributors are Deloitte, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Leidos, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, and nearly all donate substantially to both parties, with a preference for Republican candidates. Democrat Senator Jack Reed ($426,413), Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger ($442,406) and Republican Senator Richard Shelby ($430,150) all received more than $400,000 in 2020.

      – Biden is opposed to the wall-building of Trump, but has along with many Democrats voiced public support for a more hidden ‘virtual wall’ and ‘smart borders’, deploying surveillance technologies that will be both more lucrative for the industry and more hidden in terms of the abuses they perpetrate.

      - Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas developed and implemented DACA under Obama’s administration, but also as a lawyer with the firm WilmerHale between 2018 and 2020 earned $3.3 million representing companies including border contractors Northrop Grumman and Leidos.

      - Over the last 40 years, Biden has a mixed voting record on border policy, showing some support for immigrant rights on several occasions but also approving legislation (the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigration Reform Act) that enabled the mass deportations under Obama, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which extended the wall long before Trump’s election.

      – The Democrat Party as a whole also has a mixed record. Under President Bill Clinton, the Democrats approved the 1994 Prevention through Deterrence national border strategy and implemented the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act that dramatically increased the pace of border militarization as well as deportations. Later Obama became the first president to deport nearly 3 million people during his eight-year term.

      – Nearly 8,000 bodies have been recovered in the U.S.–Mexico borderlands between 1998 and 2019 as a result of policies by both parties. The organization No More Deaths has estimated that three to ten times as many people may have died or disappeared since today’s border-enforcement strategy was implemented. The border industrial complex’s profits are based on border and immmigration policies that have deadly consequences.

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

      #rapport #TNI #murs #barrières_frontalières #démocrates #républicains #industrie_frontalière #smart_borders #murs_virtuels #technologie #morts #décès #mortalité

  • Cast away : the UK’s rushed charter flights to deport Channel crossers

    Warning: this document contains accounts of violence, attempted suicides and self harm.

    The British government has vowed to clamp down on migrants crossing the Channel in small boats, responding as ever to a tabloid media panic. One part of its strategy is a new wave of mass deportations: charter flights, specifically targeting channel-crossers, to France, Germany and Spain.

    There have been two flights so far, on the 12 and 26 August. The next one is planned for 3 September. The two recent flights stopped in both Germany (Duesseldorf) and France (Toulouse on the 12, Clermont-Ferrand on the 26). Another flight was planned to Spain on 27 August – but this was cancelled after lawyers managed to get everyone off the flight.

    Carried out in a rush by a panicked Home Office, these mass deportations have been particularly brutal, and may have involved serious legal irregularities. This report summarises what we know so far after talking to a number of the people deported and from other sources. It covers:

    The context: Calais boat crossings and the UK-France deal to stop them.

    In the UK: Yarl’s Wood repurposed as Channel-crosser processing centre; Britannia Hotels; Brook House detention centre as brutal as ever.

    The flights: detailed timeline of the 26 August charter to Dusseldorf and Clermont-Ferrand.

    Who’s on the flight: refugees including underage minors and torture survivors.

    Dumped on arrival: people arriving in Germany and France given no opportunity to claim asylum, served with immediate expulsion papers.

    The legalities: use of the Dublin III regulation to evade responsibility for refugees.

    Is it illegal?: rushed process leads to numerous irregularities.

    “that night, eight people cut themselves”

    “That night before the flight (25 August), when we were locked in our rooms and I heard that I had lost my appeal, I was desperate. I started to cut myself. I wasn’t the only one. Eight people self-harmed or tried to kill themselves rather than be taken on that plane. One guy threw a kettle of boiling water on himself. One man tried to hang himself with the cable of the TV in his room. Three of us were taken to hospital, but sent back to the detention centre after a few hours. The other five they just took to healthcare [the clinic in Brook House] and bandaged up. About 5 in the morning they came to my room, guards with riot shields. On the way to the van, they led me through a kind of corridor which was full of people – guards, managers, officials from the Home Office. They all watched while a doctor examined me, then the doctor said – ‘yes, he’s fit to fly’. On the plane later I saw one guy hurt really badly, fresh blood on his head and on his clothes. He hadn’t just tried to stop the ticket, he really wanted to kill himself. He was taken to Germany.”

    Testimony of a deported person.

    The context: boats and deals

    Since the 1990s, tens of thousands of people fleeing war, repression and poverty have crossed the “short straits” between Calais and Dover. Until 2018, people without papers attempting to cross the Channel did so mainly by getting into lorries or on trains through the Channel Tunnel. Security systems around the lorry parks, tunnel and highway were escalated massively following the eviction of the big Jungle in 2016. This forced people into seeking other, ever more dangerous, routes – including crossing one of the world’s busiest waterways in small boats. Around 300 people took this route in 2018, a further 2000 in 2019 – and reportedly more than 5,000 people already by August 2020.

    These crossings have been seized on by the UK media in their latest fit of xenophobic scaremongering. The pattern is all too familiar since the Sangatte camp of 1999: right-wing media outlets (most infamously the Daily Mail, but also others) push-out stories about dangerous “illegals” swarming across the Channel; the British government responds with clampdown promises.

    Further stoked by Brexit, recent measures have included:

    Home Secretary Priti Patel announcing a new “Fairer Borders” asylum and immigration law that she promises will “send the left into meltdown”.

    A formal request from the Home Office to the Royal Navy to assist in turning back migrants crossing by boat (although this would be illegal).

    Negotiations with the French government, leading to the announcement on 13 August of a “joint operational plan” aimed at “completely cutting this route.”

    The appointment of a “Clandestine Channel Threat Commander” to oversee operations on both sides of the Channel.

    The concrete measures are still emerging, but notable developments so far include:

    Further UK payments to France to increase security – reportedly France demanded £30 million.

    French warships from the Naval base at Cherbourg patrolling off the coast of Calais and Dunkirk.

    UK Border Force Cutters and Coastal Patrol Vessels patrolling the British side, supported by flights from Royal Air Force surveillance planes.

    The new charter flight deportation programme — reportedly named “Operation Sillath” by the Home Office.

    For the moment, at least, the governments are respecting their minimal legal obligations to protect life at sea. And there has not been evidence of illegal “push backs” or “pull backs”: where the British “push” or the French “pull” boats back across the border line by force. When these boats are intercepted in French waters the travellers are taken back to France. If they make it into UK waters, Border Force pick them up and disembark them at Dover. They are then able to claim asylum in the UK.

    There is no legal difference in claiming asylum after arriving by boat, on a plane, or any other way. However, these small boat crossers have been singled out by the government to be processed in a special way seemingly designed to deny them the right to asylum in the UK.

    Once people are safely on shore the second part of Priti Patel’s strategy to make this route unviable kicks in: systematically obstruct their asylum claims and, where possible, deport them to France or other European countries. In practice, there is no way the Home Office can deport everyone who makes it across. Rather, as with the vast majority of immigration policy, the aim is to display toughness with a spectacle of enforcement – not only in an attempt to deter other arrivals, but perhaps, above all else, to play to key media audiences.

    This is where the new wave of charter flights come in. Deportations require cooperation from the destination country, and the first flight took place on 12 August in the midst of the Franco-British negotiations. Most recently, the flights have fed a new media spectacle in the UK: the Home Office attacking “activist lawyers” for doing their job and challenging major legal flaws in these rushed removals.

    The Home Office has tried to present these deportation flights as a strong immediate response to the Channel crossings. The message is: if you make it across, you’ll be back again within days. Again, this is more spectacle than reality. All the people we know of on the flights were in the UK for several months before being deported.

    In the UK: Yarl’s Wood repurposed

    Once on shore people are taken to one of two places: either the Kent Intake Unit, which is a Home Office holding facility (i.e., a small prefab cell complex) in the Eastern Docks of Dover Port; or the Dover police station. This police stations seems increasingly to be the main location, as the small “intake unit” is often at capacity. There used to be a detention centre in Dover where new arrivals were held, notorious for its run-down state, but this was closed in October 2015.

    People are typically held in the police station for no more than a day. The next destination is usually Yarl’s Wood, the Bedfordshire detention centre run by Serco. This was, until recently, a longer term detention centre holding mainly women. However, on 18 August the Home Office announced Yarl’s Wood been repurposed as a “Short Term Holding Facility” (SHTF) specifically to process people who have crossed the Channel. People stay usually just a few days – the legal maximum stay for a “short term” facility is seven days.

    Yarl’s Wood has a normal capacity of 410 prisoners. According to sources at Yarl’s Wood:

    “last week it was almost full with over 350 people detained. A few days later this number
    had fallen to 150, showing how quickly people are moving through the centre. As of Tuesday 25th of August there was no one in the centre at all! It seems likely that numbers will fluctuate in line with Channel crossings.”

    The same source adds:

    “There is a concern about access to legal aid in Yarl’s Wood. Short Term Holding Facility regulations do not require legal advice to be available on site (in Manchester, for example, there are no duty lawyers). Apparently the rota for duty lawyers is continuing at Yarl’s Wood for the time being. But the speed with which people are being processed now means that it is practically impossible to sign up and get a meeting with the duty solicitor before being moved out.”

    The Home Office conducts people’s initial asylum screening interviews whilst they are at Yarl’s Wood. Sometimes these are done in person, or sometimes by phone.

    This is a crucial point, as this first interview decides many people’s chance of claiming asylum in the UK. The Home Office uses information from this interview to deport the Channel crossers to France and Germany under the Dublin III regulation. This is EU legislation which allows governments to pass on responsibility for assessing someone’s asylum claim to another state. That is: the UK doesn’t even begin to look at people’s asylum cases.

    From what we have seen, many of these Dublin III assessments were made in a rushed and irregular way. They often used only weak circumstantial evidence. Few people had any chance to access legal advice, or even interpreters to explain the process.

    We discuss Dublin III and these issues below in the Legal Framework section.
    In the UK: Britain’s worst hotels

    From Yarl’s Wood, people we spoke to were given immigration bail and sent to asylum accommodation. In the first instance this currently means a cheap hotel. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Home Office ordered its asylum contractors (Mears, Serco) to shut their usual initial asylum accommodation and move people into hotels. It is not clear why this decision was made, as numerous accounts suggest the hotels are much worse as possible COVID incubators. The results of this policy have already proved fatal – we refer to the death of Adnan Olbeh in a Glasgow hotel in April.

    Perhaps the government is trying to prop up chains such as Britannia Hotels, judged for seven years running “Britain’s worst hotel chain” by consumer magazine Which?. Several people on the flights were kept in Britannia hotels. The company’s main owner, multi-millionaire Alex Langsam, was dubbed the “asylum king” by British media after winning previous asylum contracts with his slum housing sideline.

    Some of the deportees we spoke to stayed in hotel accommodation for several weeks before being moved into normal “asylum dispersal” accommodation – shared houses in the cheapest parts of cities far from London. Others were picked up for deportation directly from the hotels.

    In both cases, the usual procedure is a morning raid: Immigration Enforcement squads grab people from their beds around dawn. As people are in collaborating hotels or assigned houses, they are easy to find and arrest when next on the list for deportation.

    After arrest, people were taken to the main detention centres near Heathrow (Colnbrook and Harmondsworth) or Gatwick (particularly Brook House). Some stopped first at a police station or Short Term Holding Facility for some hours or days.

    All the people we spoke to eventually ended up in Brook House, one of the two Gatwick centres.
    “they came with the shields”

    “One night in Brook House, after someone cut himself, they locked everyone in. One man panicked and started shouting asking the guards please open the door. But he didn’t speak much English, he was shouting in Arabic. He said – ‘if you don’t open the door I will boil water in my kettle and throw it on my face.’ But they didn’t understand him, they thought he was threatening them, saying he would throw it at them. So they came with the shields, took him out of his room and put him into a solitary cell. When they put him in there they kicked him and beat him, they said ‘don’t threaten us again’.” Testimony of a deported person.

    Brook House

    Brook House remains notorious, after exposure by a whistleblower of routine brutality and humiliation by guards then working for G4S. The contract has since been taken over by Mitie’s prison division – branded as “Care and Custody, a Mitie company”. Presumably, many of the same guards simply transferred over.

    In any case, according to what we heard from the deported people, nothing much has changed in Brook House – viciousness and violence from guards remains the norm. The stories included here give just a few examples. See recent detainee testimonies on the Detained Voices blog for much more.
    “they only care that you don’t die in front of them”

    “I was in my room in Brook House on my own for 12 days, I couldn’t eat or drink, just kept thinking, thinking about my situation. I called for the doctors maybe ten times. They did come a couple of times, they took my blood, but they didn’t do anything else. They don’t care about your health or your mental health. They are just scared you will die there. They don’t care what happens to you just so long as you don’t die in front of their eyes. It doesn’t matter if you die somewhere else.” Testimony of a deported person.
    Preparing the flights

    The Home Office issues papers called “Removal Directions” (RDs) to those they intend to deport. These specify the destination and day of the flight. People already in detention should be given at least 72 hours notice, including two working days, which allows them to make final appeals.

    See the Right to Remain toolkit for detailed information on notice periods and appeal procedures.

    All UK deportation flights, both tickets on normal scheduled flights and chartered planes, are booked by a private contractor called Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT). The main airline used by the Home Office for charter flights is a charter company called Titan Airways.

    See this 2018 Corporate Watch report for detailed information on charter flight procedures and the companies involved. And this 2020 update on deportations overall.

    On the 12 August flight, legal challenges managed to get 19 people with Removal Directions off the plane. However, the Home Office then substituted 14 different people who were on a “reserve list”. Lawyers suspect that these 14 people did not have sufficient access to legal representation before their flight which is why they were able to be removed.

    Of the 19 people whose lawyers successfully challenged their attempted deportation, 12 would be deported on the next charter flight on 26 August. 6 were flown to Dusseldorf in Germany, and 6 to Clermont-Ferrand in France.

    Another flight was scheduled for the 27 August to Spain. However, lawyers managed to get everyone taken off, and the Home Office cancelled the flight. A Whitehall source was quoted as saying “there was 100% legal attrition rate on the flight due to unprecedented and organised casework barriers sprung on the government by three law firms.” It is suspected that the Home Office will continue their efforts to deport these people on future charter flights.

    Who was deported?

    All the people on the flights were refugees who had claimed asylum in the UK immediately on arrival at Dover. While the tabloids paint deportation flights as carrying “dangerous criminals”, none of these people had any criminal charges.

    They come from countries including Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan and Kuwait. (Ten further Yemenis were due to be on the failed flight to Spain. In June, the UK government said it will resume arms sales to Saudi Arabia to use in the bombardment of the country that has cost tens of thousands of lives).

    All have well-founded fears of persecution in their countries of origin, where there have been extensive and well-documented human rights abuses. At least some of the deportees are survivors of torture – and have been documented as such in the Home Office’s own assessments.

    One was a minor under 18 who was age assessed by the Home Office as 25 – despite them being in possession of his passport proving his real age. Unaccompanied minors should not legally be processed under the Dublin III regulation, let alone held in detention and deported.

    Many, if not all, have friends and families in the UK.

    No one had their asylum case assessed – all were removed under the Dublin III procedure (see Legal Framework section below).

    Timeline of the flight on 26 August

    Night of 25 August: Eight people due to be on the flight self-harm or attempt suicide. Others have been on hunger strike for more than a week already. Three are taken to hospital where they are hastily treated before being discharged so they can still be placed on the flight. Another five are simply bandaged up in Brook House’s healthcare facility. (See testimony above.)

    26 August, 4am onwards: Guards come to take deportees from their rooms in Brook House. There are numerous testimonies of violence: three or four guards enter rooms with shields, helmets, and riot gear and beat up prisoners if they show any resistance.

    4am onwards: The injured prisoners are taken by guards to be inspected by a doctor, in a corridor in front of officials, and are certified as “fit to fly”.

    5am onwards: Prisoners are taken one by one to waiting vans. Each is placed in a separate van with four guards. Vans are labelled with the Mitie “Care and Custody” logo. Prisoners are then kept sitting in the vans until everyone is loaded, which takes one to two hours.

    6am onwards: Vans drive from Brook House (near Gatwick Airport) to Stansted Airport. They enter straight into the airport charter flight area. Deportees are taken one by one from the vans and onto Titan’s waiting plane. It is an anonymous looking white Airbus A321-211 without the company’s livery, with the registration G-POWU. They are escorted up the steps with a guard on each side.

    On the plane there are four guards to each person: one seated on each side, one in the seat in front and one behind. Deportees are secured with restraint belts around their waists, so that their arms are handcuffed to the belts on each side. Besides the 12 deportees and 48 guards there are Home Office officials, Mitie managers, and two paramedics on the plane.

    7.48AM (BST): The Titan Airways plane (using flight number ZT311) departs Stansted airport.

    9.44AM (CEST): The flight lands in Dusseldorf. Six people are taken off the plane and are handed over to the German authorities.

    10.46AM (CEST): Titan’s Airbus takes off from Dusseldorf bound for Clermont-Ferrand, France with the remaining deportees.

    11.59AM (CEST): The Titan Airways plane (now with flight number ZT312) touches down at Clermont-Ferrand Auvergne airport and the remaining six deportees are disembarked from the plane and taken into the custody of the Police Aux Frontières (PAF, French border police).

    12:46PM (CEST): The plane leaves Clermont-Ferrand to return to the UK. It first lands in Gatwick, probably so the escorts and other officials get off, before continuing on to Stansted where the pilots finish their day.

    Dumped on arrival: Germany

    What happened to most of the deportees in Germany is not known, although it appears there was no comprehensive intake procedure by the German police. One deportee told us German police on arrival in Dusseldorf gave him a train ticket and told him to go to the asylum office in Berlin. When he arrived there, he was told to go back to his country. He told them he could not and that he had no money to stay in Berlin or travel to another country. The asylum office told him he could sleep on the streets of Berlin.

    Only one man appears to have been arrested on arrival. This was the person who had attempted suicide the night before, cutting his head and neck with razors, and had been bleeding throughout the flight.
    Dumped on arrival: France

    The deportees were taken to Clermont-Ferrand, a city in the middle of France, hundreds of kilometres away from metropolitan centres. Upon arrival they were subjected to a COVID nose swab test and then held by the PAF while French authorities decided their fate.

    Two were released around an hour and a half later with appointments to claim asylum in around one week’s time – in regional Prefectures far from Clermont-Ferrand. They were not offered any accommodation, further legal information, or means to travel to their appointments.

    The next person was released about another hour and a half after them. He was not given an appointment to claim asylum, but just provided with a hotel room for four nights.

    Throughout the rest of the day the three other detainees were taken from the airport to the police station to be fingerprinted. Beginning at 6PM these three began to be freed. The last one was released seven hours after the deportation flight landed. The police had been waiting for the Prefecture to decide whether or not to transfer them to the detention centre (Centre de Rétention Administrative – CRA). We don’t know if a factor in this was that the nearest detention centre, at Lyon, was full up.

    However, these people were not simply set free. They were given expulsion papers ordering them to leave France (OQTF: Obligation de quitter le territoire français), and banning them from returning (IRTF: Interdiction de retour sur le territoire français). These papers allowed them only 48 hours to appeal. The British government has said that people deported on flights to France have the opportunity to claim asylum in France. This is clearly not true.

    In a further bureaucratic contradiction, alongside expulsion papers people were also given orders that they must report to the Clermont-Ferrand police station every day at 10:00AM for the next 45 days (potentially to be arrested and detained at any point). They were told that if they failed to report, the police would consider them on the run.

    The Prefecture also reserved a place in a hotel many kilometres away from the airport for them for four nights, but not any further information or ways to receive food. They were also not provided any way to get to this hotel, and the police would not help them – stating that their duty finished once they gave the deportees their papers.

    “After giving me the expulsion papers the French policeman said ‘Now you can go to England.’” (Testimony of deported person)

    The PAF showed a general disregard for the health and well-being of the deportees who were in the custody throughout the day. One of the deportees had been in a wheel-chair throughout the day and was unable to walk due to the deep lacerations on his feet from self-harming. He was never taken to the hospital, despite the doctor’s recommendation, neither during the custody period nor after his release. In fact, the only reason for the doctor’s visit in the first place was to assess whether he was fit to be detained should the Prefecture decide that. The police kept him in his bloody clothes all day, and when they released him he did not have shoes and could barely walk. No crutches were given, nor did the police offer to help him get to the hotel. He was put out on the street having to carry all of his possessions in a Home Office issue plastic bag.
    “the hardest night of my life”

    “It was the hardest night of my life. My heart break was so great that I seriously thought of suicide. I put the razor in my mouth to swallow it; I saw my whole life pass quickly until the first hours of dawn. The treatment in detention was very bad, humiliating and degrading. I despised myself and felt that my life was destroyed, but it was too precious to lose it easily. I took the razor out from my mouth before I was taken out of the room, where four large-bodied people, wearing armour similar to riot police and carrying protective shields, violently took me to the large hall at the ground floor of the detention centre. I was exhausted, as I had been on hunger strike for several days. In a room next to me, one of the deportees tried to resist and was beaten so severely that blood dripping from his nose. In the big hall, they searched me carefully and took me to a car like a dangerous criminal, two people on my right and left, they drove for about two hours to the airport, there was a big passenger plane on the runway. […] That moment, I saw my dreams, my hopes, shattered in front of me when I entered the plane.”

    Testimony of deported person (from Detained Voices: https://detainedvoices.com/2020/08/27/brook-house-protestor-on-his-deportation-it-was-the-hardest-night-of).

    The Legal Framework: Dublin III

    These deportations are taking place under the Dublin III regulation. This is EU law that determines which European country is responsible for assessing a refugee’s asylum claim. The decision involves a number of criteria, the primary ones being ‘family unity’ and the best interests of children. Another criterion, in the case of people crossing borders without papers, is which country they first entered ‘irregularly’. In the law, this is supposed to be less important than family ties – but it is the most commonly used ground by governments seeking to pass on asylum applicants to other states. All the people we know of on these flights were “Dublined” because the UK claimed they had previously been in France, Germany or Spain.

    (See: House of Commons intro briefing; Right to Remain toolkit section:
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-b
    https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/dublin)

    By invoking the Dublin regulation, the UK evades actually assessing people’s asylum cases. These people were not deported because their asylum claims failed – their cases were simply never considered. The decision to apply Dublin III is made after the initial screening interview (now taking place in Yarl’s Wood). As we saw above, very few people are able to access any legal advice before these interviews are conducted and sometimes they are carried out by telephone or without adequate translation.

    Under Dublin III the UK must make a formal request to the other government it believes is responsible for considering the asylum claim to take the person back, and present evidence as to why that government should accept responsibility. Typically, the evidence provided is the record of the person’s fingerprints registered by another country on the Europe-wide EURODAC database.

    However, in the recent deportation cases the Home Office has not always provided fingerprints but instead relied on weak circumstantial evidence. Some countries have refused this evidence, but others have accepted – notably France.

    There seems to be a pattern in the cases so far where France is accepting Dublin III returns even when other countries have refused. The suspicion is that the French government may have been incentivised to accept ‘take-back’ requests based on very flimsy evidence as part of the recent Franco-British Channel crossing negotiations (France reportedly requested £30m to help Britain make the route ‘unviable’).

    In theory, accepting a Dublin III request means that France (or another country) has taken responsibility to process someone’s asylum claim. In practice, most of the people who arrived at Clermont-Ferrand on 26 August were not given any opportunity to claim asylum – instead they were issued with expulsion papers ordering them to leave France and Europe. They were also only given 48 hours to appeal these expulsions orders without any further legal information; a near impossibility for someone who has just endured a forceful expulsion and may require urgent medical treatment.

    Due to Brexit, the United Kingdom will no longer participate in Dublin III from 31 December 2020. While there are non-EU signatories to the agreement like Switzerland and Norway, it is unclear what arrangements the UK will have after that (as with basically everything else about Brexit). If there is no overall deal, the UK will have to negotiate numerous bilateral agreements with European countries. This pattern of expedited expulsion without a proper screening process established with France could be a taste of things to come.

    Conclusion: rushed – and illegal?

    Charter flight deportations are one of the most obviously brutal tools used by the UK Border Regime. They involve the use of soul-crushing violence by the Home Office and its contractors (Mitie, Titan Airways, Britannia Hotels, and all) against people who have already lived through histories of trauma.

    For these recent deportations of Channel crossers the process seems particularly rushed. People who have risked their lives in the Channel are scooped into a machine designed to deny their asylum rights and expel them ASAP – for the sake of a quick reaction to the latest media panic. New procedures appear to have been introduced off the cuff by Home Office officials and in under-the-table deals with French counterparts.

    As a result of this rush-job, there seem to be numerous irregularities in the process. Some have been already flagged up in the successful legal challenges to the Spanish flight on 27 August. The detention and deportation of boat-crossers may well be largely illegal, and is open to being challenged further on both sides of the Channel.

    Here we recap a few particular issues:

    The highly politicised nature of the expulsion process for small boat crossers means they are being denied access to a fair asylum procedure by the Home Office.

    The deportees include people who are victims of torture and of trafficking, as well as under-aged minors.

    People are being detained, rushed through screening interviews, and “Dublined” without access to legal advice and necessary information.

    In order to avoid considering asylum requests, Britain is applying Dublin III often just using flimsy circumstantial evidence – and France is accepting these requests, perhaps as a result of recent negotiations and financial arrangements.

    Many deportees have family ties in the UK – but the primary Dublin III criterion of ‘family unity’ is ignored.

    In accepting Dublin III requests France is taking legal responsibility for people’s asylum claims. But in fact it has denied people the chance to claim asylum, instead immediately issuing expulsion papers.

    These expulsion papers (‘Order to quit France’ and ‘Ban from returning to France’ or ‘OQTF’ and ‘IRTF’) are issued with only 48 hour appeal windows. This is completely inadequate to ensure a fair procedure – even more so for traumatised people who have just endured detention and deportation, then been dumped in the middle of nowhere in a country where they have no contacts and do not speak the language.

    This completely invalidates the Home Office’s argument that the people it deports will be able to access a fair asylum procedure in France.

    https://corporatewatch.org/cast-away-the-uks-rushed-charter-flights-to-deport-channel-crossers

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #Dublin #expulsions #renvois #Royaume_Uni #vols #charter #France #Allemagne #Espagne #Home_Office #accord #témoignage #violence #Brexit #Priti_Patel #Royal_Navy #plan_opérationnel_conjoint #Manche #Commandant_de_la_menace_clandestine_dans_la_Manche #Cherbourg #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #Calais #Dunkerque #navires #Border_Force_Cutters #avions_de_surveillance #Royal_Air_Force #Opération_Sillath #refoulements #push-backs #Douvres #Kent_Intake_Unit #Yarl’s_Wood #Bedfordshire #Serco #Short_Term_Holding_Facility (#SHTF) #hôtel #Mears #hôtels_Britannia #Alex_Langsam #Immigration_Enforcement_squads #Heathrow #Colnbrook #Harmondsworth #Gatwick #aéroport #Brook_Hous #G4S #Removal_Directions #Carlson_Wagonlit_Travel (#CWT) #privatisation #compagnies_aériennes #Titan_Airways #Clermont-Ferrand #Düsseldorf

    @karine4 —> il y a une section dédiée à l’arrivée des vols charter en France (à Clermont-Ferrand plus précisément) :
    Larguées à destination : la France

    ping @isskein

    • Traduction française :

      S’en débarrasser : le Royaume Uni se précipite pour expulser par vols charters les personnes qui traversent la Manche

      Attention : ce document contient des récits de violence, tentatives de suicide et automutilation.

      Le Royaume Uni s’attache à particulièrement réprimer les migrants traversant la Manche dans de petites embarcations, répondant comme toujours à la panique propagée par les tabloïds britanniques. Une partie de sa stratégie consiste en une nouvelle vague d’expulsions massives : des vols charters, ciblant spécifiquement les personnes traversant la Manche, vers la France, l’Allemagne et l’Espagne.

      Deux vols ont eu lieu jusqu’à présent, les 12 et 26 août. Le prochain est prévu pour le 3 septembre. Les deux vols récents ont fait escale à la fois en Allemagne (Düsseldorf) et en France (Toulouse le 12, Clermont-Ferrand le 26). Un autre vol était prévu pour l’Espagne le 27 août – mais il a été annulé après que les avocat-es aient réussi à faire descendre tout le monde de l’avion.

      Menées à la hâte par un Home Office en panique, ces déportations massives ont été particulièrement brutales, et ont pu impliquer de graves irrégularités juridiques. Ce rapport résume ce que nous savons jusqu’à présent après avoir parlé à un certain nombre de personnes expulsées et à d’autres sources. Il couvre :

      Le contexte : Les traversées en bateau de Calais et l’accord entre le Royaume-Uni et la France pour les faire cesser.
      Au Royaume-Uni : Yarl’s Wood reconverti en centre de traitement de personnes traversant la Manche ; Britannia Hotels ; le centre de détention de Brook House, toujours aussi brutal.
      Les vols : Calendrier détaillé du charter du 26 août vers Düsseldorf et Clermont-Ferrand.
      Qui est à bord du vol : Les personnes réfugiées, y compris des mineurs et des personnes torturées.
      Délaissé à l’arrivée : Les personnes arrivant en Allemagne et en France qui n’ont pas la possibilité de demander l’asile se voient délivrer immédiatement des documents d’expulsion.
      Les questions juridiques : Utilisation du règlement Dublin III pour se soustraire de la responsabilité à l’égard des réfugiés.
      Est-ce illégal ? : la précipitation du processus entraîne de nombreuses irrégularités.

      “cette nuit-là, huit personnes se sont automutilées”

      Cette nuit-là avant le vol (25 août), lorsque nous étions enfermés dans nos chambres et que j’ai appris que j’avais perdu en appel, j’étais désespéré. J’ai commencé à me mutiler. Je n’étais pas le seule. Huit personnes se sont automutilées ou ont tenté de se suicider plutôt que d’être emmenées dans cet avion. Un homme s’est jeté une bouilloire d’eau bouillante sur lui-même. Un homme a essayé de se pendre avec le câble de télé dans sa chambre. Trois d’entre nous ont été emmenés à l’hôpital, mais renvoyés au centre de détention après quelques heures. Les cinq autres ont été emmenés à l’infirmerie de Brook House où on leur a mis des pansements. Vers 5 heures du matin, ils sont venus dans ma chambre, des gardes avec des boucliers anti-émeutes. Sur le chemin pour aller au van, ils m’ont fait traverser une sorte de couloir rempli de gens – gardes, directeurs, fonctionnaires du Home Office. Ils ont tous regardé pendant qu’un médecin m’examinait, puis le médecin a dit : “oui, il est apte à voler”. Dans l’avion, plus tard, j’ai vu un homme très gravement blessé, du sang dégoulinant de sa tête et sur ses vêtements. Il n’avait pas seulement essayé d’arrêter le vol, il voulait vraiment se tuer. Il a été emmené en Allemagne.

      Témoignage d’une personne déportée.

      Le contexte : les bateaux et les accords

      Depuis les années 1990, des dizaines de milliers de personnes fuyant la guerre, la répression et la pauvreté ont franchi le “court détroit” entre Calais et Dover. Jusqu’en 2018, les personnes sans papiers qui tentaient de traverser la Manche le faisaient principalement en montant dans des camions ou des trains passant par le tunnel sous la Manche. Les systèmes de sécurité autour des parkings de camions, du tunnel et de l’autoroute ont été massivement renforcés après l’expulsion de la grande jungle en 2016. Cela a obligé les gens à chercher d’autres itinéraires, toujours plus dangereux, y compris en traversant l’une des voies navigables les plus fréquentées du monde à bord de petits bateaux. Environ 300 personnes ont emprunté cet itinéraire en 2018, 2000 autres en 2019 – et, selon les rapports, plus de 5000 personnes entre janvier et août 2020.

      Ces passages ont été relayés par les médias britanniques lors de leur dernière vague de publications xénophobiques et alarmistes. Le schéma n’est que trop familier depuis le camp Sangatte en 1999 : les médias de droite (le plus célèbre étant le Daily Mail, mais aussi d’autres) diffusent des articles abusifs sur les dangereux “illégaux” qui déferleraient à travers la Manche ; et le gouvernement britannique répond par des promesses de répression.

      Renforcé par le Brexit, les mesures et annonces récentes comprennent :

      Le ministre de l’intérieur, Priti Patel, annonce une nouvelle loi sur l’asile et l’immigration “plus juste” qui, promet-elle, “fera s’effondrer la gauche”.
      Une demande officielle du Home Office à la Royal Navy pour aider à refouler les migrants qui traversent par bateau (bien que cela soit illégal).
      Négociations avec le gouvernement français, qui ont abouti à l’annonce le 13 août d’un “plan opérationnel conjoint” visant “ à couper complètement cette route”.
      La nomination d’un “Commandant de la menace clandestine dans la Manche” pour superviser les opérations des deux côtés de la Manche.

      Les mesures concrètes se font encore attendre, mais les évolutions notables jusqu’à présent sont les suivantes :

      D’autres paiements du Royaume-Uni à la France pour accroître la sécurité – la France aurait demandé 30 millions de livres sterling.
      Des navires de guerre français de la base navale de Cherbourg patrouillant au large des côtes de Calais et de Dunkerque.
      Des Border Force Cutters (navires) et les patrouilleurs côtiers britanniques patrouillant du côté anglais soutenus par des avions de surveillance de la Royal Air Force.
      Le nouveau programme d’expulsion par vol charter – qui aurait été baptisé “Opération Sillath” par le ministère de l’intérieur.

      Pour l’instant, du moins, les gouvernements respectent leurs obligations légales minimales en matière de protection de la vie en mer. Et il n’y a pas eu de preuves de “push backs” (refoulement) ou de “pull backs” illégaux : où, de force, soit des bateaux britanniques “poussent”, soit des bateaux français “tirent” des bateaux vers l’un ou l’autre côté de la frontière. Lorsque ces bateaux sont interceptés dans les eaux françaises, les voyageurs sont ramenés en France. S’ils parviennent à entrer dans les eaux britanniques, la police aux frontières britannique les récupère et les débarque à Douvres. Ils peuvent alors demander l’asile au Royaume-Uni.

      Il n’y a pas de différence juridique entre demander l’asile après être arrivé par bateau, par avion ou de toute autre manière. Cependant, ces personnes traversant par petits bateaux ont été ciblées par le gouvernement pour être traitées d’une manière spéciale, semble-t-il conçue pour leur refuser le droit d’asile au Royaume-Uni.

      Une fois que les personnes sont à terre et en sécurité, le deuxième volet de la stratégie de Priti Patel visant à rendre cette voie non viable entre en jeu : systématiquement faire obstacle à leur demande d’asile et, si possible, les expulser vers la France ou d’autres pays européens. En pratique, il est impossible pour le Home Office d’expulser toutes les personnes qui réussissent à traverser. Il s’agit plutôt, comme dans la grande majorité des politiques d’immigration, de faire preuve de fermeté avec un spectacle de mise en vigueur – non seulement pour tenter de dissuader d’autres arrivant-es, mais peut-être surtout pour se mettre en scène devant les principaux médias.

      C’est là qu’intervient la nouvelle vague de vols charter. Les expulsions nécessitent la coopération du pays de destination, et le premier vol a eu lieu le 12 août en plein milieu des négociations franco-britanniques. Plus récemment, ces vols ont alimenté un nouveau spectacle médiatique au Royaume-Uni : le Home Office s’en prend aux “avocats militants” qui font leur travail en contestant les principales failles juridiques de ces renvois précipités.

      Le Home Office a tenté de présenter ces vols d’expulsion comme une réponse immédiate et forte aux traversées de la Manche. Le message est le suivant : si vous traversez la Manche, vous serez de retour dans les jours qui suivent. Là encore, il s’agit plus de spectacle que de réalité. Toutes les personnes que nous connaissons sur ces vols étaient au Royaume-Uni plusieurs mois avant d’être expulsées.

      Au Royaume-Uni : Yarl’s Wood réaffecté

      Une fois à terre en Angleterre, les personnes sont emmenées à l’un des deux endroits suivants : soit la Kent Intake Unit (Unité d’admission du Kent), qui est un centre de détention du ministère de l’intérieur (c’est-à-dire un petit complexe de cellules préfabriquées) dans les docks à l’est du port de Douvres ; soit le poste de police de Douvres. Ce poste de police semble être de plus en plus l’endroit principal, car la petite “unité d’admission” est souvent pleine. Il y avait autrefois un centre de détention à Douvres où étaient détenus les nouveaux arrivants, qui était connu pour son état de délabrement, mais a été fermé en octobre 2015.

      Les personnes sont généralement détenues au poste de police pendant une journée maximum. La destination suivante est généralement Yarl’s Wood, le centre de détention du Bedfordshire géré par Serco. Il s’agissait, jusqu’à récemment, d’un centre de détention à long terme qui accueillait principalement des femmes. Cependant, le 18 août, le ministère de l’intérieur a annoncé que Yarl’s Wood avait été réaménagé en “centre de détention de courte durée” (Short Term Holding Facility – SHTF) pour traiter spécifiquement les personnes qui ont traversé la Manche. Les personnes ne restent généralement que quelques jours – le séjour maximum légal pour un centre de “courte durée” est de sept jours.

      Yarl’s Wood a une capacité normale de 410 prisonniers. Selon des sources à Yarl’s Wood :

      “La semaine dernière, c’était presque plein avec plus de 350 personnes détenues. Quelques jours plus tard, ce nombre était tombé à 150, ce qui montre la rapidité avec laquelle les gens passent par le centre. Mardi 25 août, il n’y avait plus personne dans le centre ! Il semble probable que les chiffres fluctueront en fonction des traversées de la Manche.”

      La même source ajoute :

      “Il y a des inquiétudes concernant l’accès à l’aide juridique à Yarl’s Wood. La réglementation relative aux centres de détention provisoire n’exige pas que des conseils juridiques soient disponibles sur place (à Manchester, par exemple, il n’y a pas d’avocats de garde). Apparemment, le roulement des avocats de garde se poursuit à Yarl’s Wood pour l’instant. Mais la rapidité avec laquelle les personnes sont traitées maintenant signifie qu’il est pratiquement impossible de s’inscrire et d’obtenir un rendez-vous avec l’avocat de garde avant d’être transféré”.

      Le ministère de l’Intérieur mène les premiers entretiens d’évaluation des demandeurs d’asile pendant qu’ils sont à Yarl’s Wood. Ces entretiens se font parfois en personne, ou parfois par téléphone.

      C’est un moment crucial, car ce premier entretien détermine les chances de nombreuses personnes de demander l’asile au Royaume-Uni. Le ministère de l’intérieur utilise les informations issues de cet entretien pour expulser les personnes qui traversent la Manche vers la France et l’Allemagne en vertu du règlement Dublin III. Il s’agit d’une législation de l’Union Européenne (UE) qui permet aux gouvernements de transférer la responsabilité de l’évaluation de la demande d’asile d’une personne vers un autre État. Autrement dit, le Royaume-Uni ne commence même pas à examiner les demandes d’asile des personnes.

      D’après ce que nous avons vu, beaucoup de ces évaluations de Dublin III ont été faites de manière précipitée et irrégulière. Elles se sont souvent appuyées sur de faibles preuves circonstancielles. Peu de personnes ont eu la possibilité d’obtenir des conseils juridiques, ou même des interprètes pour expliquer le processus.

      Nous abordons Dublin III et les questions soulevées ci-dessous dans la section “Cadre juridique”.
      Au Royaume-Uni : les pires hôtels britanniques

      De Yarl’s Wood, les personnes à qui nous avons parlé ont été libérées sous caution (elles devaient respecter des conditions spécifiques aux personnes immigrées) dans des hébergement pour demandeurs d’asile. Dans un premier temps, cet hébergement signifie un hôtel à bas prix. En raison de l’épidémie du COVID-19, le Home Office a ordonné aux entreprises sous-traitantes (Mears, Serco) qui administrent habituellement les centres d’accueil pour demandeurs d’asile de fermer leurs places d’hébergement et d’envoyer les personnes à l’hôtel. Cette décision est loin d’être claire, du fait que de nombreux indicateurs suggèrent que les hôtels sont bien pires en ce qui concerne la propagation du COVID. Le résultat de cette politique s’est déjà avéré fatal – voir la mort d’Adnan Olbeh à l’hôtel Glasgow en avril.

      Peut-être le gouvernement essaie de soutenir des chaînes telles que Britannia Hotels, classée depuis sept ans à la suite comme la “pire chaîne d’hôtel britannique” par le magazine des consommateurs Which ?. Plusieurs personnes envoyées par charter avaient été placées dans des hôtels Britannia. Le principal propriétaire de cette chaîne, le multi-millionnaire Alex Langsam, a été surnommé « le roi de l’asile » par les médias britanniques après avoir remporté précédemment à l’aide de ses taudis d’autres contrats pour l’hébergement des demandeurs d’asile.

      Certaines des personnes déportées à qui nous avons parlé sont restées dans ce genre d’hôtels plusieurs semaines avant d’être envoyées dans des lieux de “dispersion des demandeurs d’asile” – des logements partagés situés dans les quartiers les plus pauvres de villes très éloignées de Londres. D’autres ont été mises dans l’avion directement depuis les hôtels.

      Dans les deux cas, la procédure habituelle est le raid matinal : Des équipes de mise-en-œuvre de l’immigration (Immigration Enforcement squads) arrachent les gens de leur lit à l’aube. Comme les personnes sont dans des hôtels qui collaborent ou assignées à des maisons, il est facile de les trouver et de les arrêter quand elles sont les prochains sur la liste des déportations.

      Après l’arrestation, les personnes ont été amenées aux principaux centres de détention près de Heathrow (Colnbrook et Harmondsworth) ou Gatwick (particulièrement Brook House). Quelques-unes ont d’abord été gardées au commissariat ou en détention pour des séjours de court terme pendant quelques heures ou quelques jours.

      Tous ceux à qui nous avons parlé ont finalement terminé à Brook House, un des deux centres de détention de Gatwick.
      « ils sont venus avec les boucliers »

      Une nuit, à Brook House, après que quelqu’un se soit mutilé, ils ont enfermé tout le monde. Un homme a paniqué et a commencé à crier en demandant aux gardes « S’il vous plaît, ouvrez la porte ». Mais il ne parlait pas bien anglais et criait en arabe. Il a dit : « Si vous n’ouvrez pas la porte je vais faire bouillir de l’eau dans ma bouilloire et me la verser sur le visage ». Mais ils ne l’ont pas compris, ils pensaient qu’il était en train de les menacer et qu’il était en train de dire qu’il allait jeter l’eau bouillante sur eux. Alors ils sont arrivés avec leurs boucliers, ils l’ont jeté hors de sa cellule et ils l’ont mis en isolement. Quand ils l’ont mis là-bas, ils lui ont donné des coups et ils l’ont battu, ils ont dit : « Ne nous menace plus jamais ». (Témoignage d’une personne déportée)

      Brook House

      Brook House reste tristement célèbre après les révélations d’un lanceur d’alerte sur les brutalités quotidiennes et les humiliations commises par les gardes qui travaillent pour G4S. Leur contrat a depuis été repris par la branche emprisonnement de Mitie – dont la devise est « Care and Custody, a Mitie company » (traduction : « Soins et détention, une entreprise Mitie »). Probablement que beaucoup des mêmes gardes sont simplement passés d’une entreprise à l’autre.

      Dans tous les cas, d’après ce que les personnes déportées nous ont dit, pas grand chose n’a changé à Brook House – le vice et la violence des gardes restent la norme. Les histoires rapportées ici en donnent juste quelques exemples. Vous pouvez lire davantage dans les récents témoignages de personnes détenues sur le blog Detained Voices.
      « ils s’assurent juste que tu ne meures pas devant eux »

      J’étais dans ma cellule à Brook House seul depuis 12 jours, je ne pouvais ni manger ni boire, juste penser, penser à ma situation. J’ai demandé un docteur peut-être dix fois. Ils sont venus plusieurs fois, ils ont pris mon sang, mais ils n’ont rien fait d’autre. Ils s’en foutent de ta santé ou de ta santé mentale. Ils ont juste peur que tu meures là. Ils s’en foutent de ce qui t’arrive du moment que tu ne meures pas devant leurs yeux. Et ça n’a pas d’importance pour eux si tu meurs ailleurs.
      Témoignage d’une personne déportée.

      Préparation des vols

      Le Home Office délivre des papiers appelés « Instructions d’expulsion » (« Removal Directions » – Rds) aux personnes qu’ils ont l’intention de déporter. Y sont stipulés la destination et le jour du vol. Les personnes qui sont déjà en détention doivent recevoir ce papier au moins 72 heures à l’avance, incluant deux jours ouvrés, afin de leur permettre de faire un ultime appel de la décision.

      Voir Right to Remain toolkit pour des informations détaillés sur les délais légaux et sur les procédures d’appel.

      Tous les vols de déportation du Royaume Uni, les tickets qu’ils soient pour un avion de ligne régulier ou un vol charter sont réservés via une agence de voyage privée appelée Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT). La principale compagnie aérienne utilisée par le Home Office pour les vols charter est la compagnie de charter qui s’appelle Titan Airways.

      Voir 2018 Corporate Watch report pour les informations détaillées sur les procédures de vols charter et les compagnies impliquées. Et la mise-à-jour de 2020 sur les déportations en général.

      Concernant le vol du 12 août, des recours légaux ont réussi à faire sortir 19 personnes de l’avion qui avaient des Instructions d’expulsion ( Rds ). Cependant, le Home Office les a remplacées par 14 autres personnes qui étaient sur la « liste d’attente ». Les avocats suspectent que ces 14 personnes n’ont pas eu suffisamment accès à leur droit à être représentés par un-e avocat-e avant le vol, ce qui a permis qu’elles soient expulsés.

      Parmi les 19 personnes dont les avocat.es ont réussi à empêcher l’expulsion prévue, 12 ont finalement été déportées par le vol charter du 26 août : 6 personnes envoyées à Dusseldorf en Allemagne et 6 autres à Clermont-Ferrand en France.

      Un autre vol a été programmé le 27 août pour l’Espagne. Cependant les avocat-es ont réussi à faire retirer tout le monde, et le Home Office a annulé le vol. L’administration anglaise (Whitehall) a dit dans les médias : “le taux d’attrition juridique a été de 100 % pour ce vol en raison des obstacles sans précédent et organisés que trois cabinets d’avocats ont imposés au gouvernement.” Il y a donc de fortes chances que Home Office mettra tous ses moyens à disposition pour continuer à expulser ces personnes lors de prochains vols charters.

      Qui a été expulsé ?

      L’ensemble des personnes expulsées par avion sont des personnes réfugiées qui ont déposé leur demande d’asile au Royaume-Uni immédiatement après leur arrivée à Dover. La une des médias expose les personnes expulsées comme « de dangereux criminels », mais aucune d’entre elles n’a fait l’objet de poursuites.

      Ils viennent de différents pays dont l’Irak, le Yemen, le Soudan, la Syrie, l’Afghanistan et le Koweit. (Dix autres Yéménis devaient être expulsés par le vol annulé pour l’Espagne. Au mois de juin, le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a annoncé la reprise des accords commerciaux de vente d’armes avec l’Arabie Saoudite qui les utilise dans des bombardements au Yemen qui ont déjà coûté la vie à des dizaines de milliers de personnes).

      Toutes ces personnes craignent à raison des persécution dans leurs pays d’origine – où les abus des Droits de l’Homme sont nombreux et ont été largement documentés. Au moins plusieurs des personnes expulsées ont survécu à la torture, ce qui a été documenté par le Home Office lui-même lors d’entretiens.

      Parmi eux, un mineur âgé de moins de 18 ans a été enregistré par le Home Office comme ayant 25 ans – alors même qu’ils étaient en possession de son passeport prouvant son âge réel. Les mineurs isolés ne devraient légalement pas être traités avec la procédure Dublin III, et encore moins être placés en détention et être expulsés.

      Beaucoup de ces personnes, si ce ne sont toutes, ont des ami-es et de la famille au Royaume-Uni.

      Aucune de leurs demandes d’asile n’a été évaluée – toutes ont été refusées dans le cadre de la procédure Dublin III (cf. Cadre Légal plus bas).

      Chronologie du vol du 26 août

      Nuit du 25 août : Huit des personnes en attente de leur expulsion se mutilent ou tentent de se suicider. D’autres personnes font une grève de la faim depuis plus d’une semaine. Trois d’entre elles sont amenées à l’hôpital, hâtivement prises en charge pour qu’elles puissent être placées dans l’avion. Cinq autres se sont simplement vus délivrer quelques compresses au service des soins du centre de détention de Brook House. (cf. le témoignage ci-dessus)

      26 août, vers 4 heure du matin : Les gardiens récupèrent les personnes expulsables dans leurs cellules. Il y a de nombreux témoignages de violence : trois ou quatre gardiens en tenue anti-émeute avec casques et boucliers s’introduisent dans les cellules et tabassent les détenus à la moindre résistance.

      vers 4 heure du matin : Les détenus blessés sont amenés par les gardiens pour être examinés par un médecin dans un couloir, face aux fonctionnaires, et sont jugés « apte à prendre l’avion ».

      vers 5 heure du matin : Les détenus sont amenés un par un dans les fourgons. Chacun est placé dans un fourgon séparé, entouré de quatre gardiens. Les fourgons portent le logo de l’entreprise Mitie « Care and Custody ». Les détenus sont gardés dans les fourgons le temps de faire monter tout le monde, ce qui prend une à deux heures.

      vers 6 heure du matin : Les fourgons vont du centre de détention de Brook House (près de l’Aéroport Gatwick) à l’Aéroport Stansted et entrent directement dans la zone réservée aux vols charters. Les détenus sont sortis un par un des fourgons vers l’avion de la compagnie aérienne Titan. Il s’agit d’un avion Airbus A321-211, avec le numéro d’enregistrement G-POWU, au caractère anonyme, qui ne porte aucun signe distinctif de la compagnie aérienne. Les détenus sont escortés en haut des escaliers avec un gardien de chaque côté.

      Dans l’avion quatre gardiens sont assignés à chaque personne : deux de part et d’autre sur les sièges mitoyens, un sur le siège devant et un sur le siège derrière. Les détenus sont maintenus avec une ceinture de restriction au niveau de leur taille à laquelle sont également attachées leurs mains par des menottes. En plus des 12 détenus et 48 gardiens, il y a des fonctionnaires du Home Office, des managers de Mitie, et deux personnels paramédicaux dans l’avion.

      7h58 (BST) : L’avion de la compagnie Titan (dont le numéro de vol est ZT311) décolle de l’Aéroport Stansted.

      9h44 (CEST) : Le vol atterrit à Dusseldorf. Six personnes sont sorties de l’avion, laissées aux mains des autorités allemandes.

      10h46 (CEST) : L’avion Titan décolle de Dusseldorf pour rejoindre Clermont-Ferrand avec le reste des détenus.

      11h59 (CEST) : L’avion (dont le numéro de vol est maintenant ZT312) atterrit à l’Aéroport de Clermont-Ferrand Auvergne et les six autres détenus sont débarqués et amenés aux douanes de la Police Aux Frontières (PAF).

      12h46 (CEST) : L’avion quitte Clermont-Ferrand pour retourner au Royaume-Uni. Il atterrit d’abord à l’Aéroport Gatwick, probablement pour déposer les gardiens et les fonctionnaires, avant de finir sa route à l’Aéroport Stansted où les pilotes achèvent leur journée.

      Larguées à destination : l’Allemagne

      Ce qu’il est arrivé aux personnes expulsées en Allemagne n’est pas connu, même s’il semblerait qu’il n’y ait pas eu de procédure claire engagée par la police allemande. Un des expulsés nous a rapporté qu’à son arrivée à Dusseldorf, la police allemande lui a donné un billet de train en lui disant de se rendre au bureau de la demande d’asile à Berlin. Une fois là-bas, on lui a dit de retourner dans son pays. Ce à quoi il a répondu qu’il ne pouvait pas y retourner et qu’il n’avait pas non plus d’argent pour rester à Berlin ou voyager dans un autre pays. Le bureau de la demande d’asile a répondu qu’il pouvait dormir dans les rues de Berlin.

      Un seul homme a été arrêté à son arrivée. Il s’agit d’une personne qui avait tenté de se suicider la veille en se mutilant à la tête et au coup au rasoir, et qui avait saigné tout au long du vol.
      Larguées à destination : la France

      Les expulsés ont été transportés à Clermont-Ferrand, une ville située au milieu de la France, à des centaines de kilomètres des centres métropolitains. Dès leur arrivée ils ont été testés pour le COVID par voie nasale et retenus par la PAF pendant que les autorités françaises décidaient de leur sort.

      Deux d’entre eux ont été libérés à peu près une heure et demi après, une fois donnés des rendez-vous au cours de la semaine suivante pour faire des demandes d’asile dans des Préfectures de région eloignées de Clermont-Ferrand. Il ne leur a été proposé aucun logement, ni information légale, ni moyen pour se déplacer jusqu’à leurs rendez-vous.

      La personne suivante a été libérée environ une heure et demi après eux. Il ne lui a pas été donné de rendez-vous pour demander l’asile, mais il lui a juste été proposé une chambre d’hotel pour quatre nuits.

      Pendant le reste de la journée, les trois autres détenus ont été emmenés de l’aéroport au commisariat pour prendre leurs empreintes. On a commencé à les libérer à partir de 18h. Le dernier a été libéré sept heures après que le vol de déportation soit arrivé. La police a attendu que la Préfecture décide de les transférer ou non au Centre de Rétention Administrative (CRA). On ne sait pas si la raison à cela était que le centre le plus proche, à Lyon, était plein.

      Cependant, ces personnes n’ont pas été simplement laissées libres. Il leur a été donné des ordres d’expulsion (OQTF : Obligation de quitter le territoire francais) et des interdictions de retour sur le territoire francais (IRTF). Ces document ne leur donnent que48h pour faire appel. Le gouverment britannique a dit que les personnes déportées par avion en France avaient la possibilité de demander l’asile en France. C’est clairement faux.

      Pour aller plus loin dans les contradictions bureaucratique, avec les ordres d’expulsion leurs ont été donnés l’ordre de devoir se présenter à la station de police de Clermont-Ferrand tous les jours à dix heures du matin dans les 45 prochains jours (pour potentiellement y être arrêtés et detenus à ces occasions). Ils leur a été dit que si ils ne s’y présentaient pas la police
      les considèrerait comme en fuite.

      La police a aussi réservé une place dans un hotel à plusieurs kilomètre de l’aéroport pour quatres nuits, mais sans aucune autre information ni aide pour se procurer de quoi s’alimenter. Il ne leur a été fourni aucun moyen de se rendre à cet hôtel et la police a refusé de les aider – disant que leur mission s’arretait à la délivrance de leurs documents d’expulsion.

      Après m’avoir donné les papiers d’expulsion, le policier francais a dit
      ‘Maintenant tu peux aller en Angleterre’.
      Temoignage de la personne expulsée

      La police aux frontières (PAF) a ignoré la question de la santé et du
      bien-être des personnes expulsées qui étaient gardées toute la journée.
      Une des personnes était en chaise roulante toute la journée et était
      incapable de marcher du fait des blessures profondes à son pied, qu’il
      s’était lui même infligées. Il n’a jamais été emmené à l’hôpital malgré les
      recommendations du médecin, ni durant la période de détention, ni après
      sa libération. En fait, la seule raison à la visite du médecin était initialement d’évaluer s’il était en mesure d’être detenu au cas où la Préfecture le déciderait. La police l’a laissé dans ses vêtements souillés de sang toute la journée et quand ils l’ont libéré il n’avait pas eu de chaussures et pouvait à peine marcher. Ni béquilles, ni aide pour rejoindre l’hotel ne lui ont été donnés par la police. Il a été laissé dans la rue, devant porter toutes ses
      affaires dans un sac en plastique du Home Office.
      “La nuit la plus dure de ma vie”

      Ce fut la nuit la plus dure de ma vie. Mon coeur était brisé si fort que j’ai sérieusement pensé au suicide. J’ai mis le rasoir dans ma bouche pour l’avaler ; j’ai vu ma vie entière passer rapidement jusqu’aux premières heures du jour. Le traitement en détention était très mauvais, humiliant et dégradant. Je me suis haï et je sentais que ma vie était détruite mais au même temps elle était trop précieuse pour la perdre si facilement. J’ai recraché le razoir de ma bouche avant d’être sorti de la chambre où quatre personnes à l’allure impossante, portant la même tenue de CRS et des boucliers de protéction, m’ont violemment emmené dans le grand hall au rez-de-chaussée du centre de détention. J’étais épuisé puisque j’avais fait une grève de la faim depuis plusieurs jours. Dans la chambre à côte de moi un des déportés a essayé de resister et a été battu si sévèrement que du sang a coulé de son nez. Dans le grand hall ils m’ont fouillé avec soin et m’ont escorté jusqu’à la voiture comme un dangerux criminel, deux personnes à ma gauche et à ma droite. Ils ont conduit environ deux heures jusqu’à l’aéroport, il y avait un grand avion sur la piste de décollage. […] A ce moment, j’ai vu mes rêves, mes espoirs, brisés devant moi en entrant dans l’avion.
      Temoignage d’une personne déportée (de Detained Voices)

      Le cade légal : Dublin III

      Ces expulsions se déroulent dans le cadre du règlement Dublin III. Il s’agit de la législation déterminant quel pays européen doit évaluer la demande d’asile d’une personne réfugiée. Cette décision implique un certain nombre de critères, l’un des principaux étant le regroupement familial et l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant. Un autre critère, dans le cas des personnes franchissant la frontières sans papiers, est le premier pays dans lequel ils entrent « irrégulièrement ». Dans cette loi, ce critère est supposé être moins important que les attaches familiales. Mais il est communément employé par les gouvernements cherchant à rediriger les demandes d’asile à d’autres Etats. Toutes les personnes que nous connaissions sur ces vols étaient « dublinés » car le Royaume-Uni prétendait qu’ils avaient été en France, en Allemagne ou en Espagne.

      (Voir : briefing à l’introduction du House of Commons ; Home Office staff handbook (manuel du personnel du ministère de l’intérieur ; section Dublin Right to remain .)

      En se référant au règlement Dublin, le Royaume-Uni évite d’examiner les cas de demande d’asile. Ces personnes ne sont pas expulsées parce que leur demande d’asile a été refusée. Leurs demandes ne sont simplement jamais examinées. La décision d’appliquer le règlement Dublin est prise après la premier entretien filmé ( à ce jour, au centre de détention de Yarl’s Wood). Comme nous l’avons vu plus haut, peu de personnes sont dans la capacité d’avoir accès à une assistance juridique avant ces entretiens, quelquefois menés par téléphone et sans traduction adéquate.

      Avec le Dublin III, le Royaume-Uni doit faire la demande formelle au gouvernement qu’il croit responsable d’examiner la demande d’asile, de reprendre le demandeur et de lui présenter la preuve à savoir pourquoi ce gouvernement devrait en accepter la responsabilité. Généralement, la preuve produite est le fichier des empreintes enregistrées par un autre pays sur la base de données EURODAC, à travers toute l’Europe.

      Cependant, lors des récents cas d’expulsion, le Home Office n’a pas toujours produit les empreintes, mais a choisi de se reposer sur de fragiles preuves circonstantielles. Certains pays ont refusé ce type de preuve, d’autres en revanche l’ont accepté, notamment la France.

      Il semble y avoir un mode de fonctionnement récurrent dans ces affaires où la France accepte les retours de Dublin III, quand bien même d’autres pays l’ont refusé. Le gouvernement français pourrait avoir été encouragé à accepter les « reprises/retours » fondés sur des preuves fragiles, dans le cadre des récentes négociations américano-britanniques sur la traversée de la Manche (La France aurait apparemment demandé 30 millions de livres pour aider la Grande-Bretagne à rendre la route non viable.)

      En théorie, accepter une demande Dublin III signifie que la France (ou tout autre pays) a pris la responsabilité de prendre en charge la demande d’asile d’un individu. Dans la pratique, la plupart des individus arrivés à Clermont-Ferrand le 26 août n’ont pas eu l’opportunité de demander l’asile. A la place, des arrêtés d’expulsion leur ont été adressés, leur ordonnant de quitter la France et l’Europe. On ne leur donne que 48h pour faire appel de l’ordre d’expulsion, sans plus d’information sur le dispositif légal. Ce qui apparaît souvent comme quasi impossible pour une personne venant d’endurer une expulsion forcée et qui pourrait nécessiter des soins médicaux urgents.

      Suite au Brexit, le Royaume-Uni ne participera pas plus au Dublin III à partir du 31 décembre 2020. Puisqu’il y a des signataires de cet accord hors Union-Européenne, comme la Suisse et la Norvège, le devenir de ces arrangements est encore flou (comme tout ce qui concerne le Brexit). S’il n’y a d’accord global, le Royaume-Uni devra négocier plusieurs accords bilatéraux avec les pays européens. Le schéma d’expulsion accéléré établi par la France sans processus d’évaluation adéquat de la demande d’asile pourrait être un avant-goût des choses à venir.
      Conclusion : expéditif – et illégal ?

      Évidemment, les expulsions par charter sont l’un des outils les plus manifestement brutaux employés par le régime frontalier du Royaume Uni. Elles impliquent l’emploi d’une violence moralement dévastatrice par le Home Office et ses entrepreneurs ((Mitie, Titan Airways, Britannia Hotels, et les autres) contre des personnes ayant déjà traversé des histoires traumatiques.

      Car les récentes expulsions de ceux qui ont traversé la Manche semblent particulièrement expéditives. Des personnes qui ont risqué le vie dans la Manche sont récupérées par une machine destinée à nier leur droit d’asile et à les expulser aussi vite que possible, pour satisfaire le besoin d’une réaction rapide à la dernière panique médiatique. De nouvelles procédures semblent avoir mises en place spontanément par des officiels du Ministère de l’Intérieur ainsi que des accords officieux avec leurs homologues français.

      En résultat de ce travail bâclé, il semble y avoir un certain nombre d’irrégularités dans la procédure. Certaines ont déjà été signalées dans des recours juridiques efficaces contre le vol vers l’Espagne du 27 août. La détention et l’expulsion des personnes qui ont traversé la Manche en bateau peut avoir été largement illégale et est susceptible d’être remise en cause plus profondément des deux côtés de la Manche.

      Ici, nous résumerons quelques enjeux spécifiques.

      La nature profondément politique du processus d’expulsion pour ces personnes qui ont fait la traversée sur de petits bateaux, ce qui signifie qu’on leur refuse l’accès à une procédure de demande d’asile évaluée par le Home Office.
      Les personnes réfugiées incluent des personnes victimes de torture, de trafic humain, aussi bien que des mineurs.
      Des individus sont détenus, précipités d’entretiens en entretiens, et « dublinés » sans la possibilité d’avoir accès à une assistance juridique et aux informations nécessaires.
      Afin d’éviter d’avoir à considérer des demandes d’asile, la Grande-Bretagne applique le règlement Dublin III, souvent en employant de faibles preuves circonstancielles – et la France accepte ces demandes, peut-être en conséquence des récentes négociations et arrangements financiers.
      De nombreuses personnes expulsées ont des attaches familiales au Royaume-Uni, mais le critère primordial du rapprochement familial du rêglement Dublin III est ignoré
      En acceptant les demandes Dublin, la France prend la responsabilité légale des demandes d’asile. Mais en réalité, elle prive ces personnes de la possibilité de demander l’asile, en leur assignant des papiers d’expulsion.
      Ces papiers d’expulsions (« Obligation de quitter le territoire français » and « Interdiction de retour sur le territoire français » ou OQTF et IRTF) sont assignées et il n’est possible de faire appel que dans les 48 heures qui suivent. C’est inadéquat pour assurer une procédure correcte, à plus forte raison pour des personnes traumatisées, passées par la détention, l’expulsion, larguées au milieu de nulle part, dans un pays où elles n’ont aucun contact et dont elles ne parlent pas la langue.
      Tout cela invalide complètement les arguments du Home Office qui soutient que les personnes qu’il expulse peuvent avoir accès à une procédure de demande d’asile équitable en France.

      https://calaismigrantsolidarity.wordpress.com/2020/08/31/sen-debarrasser-le-royaume-uni-se-precipite-pour-

  • Palestine : la liste des entreprises complices de la colonisation enfin publiée par l’ONU
    Solidaires, le 15 février 2020
    https://solidaires.org/Palestine-la-liste-des-entreprises-complices-de-la-colonisation-enfin-pu

    Établie en 2016, il aura donc fallu attendre quatre ans pour que l’ONU publie la liste des entreprises qui ont « directement ou indirectement, permis la construction et la croissance des colonies de peuplement, les ont facilitées et en ont profité », autrement dit des entreprises complices du « crime de colonisation », un crime reconnu par la justice française et considéré comme un crime de guerre au regard du droit international. Sa publication avait été entravée par l’administration Trump, et ce n’est sans doute pas un hasard qu’elle intervient après que le mal-nommé « deal du siècle » ait définitivement disqualifié ses auteurs sur la question de la colonisation.

    Mieux vaut tard que jamais, et nous nous réjouissons de la publication d’une telle liste qui ne fait que confirmer ce que les Palestinien..nes et les militant.es du monde entier répètent depuis des années. Montrer du doigt ces entreprises ne suffit plus, et il convient désormais de mettre fin à l’impunité, de faire cesser cette complicité, de faire respecter le droit international, et de faire pression sur ces entreprises si elles ne le respectent pas. Cette liste appelle à des mesures légales et coercitives, ainsi qu’au renforcement de la campagne de Boycott, Désinvestissement et Sanctions (BDS).

    Quelles sont ces 112 entreprises israéliennes et internationales prévenues et donc récidivistes ? Plusieurs sont déjà visées par la campagne BDS à travers le monde, en particulier des entreprises de tourisme (Airbnb, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Booking, eDreams et Opodo), la compagnie nationale israélienne d’eau Mekorot, ou Delta, le concessionnaire exclusif de Puma en Israël.

    Les seules entreprises françaises explicitement citées sont Alstom, Egis et Egis Rail, ciblées par Solidaires et de nombreuses autres organisations (citons entre autres la CGT, la CFDT, Al Haq, l’AFPS, la LDH, la FIDH ou la Campagne BDS France), pour leur implication dans le tramway de Jérusalem. Bien qu’elles se soient retirées d’appels d’offres visant l’extension de ce tramway, la présence de ces entreprises dans la liste de l’ONU prouve qu’elles sont toujours impliquées dans la maintenance du tramway et la coordination du projet, et que la campagne dans laquelle Solidaires est impliquée est plus que jamais justifiée pour faire respecter le droit international.

    La liste des Nations Unies comporte certaines imprécisions. Par exemple, si elle montre du doigt cinq banques israéliennes, elle passe sous silence que ce sont celles dans lesquelles la société d’assurance française AXA investit, et pour lesquelles une campagne de dénonciation menée par Solidaires et sensiblement les mêmes organisations se trouve là encore justifiée au plus haut niveau. De même, si elle cite Altice Europe comme une entreprise néerlandaise complice de la colonisation israélienne, elle passe sous silence qu’il s’agit en fait de la maison mère de la française SFR, ou que le groupe General Mills représente entre autres les marques Häagen-Dazs, Géant Vert ou Yoplait...

    Enfin, le comité national palestinien du BDS souligne de nombreux « oublis » de cette base de données, contre lesquelles des campagnes sont en cours, suite à des implications irréfutables dans des activités commerciales dans ou avec les colonies, citant pêle-mêle Hewlett Packard, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Volvo, Caterpillar, Heidelberg Cement, Cemex, G4S ou Elbit.

    Alors que ces entreprises s’enrichissent impunément aux dépends des Palestinien.nes, il est anormal que ce soient des citoyen.nes qui se voient poursuivi.es pour les avoir dénoncées. Le comité national palestinien du BDS appelle « toutes les institutions publiques, les conseils municipaux, les églises, les syndicats, les organisations culturelles, les universités, les fonds d’investissement et autres, de cesser d’avoir des contrats avec les compagnies sur la liste onusienne de la honte, de faire des achats de ces compagnies ou d’y investir, pour éviter toute complicité avec l’entreprise coloniale d’Israël. »

    Comme dans les années 1980, il convient que la campagne citoyenne de boycott de l’apartheid israélien soit enfin rejointe par les Nations Unies, et le comité national palestinien du BDS voit « la publication de cette base de données comme la première mesure significative et concrète par un organisme onusien pour faire rendre des comptes aux compagnies israéliennes et internationales qui rendent possibles les graves violations des droits palestiniens par Israël et en tirent profit. »

    Nous attendons des entreprises dénoncées, et en particulier françaises, qu’elles respectent la loi et qu’elles cessent immédiatement leur complicité avec le régime d’occupation militaire, de colonisation et d’apartheid israélien. Par la campagne BDS, nous voulons maintenir la pression sur ces entreprises, mais aussi sur le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies aux droits humains pour qu’il complète et actualise la liste publiée. Solidaires, engagée dans le mouvement BDS pour les droits palestiniens, continuera sa lutte pacifique pour la liberté, la justice, l’égalité, et pour mettre fin à toute complicité avec le régime d’oppression israélien.

    Le rapport officiel du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies aux droits humains est ici :
    https://www.ohchr.org/FR/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25542&LangID=E

    La liste des entreprises complices de la colonisation en format word est ici :
    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session43/Documents/A_HRC_43_71.docx

    Voir aussi :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/825418

    #ListeONU

    #Palestine #ONU #Territoires_Occupés #Territoires_67 #Colonies #Colonisation #Complicité #Boycott #BDS

    #Airbnb, #Expedia, #TripAdvisor, #Booking, #eDreams, #Opodo, #Altice, #SFR, #Motorola, #Alstom, #Egis

    #Hewlett_Packard, #Hyundai, #Volvo, #Caterpillar, #Heidelberg_Cement, #Cemex, #G4S, #Elbit

  • Israël : la liste noire de l’ONU - Page 1 | Mediapart
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/150220/israel-la-liste-noire-de-l-onu

    J’ai vu passer des choses ici à ce sujet

    La publication par les Nations unies d’une liste d’entreprises impliquées dans la colonisation de la Cisjordanie, en violation du droit international, a provoqué en Israël des réactions violentes, de la gauche à la droite. Qui révèlent l’adhésion de la majorité des Israéliens à la colonisation et à l’annexion des territoires occupés palestiniens.

    Base de données
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6777072-A-HRC-43-71.html

  • Les Nations Unies publient la liste des compagnies profitant des crimes de guerre israéliens
    Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, le 12 février 2020
    https://agencemediapalestine.fr/blog/2020/02/13/les-nations-unies-publient-la-liste-des-compagnies-profitant-de

    Israël a réagi avec colère à la publication de la liste.

    Gilad Erdan, le ministre des affaires stratégiques du pays, a affirmé qu’elle « prouve une fois de plus l’antisémitisme permanent et la haine d’Israël de la part des Nations Unies ».

    Incapable de défendre ses violations du droit international, Israël diffame maintenant régulièrement comme antisémites même les plus modérées de ses critiques.

    Voir aussi :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/825418

    #ListeONU

    #Palestine #ONU #Territoires_Occupés #Territoires_67 #Colonies #Colonisation #Complicité #Boycott #BDS

    #Airbnb, #Expedia, #TripAdvisor, #Booking, #eDreams, #Opodo, #Altice, #SFR, #Motorola, #Alstom, #Egis

    #AXA, #Puma, #Hewlett_Packard, #Hyundai, #Volvo, #Caterpillar, #Heidelberg_Cement, #Cemex, #G4S, #Elbit

  • » Israel Further Severs Ties with UN over Settlement Blacklist
    February 13, 2020 10:44 PM – IMEMC News
    https://imemc.org/article/israel-further-severs-ties-with-un-over-blacklist

    Israel has suspended its ties with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Israeli Foreign Ministry (FM) announced on Wednesday, several hours after the UN body published a list of 112 companies that do business in West Bank settlements.

    FM Israel Katz’s office said he ordered the “exceptional and harsh measure” in retaliation for Michelle Bachelet’s office “serving the BDS campaign,” referring to the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement.

    Katz intends to protect the companies operating in Israel, his office stated.

    He claimed that by publishing the list, the Human Rights Council joined the anti-Israel boycott movement, but stressed that the database is not legally binding.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also slammed the council and similarly vowed to fight the database, Al Ray Palestinian Media Agency reports. (...)

    #BDS

  • Israel’s rejection of UN list of companies tied to settlements reveals stark truth about annexation
    Israel isn’t interested in the distinction between its right to exist as a country and the dispute over West Bank settlements. Instead, it seeks to blur the borders
    Noa Landau Feb 13, 2020 8:22 AM
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-israel-s-rebuff-of-un-list-of-firms-tied-to-settlements-shows-trut

    The wall-to-wall support for West Bank settlements voiced in Israel on Wednesday in response to the UN human rights office’s release of a list of businesses operating in the settlements shows that the annexation everyone is talking about these days has actually happened de facto long ago.

    Without any dramatic Knesset votes or referendums, and without the need for any favors from the Trump administration, the entire Israeli establishment stood unambiguously on the side of the settlements.

    Granted, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surprisingly restrained himself from accusing the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights of anti-Semitism. But he did announce, as is customary among countries that are becoming increasingly internationally isolated, that “If anyone boycotts us, we’ll boycott them.” Israel is already boycotting the International Criminal Court and numerous other multilateral organizations, so adding one more to the list won’t be a big deal.

    Ministers from Netanyahu’s Likud party, including Yariv Levin and Gilad Erdan, were less restrained. They jumped straight into the standard clichés – exploiting and cheapening the Holocaust by accusing the UN of anti-Semitism.

    The prize, however, goes to President Reuven Rivlin. The very president who tries so hard to project a statesmanlike, tolerant, balanced image said that the list is a “shameful initiative reminiscent of dark periods in our history.”

    In other words, publishing an international database about businesses that operate in the settlements – which is illegal according to international law and UN resolutions – is just as bad in Rivlin’s eyes as the Holocaust. It should be pointed out that this list isn’t even accompanied by any actual sanctions or boycotts, much less gas chambers.

    This is also the same president who just recently hosted an impressive phalanx of dozens of world leaders at a conference against anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, where he urged them to protect democracy. Just as the international community was able to unite after World War II to promote a shared goal, he added, it must continue working together today on the basis of shared values.

    But international law and international institutions evidently aren’t democratic enough for him – or perhaps he’s only selectively protective of democracy, when it’s convenient for him.

    The support for de facto annexation of the settlements was also glaringly apparent among members of Israel’s so-called opposition. Kahol Lavan Chairman Benny Gantz said this was “a black day for human rights. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has lost all connection with reality.”

    His partner in the party’s leadership, Yair Lapid, went even farther, calling the high commissioner for human rights – a woman with a long record of achievement who is internationally admired – the “UN commissioner for terrorists’ rights.” He even threated that “when we form a government, we’ll work against them with all our might, with no qualms.” When you recall how Israel actually deals with terrorists, this quote is even more troubling.

    But the most surprising condemnation came from Amir Peretz, chairman of the ostensibly left-wing Labor-Gesher-Meretz joint ticket. “We oppose boycotts, and outrageous and superfluous UN decisions,” he said – although Meretz, which is part of this ticket, has until now actually supported boycotting settlements products. “We’ll work in every forum to repeal this decision and preserve a strong Israeli economy and Israelis’ jobs,” he added, in a statement that aroused unease, to say the least, among what remains of Meretz’s voters.

    This was an official death certificate for the Zionist left in the face of the annexation that has already happened.

    Behind the scenes, official state agencies, headed by the Foreign Ministry, also gave briefings assailing the list’s publication. During these briefings, the term BDS (referring to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement) was repeatedly thrown around.

    Anyone who still mistakenly thinks that Israel’s war against BDS is aimed against boycotts of Israel as a whole, including within the 1948 armistice lines, ought to sober up. Israel’s intention, as evident from both its legislation and in actions, is unequivocally to protect the settlements against boycotts. The state isn’t interested in the distinction between Israel’s right to exist as a country and the dispute over the settlements; rather, it seeks to blur the borders.

    This was once again made clear by the Israeli bureaucrats who mobilized on Wednesday to assail international law in the name of annexation. With an uncomfortable giggle, one briefer even recited those same accusations of anti-Semitism in his talking points. In the Israel of 2020, official state bodies use BDS and anti-Semitism as synonyms in their campaign to protect the settlement enterprise.

    In recent weeks, following the release of the Trump administration’s peace plan, there have been stormy campaigns on both the right and the left for or against officially annexing the settlements. But what happened on Wednesday proves that this is a sterile debate over mere symbolism. De facto annexation has already happened and continues to happen every day; it is only de jure annexation that’s still being fought over.

    Israel has been treating the settlements as an inseparable part of the country for a long time already. De jure annexation won’t drastically change anything of importance that isn’t already happening on the ground. Israel has already annexed everything all by itself, and doesn’t need U.S. President Donald Trump and his ambassador to Israel, David Friedman. Official recognition is just icing on the cake.

    #ListeONU

  • Ça fait plus de 20 ans que l’Internet est un outil d’information grand public. Hier, on nous annonce que « L’ONU identifie 112 sociétés ayant des activités dans les colonies israéliennes ». Maintenant, essaie de me trouver un seul article de grand média reprenant cette information avec un lien hypertexte vers le document d’origine sur le site de l’ONU… (bon courage).

    Moi j’ai pas trouvé. Le document est là, à la ligne « A/HRC/43/71 » : Database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem - Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session43/Pages/ListReports.aspx

    Et la liste elle-même :
    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session43/Documents/A_HRC_43_71.docx

    Par ailleurs, le texte de la résolution définissant les critères de cette base de données est ici (1er février 2018) :
    https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1475002?ln=en

    Où l’on constate que l’intitulé des médias français (dont, évidemment, le Monde), décrivant cette liste comme celle d’entreprises « ayant des activités dans les colonies », « qui continuent de commercer illégalement avec les colonies », est un bel euphémisme : la résolution dénonce des entreprises qui « avaient, directement et indirectement, permis la construction et la croissance des colonies de peuplement, les avaient facilitées et en avaient profité ». On n’est pas dans la simple « présence », mais dans la complicité. Le texte de la résolution précise :

    3. La résolution 31/36 dans laquelle le Conseil des droits de l’homme demandait la création d’une base de données faisait suite au rapport de la mission internationale indépendante d’établissement des faits chargée d’étudier les effets des colonies de peuplement israéliennes sur les droits civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels des Palestiniens dans le Territoire palestinien occupé, ycompris Jérusalem-Est (A/HRC/22/63). Dans ce rapport, la mission d’établissement des faits constatait que certaines entreprises avaient, directement et indirectement, permis la construction et la croissance des colonies de peuplement, les avaient facilitées et en avaient profité ; au paragraphe 96 du rapport, elle donnait la liste des activités suscitant des préoccupations particulières sur le plan des droits de l’homme (« activités énumérées »). Dans la résolution 31/36, le Conseil a défini comme suit, conformément à la liste établie dans le rapport de la mission d’évaluation, les paramètres des activités visées aux fins de la base de données :
    a) La fourniture d’équipements et de matériel facilitant la construction et l’expansion des colonies de peuplement et du mur, ainsi que des infrastructures associées ;
    b) L’installation d’équipements de surveillance et d’identification dans les colonies de peuplement, le long du mur et aux points de contrôle directement liés aux colonies de peuplement ;
    c) La fourniture d’équipements destinés à la démolition de logements et de propriétés et à la destruction de fermes agricoles, de serres, de vergers d’oliviers et de plantations ;
    d) La fourniture de services d’équipements et de matériel de sécurité à des entreprises exerçant dans les colonies de peuplement ;
    e) L’offre de services et de prestations contribuant à l’entretien et à l’existence des colonies de peuplement, y compris dans le domaine des transports ;
    f) Les opérations bancaires et financières contribuant au développement, à l’expansion et à l’entretien des colonies de peuplement et de leurs activités, y compris les prêts immobiliers destinés à la croissance des entreprises ;
    g) L’utilisation de ressources naturelles, en particulier l’eau et la terre, à des fins commerciales ;
    h) La pollution et le dépôt de déchets dans les villages palestiniens ou le transfert de tels déchets vers les villages palestiniens ;
    i) L’utilisation des profits et des réinvestissements réalisés par les entreprises appartenant en totalité ou en partie à des colons pour développer, élargir et entretenir les colonies de peuplement ;
    j) La captivité des marchés financiers et économiques palestiniens et les pratiques qui mettent les entreprises palestiniennes dans une situation défavorable, notamment les restrictions à la liberté de circulation, les restrictions administratives et les contraintes juridiques.

  • Release of long-delayed UN settlement database significant step towards holding Israel accountable | BDS Movement
    https://www.bdsmovement.net/news/release-long-delayed-un-settlement-database-significant-step-towards-ho

    Palestinian civil society welcomes this long-awaited UN list of companies that are complicit in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise, which constitutes a war crime under international law. We thank all human rights organizations that worked tirelessly for the release of such an important instrument of transparency and accountability.

    Some notable mentions amongst the 112 complicit companies on the UN list of shame are the top five Israeli banks in which AXA invests (Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, First International Bank of Israel, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank and Israel Discount Bank), Delta Israel, Puma’s exclusive licensee in Israel, and Shapir, CAF’s partner for the development of the Jerusalem Light Rail. Also included are Delek Group, Egged, General Mills, Motorola Solutions, JCB, Alstom, Israeli national water company Mekorot, and travel companies TripAdvisor, Airbnb, Booking.com, Edreams and Expedia.

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

    • Le business meurtrier des frontières

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sur le blog :

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

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

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

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

    • How Private Security Firms Profit Off the Refugee Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Financing the industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Key findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Pèlerinage 2019 à la Mecque : La société israélienne G4S gagne le marché de la sécurité Guitel Benishay - 3 Juillet 2019 - lphinfo

    https://lphinfo.com/pelerinage-2019-a-la-mecque-la-societe-israelienne-g4s-gagne-le-marche-de-la-securite/#https://lphinfo.com/pelerinage-2019-a-la-mecque-la-societe-israelienne-g4s-gagne-le-marche-de-l

    Le Ministre en charge du Pèlerinage à la Mecque a officiellement annoncé que la filiale saoudienne de la puissante société de sécurité israélienne, qui a pris le nom d’Al Majale G4S et qui opère en toute discrétion depuis 2010, a été choisie pour gérer la responsabilité des questions de sécurité concernant le pèlerinage à la Mecque……..Détails……..

    Outre le périmètre de Djeddah, la société israélienne est chargée du périmètre de sécurité de l’aéroport de Dubaï aux Emirats. Le pèlerinage annuel à La Mecque concentre plus d’un million de fidèles.
L’inquiétude de certains organisateurs du pèlerinage est que cette société pourra ainsi disposer des relevés d’identité (empreintes digitales, photos d’identités, coordonnées de naissance) de tous les fidèles, de même que de ceux des dizaines de milliers de passagers en transit à Dubaï.

    #pèlerinage #la_Mecque #arabie_saoudite #israel #islam #religion #hadj #musulmans

  • Dans le #business de l’#humanitaire : doit-on tirer #profit des #réfugiés ?

    Depuis la crise économique de 2008 et la multiplication des conflits dans le monde, l’insuffisance des fonds alloués au secteur humanitaire n’a jamais été aussi importante. En effet seulement 59 % des besoins en la matière ont été financés en 2018.

    Pour l’une des crises humanitaires les plus médiatisées, celle des réfugiés, les chiffres sont plus alarmants encore. Le Haut-commissariat pour les Réfugiés (HCR) estime que pour l’année 2019 tout juste 14 % de l’aide nécessaire a été financée pour venir en aide aux 68,5 millions de réfugiés, demandeurs d’asile, personnes déplacées et apatrides.
    L’échec du système d’asile

    Bien que garanti par le droit international l’accueil de ces populations vulnérables reste globalement infime. En moyenne, seulement 1 % des réfugiés sont référés par le HCR pour être réinstallés dans des pays d’accueil chaque année. Le cantonnement en camps ou les installations plus ou moins précaires dans les pays limitrophes des zones de conflits deviennent les seules alternatives pour la grande majorité des réfugiés, pour qui la durée moyenne d’exil est d’environ 26 ans.

    Victimes des politiques d’asile de plus en plus restrictives des pays occidentaux plus de 85 % vivent dans des pays « en développement », dont les services élémentaires sont déjà sous pression.

    Le privé à la rescousse

    Pour pallier ces tensions, les capacités financières et innovatrices du secteur privé semblent aujourd’hui s’imposer comme une solution. Le HCR reconnaît en effet que le monde commercial joue un rôle central pour fournir des opportunités aux réfugiés et les soutenir.

    Le Pacte mondial sur les réfugiés adopté par 181 membres de l’ONU en décembre 2018 a lui aussi souligné le rôle primordial du secteur privé pour contrer les failles du système humanitaire.

    Que ce soit en termes d’emploi, d’opportunités commerciales ou de fourniture de biens et de services essentiels par l’intermédiaire de partenariats public-privé, ou encore en aidant les agences non gouvernementales ou gouvernementales à innover pour améliorer la qualité et la provision de l’aide, le monde du business semble désormais indissociable du monde humanitaire.

    Mais normaliser la condition du réfugié dans la logique économique de marché, n’est pas un artifice idéologique servant de plus en plus les intérêts corporatifs ? Et ces derniers ne passeront-ils pas avant ceux des réfugiés dans ce business désormais très rentable – fort de ses 20 milliards de dollars par an- qu’est devenu l’humanitaire ?
    De nombreuses plates-formes impliquées

    Le secteur commercial est impliqué à de nombreux niveaux du système d’asile. Par exemple, via des forums consultatifs comme la branche UNHCR Innovation du HCR créée en 2012 et financée par la fondation IKEA. Ce forum cherche à développer des moyens créatifs d’engager les entreprises et leurs ressources technologiques.

    D’autres plates-formes comme l’initiative #Connecting_Business ou encore #The_Solutions_Alliance tendent à impliquer le secteur privé dans les solutions en déplacement et en mesurer l’impact.

    Ou encore des organismes comme #Talent_beyond_boundaries ou la plate-forme française #Action_emploi_réfugiés élaborent des #bases_de_données regroupant des réfugiés et leurs #compétences techniques et académiques afin de les connecter à des employeurs potentiels dans les pays les autorisant à travailler.

    Afin de coordonner et de conseiller les actions et réponses du monde du profit, d’autres acteurs comme les consultants #Philanthropy_Advisors ont vu le jour pour promouvoir le développement de la collaboration philanthropique stratégique entre les #entreprises et le monde humanitaire, et les aider à projeter leur retour sur #investissement.

    Les marchés prospèrent

    Ainsi les partenariats public-privé avec le HCR et les ONG se multiplient, tant pour les prestations de service que l’expertise du secteur privé dans l’innovation.

    De gigantesques salons commerciaux réunissent régulièrement les grandes agences onusiennes, des ONG et des sociétés privées de toute taille afin d’essayer de prendre les marchés de l’humanitaire. Au salon DIHAD de Dubai par exemple, des stands de vendeurs de drones, de lampes photovoltaïques ou encore de kits alimentaires côtoient ceux des sociétés de services financiers comme MasterCard Worldwide ou des grands cabinets d’audit et de réduction des coûts en entreprise, comme Accenture et Deloitte.

    Cette concurrence grandissante des marchés de l’humanitaire semble suggérer que le système d’asile s’inscrit lui aussi progressivement dans un modèle néolibéral, appliquant la logique économique de marché jusque dans la sphère humanitaire.
    Abus et philanthropie des bailleurs de fonds

    Ce monde humanitaire qui pratique une logique propre à celle du monde des affaires soulève de multiples questions éthiques et pragmatiques.

    Au niveau philanthropique par exemple, les partenaires majeurs du HCR incluent des multinationales comme #Nike, #Merck, #BP, #Nestlé, #IKEA ou encore #Microsoft.

    Or, bien que l’apport financier de ces corporations soit essentiel pour contrer le manque de fonds du système d’asile, la crédibilité et la légitimité de certains partenaires a été contestée.

    Pour cause, les exploitations et abus déjà recensés à l’encontre de ces corporations. Nestlé a récemment été accusé d’esclavagisme en Thaïlande ; Nike et BP ont eux aussi été régulièrement critiqués pour leur modèle économique peu regardant des droits du travail ; ou encore Microsoft, récemment accusé d’exploitation d’enfants dans les mines de cobalt en République Démocratique du Congo. L’entreprise IKEA, bailleur majeur du HCR à quant à elle été inculpée dans un scandale d’évasion fiscale, accusée d’échapper ainsi aux taxes dans les états qui entre autres, financent le HCR.
    Des employeurs douteux

    En tant qu’employeur, le secteur privé embauche et rémunère des réfugiés dans des contextes légaux comme clandestins.

    Par exemple, 20 % de la main d’œuvre de la compagnie #Chobani, spécialiste du yaourt à la grecque implantée aux États-Unis est réfugiée. Son PDG estime que dans le monde actuel le secteur privé est l ‘agent de changement le plus efficace et a ainsi créé la fondation #Partenariat_Tent, afin de sensibiliser le monde commercial à l’importance du secteur privé dans la cause réfugiée.

    Par l’intermédiaire de cette plate-forme, plus de 20 entreprises dont #Microsoft, #Ikea, #H&M et #Hilton ont annoncé des initiatives d’#emploi destinées à contrer la crise des déplacements.

    Cependant, puisque souvent sans droit de travail dans les pays d’accueil de la majorité des réfugiés, ceux-ci sont souvent prêts à accepter n’importe quelle opportunité, et s’exposent à toute sorte de mécanisme d’exploitation, des multinationales aux petites entreprises, légalement ou dans l’économie informelle.

    Des enfants réfugiés Rohingya au Bangladesh aux Syriens en Turquie, Irak, Jordanie ou au Liban exploités dans diverses industries, les exemples d’abus par des entreprises de toutes tailles sont souvent recensés et vaguement relayés dans la presse. Parfois, les entreprises inculpées ne sont autres que des géants comme #Zara, #Mango, #Marks_and_Spencer, qui ne sont pas légalement réprimandés car il n’existe ni mécanisme de coercition ni cadre de sanction pour les multinationales.

    L’ambiguïté des sous-traitants

    Par ailleurs, les gouvernements, le #HCR et les #ONG sous-traitent progressivement l’assistance et la protection des réfugiés à divers partenaires commerciaux afin d’améliorer les conditions de vie dans des secteurs aussi divers que la finance, la provision de service, le conseil, la construction, la santé, la technologie ou encore l’éducation.

    Si de tels projets sont souvent très positifs, d’autres se font complices ou tirent profit de politiques publiques allant à l’encontre de la protection des droits humains. La multinationale espagnole #Ferrovial, un entrepreneur indépendant contracté par l’état australien pour gérer son système carcéral des demandeurs d’asile offshore, a été accusée de mauvais traitements chroniques envers les réfugiés dans des centres de détention extraterritoriaux administrés par l’Australie. Cette dernière est elle-même accusée de crimes contre l’humanité pour son traitement des demandeurs d’asile arrivés par bateau.

    Amnesty International a aussi dénoncé des actes de torture par la compagnie Australienne #Wilson_Security, sous-traitant de la filiale australienne de Ferrovial, #Broadspectrum.

    La compagnie britannique de sécurité #G4S a elle aussi fait l’objet d’une multitude d’allégations concernant des violences physiques perpétrées par ses employés dans des camps contre des réfugiés, par exemple à Daddab au Kenya, et sans conséquence pour G4S.

    Des compagnies comme #European_Homecare ou #ORS spécialisées dans la provision de service aux migrants et réfugiés ont été accusées de #maltraitance dans les milieux carcéraux envers les gardes et les réfugiés.

    Ainsi, selon un rapport de L’Internationale des services publics, la privatisation des services aux réfugiés et aux demandeurs d’asile a un impact direct sur leur qualité et aboutit à des services inappropriés, caractérisés par un manque d’empathie, et ne respectant souvent pas les droits humains.

    Le business de la catastrophe

    Par soucis d’efficacité, en privatisant de plus en plus leurs services et en laissant le monde du profit infiltrer celui de l’humanitaire, le HCR et les ONG prennent le risque de créer des conditions d’exploitation échappant aux mécanismes légaux de responsabilité.

    Aux vues de nombreuses questions éthiques, le monde commercial peut-il réellement contrer les failles étatiques et organisationnelles du monde humanitaire ? L’intégration du secteur privé dans le système de protection et d’assistance aux réfugiés, est-ce aussi en soi justifier le désengagement des États de leurs obligations en matière de protection des personnes les plus vulnérables ?

    Comment ainsi éviter que cette source d’opportunité commerciale pour les entreprises, et les opportunités d’émancipation que cela engendre pour les réfugiés, n’entraîne leur marchandisation et exploitation, dans un contexte où les cadres juridiques en matière de business et droits humains ne sont visiblement pas assez strictes ?

    https://theconversation.com/dans-le-business-de-lhumanitaire-doit-on-tirer-profit-des-refugies-
    #privatisation #partenariats_public-privé #PPP #asile #migrations #philanthropie #travail #salons_commerciaux #salons #DIHAD #néolibéralisme #sous-traitance

  • Austria Immigration Detention

    Austria has sharply increased the number of people it places in immigration detention after years of declining detainee populations. While it continues the controversial practice of placing immigration detainees in “Police Detention Centres,” the country opened a new dedicated immigration detention centre in 2014, which is partly operated by the multinational security company #G4S. The country has also announced plans to significantly boost removals, focusing mainly on people from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

    https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/austria?platform=hootsuite
    #autriche #détention_administrative #rétention #statistiques #chiffes #migrations #asile #réfugiés #privatisation

  • La prison de Birmingham « déprivatisée » en urgence Estelle Piaton - 20 Aout 2018 - Le Figaro

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2018/08/20/01003-20180820ARTFIG00221-la-prison-de-birmingham-deprivatisee-en-urgence.p

    Après une inspection intensive, le gouvernement britannique a décidé lundi de reprendre la gestion d’une prison anglaise, jusqu’à présent assurée par la société de sécurité privée G4S, accusée d’avoir négligé le bien-être des détenus et des employés.

    Le ministère britannique de la Justice a décidé lundi que le gouvernement reprendra à l’entreprise privée G4S la gestion de la prison HMP de Birmingham (centre de l’Angleterre), trouvée dans un état dramatique, lors de la dernière inspection effectuée entre le 30 juillet et le 9 août.

    Aussitôt interrogé par la Radio BBC, Peter Clarke, le chef inspecteur des prisons, a confirmé que l’état de la prison s’était complètement détérioré depuis l’an dernier, et a parlé de violence, de drogues et du cruel manque d’hygiène au sein de l’établissement qui accueillait le mois dernier 1 269 détenus au total. Il a ajouté n’avoir « jamais vu une prison dans un tel état » de toute sa carrière. Selon le journal The Independent, le comité de surveillance indépendant avait déjà mis en lumière par le passé de sérieux problèmes de circulation de substances psychoactives, de surpopulation carcérale et d’insalubrité extrême. Les rats et cafards se promenaient au pied des prisonniers, et les couloirs étaient maculés de sang et de vomi, le tout enfumé par l’odeur de cannabis.

    Le gouvernement prend ainsi le contrôle de la prison dite de « catégorie B », pour une durée de 6 mois minimum, avant de renégocier la délégation. Sa première initiative a été de transférer plus de 300 prisonniers vers d’autres centres, en vue de soulager la pression sur les surveillants pénitentiaires. Le contrat signé pour 15 ans par la société G4S en 2011, qui leur confiait l’administration de l’établissement, est donc rompu bien avant la fin de son terme.

    Le secrétaire d’État aux prisons Rory Stewart a reconnu à la chaîne de télévision Sky News que la situation était « inacceptable » voire « choquante ». Il a par ailleurs assuré que les frais de cette « déprivatisation » de l’établissement ne seraient pas à la charge des contribuables, mais assumés par G4S.

    Des surveillants cloîtrés dans leurs bureaux
    Certains détenus préféreraient toutefois rester dans leurs cellules, d’après The Guardian, et des surveillants pénitentiaires, effrayés par la violence d’autres condamnés, choisiraient de se cloîtrer dans leurs bureaux. Le plus alarmant, c’est leur « quasi-impunité », a souligné Peter Clarke sur la BBC.

    Construit en 1849, le centre pénitentiaire de Birmingham, exclusivement masculin et à la capacité globale de 1 450 détenus, avait également fait l’objet d’une importante émeute en 2016 et avait été qualifié de « prison la plus violente du pays ». Plus récemment, la presse britannique diffusait la photo de 9 véhicules, dont quelques voitures d’inspecteurs, brûlés dans le parking situé à l’extérieur de la prison de Birmingham.

    Lancée dans les années 1990, la politique d’investissement dans le secteur privé concernant le système pénitentiaire risque avec ce scandale et ces mesures drastiques d’être remise en question dans le pays.

    #prison #nationalisation #violence #angleterre #G4S #Birmingham #rats #cafards

  • #Expanding_the_fortress

    La politique d’#externalisation_des_frontières de l’UE, ses bénéficiaires et ses conséquences pour les #droits_humains.

    Résumé du rapport

    La situation désespérée des 66 millions de personnes déplacées dans le monde ne semble troubler la conscience européenne que lorsqu’un drame a lieu à ses frontières et se retrouve sous le feu des projecteurs médiatiques. Un seul État européen – l’Allemagne – se place dans les dix premiers pays au monde en termes d’accueil des réfugiés : la grande majorité des personnes contraintes de migrer est accueillie par des États se classant parmi les plus pauvres au monde. Les migrations ne deviennent visibles aux yeux de l’Union européenne (UE) que lorsque les médias s’intéressent aux communautés frontalières de Calais, Lampedusa ou Lesbos et exposent le sort de personnes désespérées, fuyant la violence et qui finissent par mourir, être mises en détention ou se retrouver bloquées.

    Ces tragédies ne sont pas seulement une conséquence malheureuse des conflits et des guerres en cours dans différents endroits du monde. Elles sont aussi le résultat des politiques migratoires européennes mises en œuvre depuis les accords de Schengen de 1985. Ces politiques se sont concentrées sur le renforcement des frontières, le développement de méthodes sophistiquées de surveillance et de traque des personnes, ainsi que l’augmentation des déportations, tout en réduisant les possibilités de résidence légale malgré des besoins accrus. Cette approche a conduit un grand nombre de personnes fuyant la violence et les conflits et incapables d’entrer en Europe de manière légale à emprunter des routes toujours plus dangereuses.

    Ce qui est moins connu, c’est que les tragédies causées par cette politique européenne se jouent également bien au-delà de nos frontières, dans des pays aussi éloignés que le Sénégal ou l’Azerbaïdjan. Il s’agit d’un autre pilier de la gestion européenne des flux migratoires : l’externalisation des frontières. Depuis 1992, et plus encore depuis 2005, l’UE a mis en œuvre des politiques visant à externaliser les frontières du continent et empêcher les populations déplacées de parvenir à ses portes. Cela implique la conclusion d’accords avec les pays voisins de l’UE afin qu’ils reprennent les réfugiés déportés et adoptent, comme l’Europe, des mesures de contrôle des frontières, de surveillance accrue des personnes et de renforcement de leurs frontières. En d’autres termes, ces accords ont fait des pays voisins de l’UE ses nouveaux garde-frontières. Et parce qu’ils sont loin des frontières européennes et de l’attention médiatique, les impacts de ces politiques restent relativement invisibles aux yeux des citoyens européens.

    Ce rapport cherche à mettre en lumière les politiques qui fondent l’externalisation des frontières européennes et les accords conclus, mais aussi les multinationales et sociétés privées qui en bénéficient, et les conséquences pour les personnes déplacées ainsi que pour les pays et les populations qui les accueillent. Il est le troisième de la série Border Wars, qui vise à examiner les politiques frontalières européennes et à montrer comment les industries des secteurs de l’armement et de la sécurité ont contribué à façonner les politiques de sécurisation des frontières de l’Europe, puis en ont tiré les bénéfices en obtenant un nombre croissant de contrats dans le secteur.

    Ce rapport étudie l’augmentation significative du nombre de mesures et d’accords d’externalisation des frontières depuis 2005, le phénomène s’accélérant massivement depuis le sommet Europe-Afrique de La Valette en novembre 2015. Via une série de nouveaux instruments, tels que le Fonds fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique (EUTF), le Cadre pour les partenariats avec les pays tiers en matière de gestion des migrations et la Facilité en faveur des réfugiés en Turquie, l’UE et les États membres injectent des millions d’euros dans un ensemble de projets visant à prévenir la migration de certaines populations vers le territoire européen.

    Cela implique la collaboration avec des pays tiers en matière d’accueil des personnes déportées, de formation des forces de police et des garde-frontières ou le développement de systèmes biométriques complets, ainsi que des donations d’équipements incluant hélicoptères, bateaux et véhicules, mais aussi des équipements de surveillance et de contrôle. Si de nombreux projets sont coordonnés par la Commission européenne, un certain nombre d’États membres, tels que l’Espagne, l’Italie et l’Allemagne, prennent également des initiatives individuelles plus poussées en finançant et en soutenant les efforts d’externalisation des frontières par le biais d’accords bilatéraux.

    Ce qui rend cette collaboration particulièrement problématique est le fait que de nombreux gouvernements qui en bénéficient sont profondément autoritaires, et que les financements sont souvent destinés aux organes de l’État les plus responsables des actes de répression et de violations des droits humains. L’UE fait valoir, à travers l’ensemble de ses politiques, une rhétorique consensuelle autour de l’importance des droits humains, de la démocratie et de l’état de droit ; il semble cependant qu’aucune limite ne soit posée lorsque l’Europe soutient des régimes dictatoriaux pour que ces derniers s’engagent à empêcher « l’immigration irrégulière » vers le sol européen. Le résultat concret se traduit par des accords et des financements conclus entre l’UE et des régimes aussi tristement célèbres que ceux du Tchad, du Niger, de Biélorussie, de Libye ou du Soudan.

    Les politiques européennes dans ce domaine ont des conséquences considérables pour les personnes déplacées, que le statut « illégal » rend déjà vulnérables et plus susceptibles de subir des violations de droits humains. Nombre d’entre elles finissent exploitées, avec des conditions de travail inacceptables, ou encore sont mises en détention ou directement déportées dans le pays qu’elles ont fui. Les femmes réfugiées sont particulièrement menacées par les violences basées sur le genre, les agressions et l’exploitation sexuelles.

    La violence et la répression que subissent les déplacés favorisent également l’immigration clandestine, reconfigurant les activités des passeurs et renforçant le pouvoir des réseaux criminels. De fait, les personnes déplacées sont souvent forcées de se lancer sur des routes alternatives, plus dangereuses, et de s’en remettre à des trafiquants de moins en moins scrupuleux. En conséquence, le nombre de morts sur les routes migratoires s’élève de jour en jour.

    En outre, le renforcement des organes de sécurité de l’Etat dans l’ensemble des pays du MENA (Moyen Orient Afrique du Nord), du Maghreb, du Sahel et de la Corne de l’Afrique constitue une menace directe contre les droits humains et la responsabilité démocratique dans ces zones, notamment en détournant des ressources essentielles qui pourraient suppress être destinées à des mesures économiques ou sociales. En effet, ce rapport montre que l’obsession européenne à prévenir les flux migratoires réduit non seulement les ressources disponibles, mais dénature également les échanges, l’aide et les relations internationales entre l’Europe et ces régions. Comme l’ont signalé de nombreux experts, ce phénomène crée un terreau favorable à toujours plus d’instabilité et d’insécurité, et a pour conséquence de pousser toujours plus de personnes à prendre la route de l’exil.

    Un secteur économique a cependant grandement tiré parti des programmes d’externalisation des frontières de l’UE. En effet, comme l’ont montré les premiers rapports Border Wars, les secteurs de l’industrie militaire et de sécurité ont été les principaux bénéficiaires des contrats de fourniture d’équipements et de services pour la sécurité frontalière. Les entreprises de ces secteurs travaillent en partenariat avec un certain nombre d’institutions intergouvernementales et (semi) publiques qui ont connu une croissance significative ces dernières années, à mesure qu’étaient mise en oeuvre des dizaines de projets portant sur la sécurité et le contrôle des frontières dans des pays tiers.
    Le rapport révèle que :

    La grande majorité des 35 pays considérés comme prioritaires par l’UE pour l’externalisation de ses frontières sont gouvernés par des régimes autoritaires, connus pour leurs violation des droits humains et avec des indicateurs de développement humain faibles.
    48% d’entre eux (17) ont un gouvernement autoritaire, et seulement quatre d’entre eux sont considérés comme démocratiques (mais toujours imparfaits)
    448% d’entre eux (17) sont listés comme « non-libres », et seulement trois sont listés comme « libres » ; 34% d’entre eux (12) présentent des risques extrêmes en matière de droits humains et les 23 autres présentent des risques élevés.
    51% d’entre eux (18) sont caractérisés par un « faible développement humain », seulement huit ont un haut niveau de développement humain.
    Plus de 70% d’entre eux (25) se situent dans le dernier tiers des pays du monde en termes de bien-être des femmes (inclusion, justice et sécurité)

    Les États européens continuent à vendre des armes à ces pays, et cela en dépit du fait que ces ventes alimentent les conflits, les actes de violence et de répression, et de ce fait contribuent à l’augmentation du nombre de réfugiés. La valeur totale des licences d’exportations d’armes délivrées par les États membres de l’UE à ces 35 pays sur la décennie 2007-2016 dépasse les 122 milliards d’euros. Parmi eux, 20% (7) sont sous le joug d’un embargo sur les ventes d’armes demandé par l’UE et/ou les Nations Unies, mais la plupart reçoivent toujours des armes de certains États membres, ainsi qu’un soutien à leurs forces armées et de sécurité dans le cadre des efforts liés aux politiques migratoires.

    Les dépenses de l’UE en matière de sécurité des frontières dans les pays tiers ont considérablement augmenté. Bien qu’il soit difficile de trouver des chiffres globaux, il existe de plus en plus d’instruments de financement pour les projets liés aux migrations, la sécurité et les migrations provient de plus en plus d’instruments, la sécurité et les migrations irrégulières étant les principales priorités. Ces fonds proviennent aussi de l’aide au développement. Plus de 80% du budget de l’EUTF vient du Fonds européen de développement et d’autres fonds d’aide au développement et d’aide humanitaire.

    L’augmentation des dépenses en matière de sécurité des frontières a bénéficié à un large éventail d’entreprises, en particulier des fabricants d’armes et des sociétés de sécurité biométrique. Le géant de l’armement français Thales, qui est également un exportateur incontournable d’armes dans la région, est par exemple un fournisseur reconnu de matériel militaire et de sécurité pour la sécurisation des frontières et de systèmes et équipements biométriques. D’autres fournisseurs importants de systèmes biométriques incluent Véridos, OT Morpho et Gemalto (qui sera bientôt racheté par Thales). L’Allemagne et l’Italie financent également leurs propres groupes d’armement – Hensoldt, Airbus et Rheinmetall pour l’Allemagne et Leonardo et Intermarine pour l’Italie – afin de soutenir des programmes de sécurisation des frontières dans un certain nombre de pays du MENA, en particulier l’Égypte, la Tunisie et la Libye. En Turquie, d’importants contrats de sécurisation des frontières ont été remportés par les groupes de défense turcs, notamment Aselsan et Otokar, qui utilisent les ressources pour subventionner leurs propres efforts de défense, également à l’origine des attaques controversées de la Turquie contre les communautés kurdes.

    Un certain nombre d’entreprises semi-publiques et d’organisations internationales ont également conclu des contrats de conseil, de formation et de gestion de projets en matière de sécurité des frontières. On y trouve la société para-gouvernementale française Civipol, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) et le Centre international pour le développement des politiques migratoires (ICMPD). Les groupes Thales, Airbus et Safran sont présents au capital de Civipol, qui a rédigé en 2003, à titre de consultant pour la Commission Européenne, un document très influent établissant les fondations pour les mesures actuelles d’externalisation des frontières, dont elle bénéficie aujourd’hui.

    Les financements et les dons en matière d’équipements militaires et de sécurité ainsi que la pression accrue sur les pays tiers pour qu’ils renforcent leurs capacités de sécurité aux frontières ont fait croître le marché de la sécurité en Afrique. Le groupe de lobbying Association européenne des industries aérospatiales et défense (ASD) a récemment concentré ses efforts sur l’externalisation des frontières de l’UE. De grands groupes d’armement tels qu’Airbus et Thales lorgnent également sur les marchés africains et du Moyen-Orient, en croissance.

    Les décisions et la mise en œuvre de l’externalisation des frontières au niveau de l’Union européenne ont été caractérisées par une rapidité d’exécution inhabituelle, hors du contrôle démocratique exercé par le Parlement européen. De nombreux accords importants avec des pays tiers, parmi lesquels les pactes « Migration Compact » signés dans le Cadre pour les partenariats et l’Accord UE- Turquie, ont été conclus sans ou à l’écart de tout contrôle parlementaire.

    Le renforcement et la militarisation de la sécurité des frontières ont conduit à une augmentation du nombre de morts parmi les personnes déplacées. En général, les mesures visant à bloquer une route particulière de migration poussent les personnes vers des routes plus dangereuses. En 2017, on a dénombré 1 mort pour 57 migrants traversant la Méditerranée ; en 2015, ce chiffre était de 1 pour 267. Cette statistique reflète le fait qu’en 2017, les personnes déplacées (pourtant moins nombreuses qu’en 2015), principalement originaires d’Afrique de l’Ouest et de pays subsahariens, ont préféré la route plus longue et plus dangereuse de la Méditerranée Centrale plutôt que la route entre la Turquie et la Grèce empruntée en 2015 par des migrants (principalement Syriens). On estime que le nombre de migrants morts dans le désert est au moins le double de ceux qui ont péri en Méditerranée, bien qu’aucun chiffre officiel ne soit conservé ou disponible.

    On assiste à une augmentation des forces militaires et de sécurité européennes dans les pays tiers pour la sécurité aux frontières. L’arrêt des flux migratoires est devenu une priorité des missions de Politique de sécurité et de défense commune (PSDC) au Mali et au Niger, tandis que des États membres tels que la France ou l’Italie ont également décidé de déployer des troupes au Niger ou en Libye.

    Frontex, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et garde-côtes, collabore de plus en plus avec les pays tiers. Elle a entamé des négociations avec des pays voisins de l’UE pour mener des opérations conjointes sur leurs territoires. La coopération en matière de déportation est déjà largement implantée. De 2010 à 2016, Frontex a coordonné 400 vols de retours conjoints avec des pays tiers, dont 153 en 2016. Depuis 2014, certains de ces vols ont été appelés « opérations de retour conjoint », l’avion et les escortes navigantes provenant des pays de destination. Les États membres invitent de plus en plus fréquemment des délégations de pays tiers à identifier les personnes « déportables » sur la base de l’évaluation de nationalité. Dans plusieurs cas, ces identifications ont conduit à l’arrestation et à la torture des personnes déportées.

    Ce rapport examine ces impacts en cherchant à établir comment ces politiques ont été mises en œuvre en Turquie, en Libye, en Égypte, au Soudan, au Niger, en Mauritanie et au Mali. Dans tous ces pays, pour parvenir à la conclusion de ces accords, l’UE a dû fermer les yeux ou limiter ses critiques sur les violations des droits humains.

    En Turquie, l’UE a adopté un modèle proche de celui de l’Australie, externalisant l’ensemble du traitement des personnes déplacées en dehors de ses frontières, et manquant ainsi à des obligations fondamentales établies par le droit international, telles que le principe de non-refoulement, le principe de non-discrimination (l’accord concerne exclusivement les populations syriennes) et le principe d’accès à l’asile.

    En Libye, la guerre civile et l’instabilité du pays n’ont pas empêché l’UE ni certains de ses États membres, comme l’Italie, de verser des fonds destinés aux équipements et aux systèmes de gestion des frontières, à la formation des garde-côtes et au financement des centres de détention – et ce bien qu’il ait été rapporté que des garde-côtes avaient ouvert le feu sur des bateaux de migrants ou que des centres de détentions étaient gérés par des milices comme des camps de prisonniers.

    En Égypte, la coopération frontalière avec le gouvernement allemand s’est intensifiée malgré la croissante consolidation du pouvoir militaire dans le pays. L’Allemagne finance les équipements et la formation régulière de la police aux frontières égyptienne. Les personnes déplacées se trouvent régulièrement piégées dans le pays, dans l’impossibilité de se rendre en Libye du fait de l’insécurité qui y règne, et subissent les tirs des gardes-côtes égyptiens s’ils décident de prendre la route maritime.

    Au Soudan, le soutien à la gestion des frontières fourni par l’UE n’a pas seulement conduit à suppress sortir un régime dictatorial de son isolement sur la scène internationale, mais a également renforcé les Forces de soutien rapide, constituées de combattants de la milice Janjawid, considérée comme responsables de violations de droits humains au Darfour.

    La situation au Niger, un des pays les plus pauvres au monde, montre bien le coût de la politique de contrôle des migrations subi par les économies locales. La répression en cours à Agadez a considérablement affaibli l’économie locale et poussé la migration dans la clandestinité, rendant la route plus dangereuse pour les migrants et renforçant le pouvoir des gangs de passeurs armés. De même au Mali, l’imposition des mesures d’externalisation des frontières par l’UE dans un pays tout juste sorti d’une guerre civile menace de raviver les tensions et de réveiller le conflit.

    L’ensemble des cas étudiés met en lumière une politique de l’UE via-à-vis de ses voisins obsessionnellement focalisée sur les contrôles migratoires, quel que soit le coût pour les pays concernés ou les populations déplacées. C’est une vision étroite et finalement vouée à l’échec de la sécurité, car elle ne s’attaque pas aux causes profondes qui poussent les gens à migrer : les conflits, la violence, le sous-développement économique et l’incapacité des États à gérer correctement ces situations. Au lieu de cela, en renforçant les forces militaires et de sécurité dans la région, ces politiques prennent le risque d’exacerber la répression, de limiter la responsabilité démocratique et d’attiser des conflits qui pousseront plus de personnes à quitter leurs pays. Il est temps de changer de cap. Plutôt que d’externaliser les frontières et les murs, nous devrions externaliser la vraie solidarité et le respect des droits de l’homme.


    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #UE #EU #Europe #rapport #infographie #visualisation #invisibilité #politiques_migratoires #surveillance #traque #renvois #expulsions #déportations #Sénégal #Azerbaïdjan #accords_de_réadmission #privatisation #multinationales #sécurisation_des_frontières #business #La_Vallette #Fonds_fiduciaire_d’urgence_pour_l’Afrique #fonds_fiduciaire #Turquie #partenariats #Tchad #Niger #Biélorussie #Libye #Soudan #violence #répression #mourir_aux_frontières #morts #décès #Maghreb #Sahel #Corne_de_l'Afrique #industrie_militaro-sécuritaire #armes #commerce_d'armes #Fonds_européen_de_développement #développement #coopération_au_développement #aide_au_développement #aide_humanitaire #Thales #Véridos #biométrie #OT_Morpho #Gemalto #Hensoldt #Airbus #Rheinmetall #Leonardo #Intermarine #Égypte #Tunisie #Aselsan #Otokar #Civipol #OIM #IOM #Centre_international_pour_le_développement_des_politiques_migratoires #ICMPD #Airbus #Safran #Association_européenne_des_industries_aérospatiales_et_défense #ASD #Migration_Compact #accord_UE-Turquie #Politique_de_sécurité_et_de_défense_commune #PSDC #Mali #Frontex #Mauritanie #militarisation_des_frontières

    pour télécharger le #rapport :
    https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf

    cc @reka @albertocampiphoto @daphne @marty

    • Esternalizzare le frontiere europee significa militarizzare

      Come dimostra il recente rapporto del Transnational Institut, «Espandendo la Fortezza», la crescita della spesa per il controllo delle frontiere esterne avvantaggia produttori di armi e società di sicurezza biometrica. Molte delle loro proposte sono poi apparse nell’Agenda europea sotto forma di decisioni politiche. Sara Prestianni analizza le conseguenze militari dell’esternalizzazione delle frontiere europee.

      http://openmigration.org/analisi/esternalizzare-le-frontiere-europee-significa-militarizzare

    • 3 liens vers des articles/reportages de #Gabriele_Del_Grande, un des premiers journalistes à avoir visité les centres en Libye.

      C’était 2008-2009
      Libia: siamo entrati a #Misratah. Ecco la verità sui 600 detenuti eritrei

      Di notte, quando cessano il vociare dei prigionieri e gli strilli della polizia, dal cortile del carcere si sente il rumore del mare. Sono le onde del Mediterraneo, che schiumano sulla spiaggia, a un centinaio di metri dal muro di cinta del campo di detenzione. Siamo a Misratah, 210 km a est di Tripoli, in Libia. E i detenuti sono tutti richiedenti asilo politico eritrei, arrestati al largo di Lampedusa o nei quartieri degli immigrati a Tripoli. Vittime collaterali della cooperazione italo libica contro l’immigrazione. Sono più di 600 persone, tra cui 58 donne e diversi bambini e neonati. Sono in carcere da più di due anni, ma nessuno di loro è stato processato. Dormono in camere senza finestre di 4 metri per 5, fino a 20 persone, buttati per terra su stuoini e materassini di gommapiuma. Di giorno si riuniscono nel cortile di 20 metri per 20 su cui si affacciano le camere, sotto lo sguardo vigile della polizia. Sono ragazzi tra i 20 e i 30 anni. La loro colpa? Aver tentato di raggiungere l’Europa per chiedere asilo.

      Da anni la diaspora eritrea passa da Lampedusa. Dall’aprile del 2005 almeno 6.000 profughi della ex colonia italiana sono approdati sulle coste siciliane, in fuga dalla dittatura di Isaias Afewerki. La situazione a Asmara continua a essere critica. Amnesty International denuncia continui arresti e vessazioni di oppositori e giornalisti. E la tensione con l’Etiopia resta alta, cosicché almeno 320.000 ragazzi e ragazze sono costretti al servizio militare, a tempo indeterminato, in un paese che conta solo 4,7 milioni di abitanti. Molti disertano e scappano per rifarsi una vita. La maggior parte dei profughi si ferma in Sudan: oltre 130.000 persone. Tuttavia ogni anno migliaia di uomini e donne attraversano il deserto del Sahara per raggiungere la Libia e da lì imbarcarsi clandestinamente per l’Italia.

      La prima volta che sentii parlare di Misratah fu nella primavera del 2007, durante un incontro a Roma con il direttore dell’Alto commissariato dei rifugiati a Tripoli, Mohamed al Wash. Pochi mesi dopo, nel luglio del 2007, insieme alla associazione eritrea Agenzia Habeshia, riuscimmo a stabilire un contatto telefonico con un gruppo di prigionieri eritrei che erano riusciti a introdurre un telefono cellulare nel campo. Si lamentavano delle condizioni di sovraffollamento, della scarsa igiene dei bagni, e delle precarie condizioni di salute, specie di donne incinte e neonati. E accusavano gli agenti di polizia di avere molestato sessualmente alcune donne durante le prime settimane di detenzione. Amnesty International si espresse più volte per bloccare il loro rimpatrio. E il 18 settembre 2007 la diaspora eritrea organizzò manifestazioni nelle principali capitali europee.

      Il direttore del centro, colonnello ‘Ali Abu ‘Ud, conosce i report internazionali su Misratah, ma respinge le accuse al mittente: “Tutto quello che dicono è falso” dice sicuro di sé seduto alla scrivania, in giacca e cravatta, dietro un mazzo di fiori finti, nel suo ufficio al primo piano. Dalla finestra si vede il cortile dove sono radunati oltre 200 detenuti. Abu ‘Ud ha visitato nel luglio 2008 alcuni centri di prima accoglienza italiani, insieme a una delegazione libica. Parla di Misratah come di un albergo a cinque stelle comparato agli altri centri libici. E probabilmente ha ragione. Il che è tutto un dire. Dopo una lunga insistenza, insieme a un collega della radio tedesca, Roman Herzog, siamo autorizzati a parlare con i rifugiati eritrei. Scendiamo nel cortile. Ci dividiamo. Intervisto F., 28 anni, da 24 mesi chiuso qua dentro. Mentre lui parla mi accorgo che non lo sto ascoltando, in verità provo a mettermi nei suoi panni. Abbiamo grossomodo la stessa età, ma lui i migliori anni della vita li sta buttando via in un carcere, senza un motivo apparente.

      Dall’altro lato del cortile, Roman è riuscito a parlare per qualche minuto con un rifugiato sottraendosi al controllo degli agenti della sicurezza che vigilano sul nostro lavoro e riprendono con una telecamera le nostre attività. Si chiama S.. Parla liberamente: “Fratello, siamo in una pessima situazione, siamo torturati, mentalmente e fisicamente. Siamo qui da due anni e non conosciamo quale sarà il nostro futuro. Puoi vederlo da solo, guarda!” Intanto l’interprete li ha raggiunti e traduce tutto al direttore del campo, che interrompe l’intervista e chiede a S. se per caso non vuole ritornare in Eritrea. Lui risponde di no, intanto Roman lo invita ad allontanarsi a passo svelto e a dire tutto quello che può prima che il direttore li interrompa di nuovo. “Siamo qui da più di due anni, senza nessuna speranza. Siamo tutti eritrei. Io sono venuto in Libia nel 2005. Cerchiamo asilo politico, a causa della situazione nel nostro paese. Ma il mondo non si interessa a noi. Non è facile stare due anni in prigione, senza nessuna comodità. Siamo in prigione, non vediamo mai l’esterno. Tutti noi abbiamo bisogno della libertà, ecco di cosa abbiamo bisogno”.

      La polizia si avvicina nuovamente, Roman chiede a S. di mostrargli la sua stanza. Zigzagando tra la folla nel cortile entrano nel corridoio su cui danno la vista quattro stanze. All’interno, 18 ragazzi siedono su coperte e materassini di gommapiuma stesi sul pavimento. La stanza misura quattro metri per cinque. Al centro, una pentola gorgoglia sopra un fornellino da campeggio. Non ci sono finestre. “Siamo in troppi qui, è sovraffollato – dice S. – non vediamo la luce del sole e non c’è ricambio d’aria. Con il caldo d’estate la gente si ammala. E anche di inverno, fa molto freddo di notte, la gente si ammala”. Siamo a fine novembre, e i ragazzi indossano ciabatte da mare e leggeri pullover. La stanza accanto è più grande, ci sono solo donne e bambini, ma sono almeno il doppio.

      A quel punto gli uomini della sicurezza interrompono l’intervista e portano Roman fuori dal cortile, dove gli presentano un rifugiato scelto dal direttore... “Sono anche io un prigioniero” gli dice. Ma lui preferisce parlare con J.. Ha 34 anni e dice di essere stato in 13 prigioni diverse in Libia: “Alcuni di noi sono qui da quattro anni. Personalmente sono a Misratah da tre anni. Siamo nella peggiore delle situazioni. Non abbiamo commesso reati, stiamo solo chiedendo asilo politico. E non ci viene concesso. Diteci almeno perchè? Visto che nessuno ci informa. Che cosa sta succedendo là fuori? Diteci che cosa sarà di noi! Nemmeno l’Acnur. Non ci dicono mai niente. Non ho più speranza, quando ci vado a parlare nemmeno mi ascoltano. Pesavo 60 kg quando sono entrato, adesso ne peso 48, immagina perchè..”

      Il colonnello Abu ‘Ud segue la conversazione grazie alla traduzione in arabo dell’interprete, finché non riesce più a trattenersi. “Vuoi ritornare in Eritrea?” chiede a J. interrompendo bruscamente l’intervista. “Preferisco morire – gli risponde – tutti preferirebbero morire. “Se vuoi andare in Eritrea ti rimpatriamo in un solo giorno” minaccia il direttore. “Ci vietano di parlare con te” dice J. a Roman. Il direttore diventa furioso. Gli grida in faccia “Dite loro che li rimpatrieremo tutti!”. Poi si avvicina a Roman e con un urlo secco ordina: “Finito!”. Roman cerca di protestare, “abbiamo finito” gli ripette Abu ‘Ud mentre gli agenti lo tirano per le braccia verso l’uscita. Intanto il colonnello sale sui gradini e si rivolge a gran voce a tutti i rifugiati che nel frattempo si sono avvicinati per vedere cosa stia accadendo. “Se vi sentite maltrattati qui, organizzeremo il vostro rimpatrio immediatamente. Avete già rifiutato di ritornare nel vostro paese, ecco perchè siete in questo posto. Ma ognuno di voi è libero di ritornare in Eritrea! Chi vuole andare in Eritrea?” chiede alla folla. “Nessuno!” gli fanno eco i presenti. Scende e grida al mio collega “Hai visto! Adesso abbiamo veramente finito”.

      Saliamo di nuovo nell’ufficio del colonnello, che con toni molto nervosi cerca di convincerci del suo impegno. Per ben due volte l’ambasciata eritrea ha inviato dei funzionari per identificare i prigionieri. Ma i rifugiati hanno sempre rifiutato di incontrarli. Hanno addirittura organizzato uno sciopero della fame. Comprensibile, visto che rischiano di essere perseguitati in patria. La Libia dovrebbe averlo capito da un pezzo, visto che il 27 agosto 2004 uno dei voli di rimpatrio per l’Eritrea partiti da Tripoli venne addirittura dirottato in Sudan dagli stessi passeggeri. Ma il concetto di asilo politico sfugge alle autorità libiche. Eritrei o nigeriani, vogliono tutti andare in Europa. E visto che l’Europa chiede di controllare la frontiera, l’unica soluzione sono le deportazioni. E per chi non collabora con le ambasciate – come i rifugiati eritrei - la detenzione diventa a tempo indeterminato. Così per tornare in libertà non rimangono che due possibilità. Avere la fortuna di rientrare nei programmi di reinsediamento all’estero dell’Alto commissariato dei rifugiati (Acnur), oppure provare a scappare.

      Haron ha 36 anni. A casa ha lasciato una moglie e due bambini. Dall’Eritrea è scappato dopo 12 anni di servizio militare non retribuito. Dopo due anni di detenzione a Misratah, la Svezia ha accettato la sua richiesta di reinsediamento. E’ partito tre giorni dopo la nostra visita, il 27 novembre 2008, con un gruppo di altri 26 rifugiati eritrei del campo di Misratah, tra cui molte donne. I posti lasciati vuoti saranno presto riempiti con i nuovi arrestati. Già la settimana scorsa sono arrivate otto donne. I reinsediamenti sono le uniche carte che l’Acnur riesce a giocare, da un anno a questa parte, in Libia. Le prime 34 donne eritree lasciarono il campo di Misratah nel novembre del 2007 e furono accolte dall’Italia, a Cantalice, un piccolo comune nella campagna di Rieti. Per l’Italia fu il primo reinsediamento ufficiale di rifugiati dai tempi della crisi cilena del 1973. Ma l’operazione venne censurata dagli uffici stampa del Ministero dell’Interno, per non sollevare polemiche tra i leghisti. Insieme alle donne arrivarono 5 uomini e una bambina nata pochi giorni prima.

      Da allora, circa 200 rifugiati sono stati trasferiti da Misratah in vari paesi. Oltre all’Italia (70), anche in Romania (39), Svezia (27), Canada (17), Norvegia (9) e Svizzera (5). A snocciolarmi i dati è Osama Sadiq. E’ il coordinatore dei progetti della International organisation for peace care and relief (Iopcr). Una importante ong libica, che si dichiara non governativa, ma che tanto indipendente non deve essere, visto che ha al suo interno ex funzionari del ministero dell’interno e della sicurezza. E che è talmente influente, che l’Acnur riesce a entrare a Misratah soltanto sotto la sua copertura. Proprio così. In un paese dove transitano ogni anno migliaia di rifugiati eritrei, ma anche sudanesi, somali ed etiopi, l’Acnur conta meno di una ong. Non ha nemmeno un accordo di sede. E non riesce a spendere una parola a livello internazionale per la liberazione dei 600 prigionieri di Misratah. Probabilmente a dettare la linea politica dell’Acnur in Libia sono fragili equilibri diplomatici da non rompere per non rischiare di farsi cacciare da un Paese che non ha nemmeno mai firmato la Convenzione di Ginevra. Eppure la Libia sta conoscendo una importante fase di apertura. E il governo lavora a una nuova legge sull’immigrazione che però – secondo chi ha letto la bozza - non contiene nessun riferimento alla protezione dei rifugiati.

      Per quelli che non rientrano nei progetti di reinsediamento dell’Acnur, non rimane che l’ennesima fuga. Koubros è uno di loro. Lo incontriamo sulle scale della chiesa di San Francesco, nel quartiere Dhahra di Tripoli, dopo la messa del venerdì mattina. Un gruppo di eritrei è in fila per lo sportello sociale della Caritas, dove lavora l’infaticabile suor Sherly. A Misratah ha passato un anno. Era stato arrestato a Tripoli durante una retata nel quartiere di Abu Selim. E’ scappato durante un ricovero in ospedale. Poi però è stato di nuovo arrestato e portato al carcere di Tuaisha, vicino all’aeroporto di Tripoli. Dove è riuscito a corrompere un poliziotto facendosi inviare 300 dollari dagli amici eritrei in città. Siede vicino a Tadrous. Anche lui eritreo, anche lui disertore in fuga dal suo paese. E’ uscito due settimane fa dal carcere di Surman. Era stato condannato a cinque mesi di galera dopo essere stato trovato in mare con altri 90 passeggeri, a Zuwarah. In carcere si è preso la scabbia. Gli chiediamo di accompagnarci nel quartiere di Gurgi, dove vivono gli eritrei pronti a partire per l’Italia. Dice che è pericoloso. Gli eritrei vivono nascosti. La nostra presenza potrebbe allertare la polizia e provocare una retata. Y. però la pensa diversamente, vive in una zona diversa. Lo seguiamo.

      Scendiamo in una traversa sterrata di Shar‘a Ahad ‘Ashara, l’undicesima strada, a Gurgi. Qui vivono molti immigrati africani. L’appartamento è di proprietà di una famiglia chadiana, che ha affittato a sette eritrei le due piccole stanze sul terrazzo. Ci togliamo le scarpe per entrare. I pavimenti sono coperti di tappeti e coperte. Ci dormono in cinque ragazzi. La televisione, collegata alla grande parabola montata sul terrazzo, manda in onda videoclip in tigrigno di cantanti eritrei. E’ un posto sicuro, dicono, perchè l’ingresso della casa passa dall’appartamento della famiglia chadiana, che è a posto coi documenti. Si sono trasferiti qui da poco, dopo le ultime retate a Shar‘a ‘Ashara. Adesso quando sentono la sirena della polizia non ci fanno più caso. Prima si correvano a nascondere. Ci offrono cioccolata, una salsa di patate e pomodoro con del pane, 7-Up e succo di pera.

      Continuiamo a parlare delle loro esperienze nelle carceri libiche. Ognuno di loro è stato arrestato almeno una volta. E tutti sono usciti grazie alla corruzione. Basta pagare la polizia, da 200 a 500 dollari, per scappare o per non essere arrestati. I soldi arrivano con Western Union, grazie a una rete di solidarietà tra gli eritrei della diaspora, in Europa e in America.

      Anche Robel è stato a Misratah. C’ha passato un anno. Ci mostra il certificato di richiedente asilo rilasciato dall’Acnur. Scade l’11 maggio 2009. Ma con quello non si sente al sicuro. “Un mio amico è stato arrestato lo stesso, glielo hanno strappato sotto gli occhi”. Durante la detenzione, ha scritto un appello alla comunità internazionale, con un gruppo di sei studenti eritrei.

      Sul muro, accanto al poster di Gesù, c’è una foto in bianco e nero di una bambina di pochi anni, con su scritto il suo nome, Delina, con il pennarello. L’ho riconosciuta. E’ la stessa bambina che giocava sulle scale della chiesa con Tadrous. Anche lei dovrà rischiare la vita in mare. “L’importante è arrivare nelle acque internazionali”, dice Y.. Gli intermediari eritrei (dallala) che organizzano i viaggi, hanno diverse reputazioni. Ci sono intermediari spregiudicati e altri di cui ci si può fidare. Ma il rischio rimane. Non posso non pensarci, mentre sull’aereo di ritorno per Malta, comodamente seduto e un po’ annoiato, sfoglio la mia agenda con i numeri di telefono e le email dei ragazzi eritrei conosciuti a Tripoli. Prima della mia partenza per la Libia, un amico etiope mi aveva dato il numero di telefono di un suo compagno di viaggio, ancora a Tripoli, un certo Gibril. Ho provato a chiamarlo per tutto il tempo, ma il numero era spento. Nell’orecchio mi risuona ancora l’incomprensibile messaggio vocale in arabo. Speriamo che sia arrivato in Italia, o piuttosto a Misratah. E non in fondo al mare.


      https://fortresseurope.blogspot.com/2006/01/libia-siamo-entrati-misratah-ecco-la.html

      –---------------------------------

      Frontiera Sahara. I campi di detenzione nel deserto libico
      SEBHA - “Con noi c’era un bambino di quattro anni con la madre, durante tutto il viaggio mi sono domandato: come si può mandare una madre con un bambino di quattro anni insieme ad altre cento persone stipate come animali in un camion come quelli per la frutta, dove non c’è aria e dove stavamo stretti stretti, senza spazio per muoversi, per 21 ore di viaggio, dove le persone urinavano e defecavano davanti a tutti perché non c’era altra possibilità? Abbiamo viaggiato dalle 16:00 alle 13:00 del giorno dopo. Durante il giorno ogni volta che l’autista faceva una sosta per mangiare noi rimanevamo chiusi dentro il rimorchio sotto il sole. Mancava l’aria e tutti si alzavano in preda al panico perché non si respirava e volevamo scendere. Guardare il bambino ci faceva coraggio. Quando il camion si fermava lo prendevamo e lo mettevamo vicino al finestrino. Si chiamava Adam. Il camion si è fermato almeno tre volte nel deserto per far mangiare gli autisti e per la preghiera... Verso l’una siamo arrivati a Kufrah… Quando sono sceso ho rubato il burro con il pane che tenevano appeso fuori dal container. Non avevamo mangiato per tutto il viaggio, eravamo 110 persone, compreso Adam di quattro anni e sua madre”. [1]

      Menghistu non è l’unico a essere stato chiuso dentro un container e deportato. In Libia è la prassi. I container servono a smistare nei vari campi di detenzione i migranti arrestati sulle rotte per Lampedusa. Ne esistono di tre tipi. Il più piccolo è un pick-up furgonato. Quello medio è l’equivalente di un camioncino. E quello più grande è un vero e proprio container, blu, con tre feritoie per lato, trainato da un auto rimorchio. Quando un rifugiato eritreo, nella primavera del 2006, me ne parlò per la prima volta, stentai a crederlo. L’immagine di centinaia di uomini, donne e bambini rinchiusi dentro una scatola di ferro per essere concentrati in dei campi di detenzione e da lì deportati, mi rievocava i fantasmi della seconda guerra mondiale. Mi sembrava troppo. Ma la figura del container ritornava, come un marchio di autenticità, in tutte le storie di rifugiati transitati dalla Libia che avevo intervistato dopo di lui. Finché quei camion ho avuto modo di vederli con i miei occhi.

      A Sebha ce n’è uno per ogni tipo. Siamo alle porte del grande deserto libico, nella capitale della storica regione del Fezzan. Da qui, fino al secolo scorso passavano le carovane che attraversavano il Sahara. Oggi alle carovane si sono sostituiti gli immigrati. Il colonnello Zarruq è il direttore del nuovo centro di detenzione della città. È stato inaugurato lo scorso 20 agosto. I tre capannoni si intravedono oltre il muro di cinta. Ognuno ha quattro camerate, in tutto il centro possono essere detenute fino a 1.000 persone. Nel parcheggio sterrato, è parcheggiato un camion con uno dei container utilizzati per lo smistamento degli immigrati detenuti. Con una pacca sulle spalle, il direttore mi invita a salire sulla motrice. Un Iveco Trakker 420, a sei ruote. Mi indica il tachimetro: 41.377 km. Nuovo di pacca. È rientrato ieri sera da Qatrun, a quattro ore di deserto da qui. A bordo c’erano 100 prigionieri, arrestati alla frontiera con il Niger. Entriamo nel container, dalle scale posteriori. L’ambiente è claustrofobico anche senza nessuno. Difficile immaginarsi cosa possa diventare con 100 o 200 persone ammassate una sull’altra in questa scatola di ferro. I raggi del sole filtrati dalla polvere illuminano le taniche di plastica vuote, a terra, sotto le panche di ferro. Su una c’è scritto Gambia.

      L’acqua è il bagaglio essenziale per i migranti che attraversano il deserto. Ognuno prima di partire si porta dietro una o due taniche. Le riveste di juta per proteggerle dal sole e ci scrive su il proprio nome per riconoscerle una volta appese ai lati dei camion. Nelle traversate del Sahara la vita è appesa a un filo. Se il motore va in panne, se il camion si insabbia, o l’autista decide di abbandonare i passeggeri, è finita. Nel raggio di centinaia di chilometri non c’è altro che sabbia. Muoiono a decine ogni mese, ma le notizie filtrano difficilmente. Sulla stampa internazionale abbiamo censito almeno 1.621 vittime in tutto il Sahara. Ma stando alle testimonianze dei sopravvissuti, ogni viaggio conta i suoi morti. E ogni viaggio conta i suoi attacchi da parte di bande armate in Niger e Algeria.

      Tra i cento migranti arrivati a Sebha nel container di ieri c’è anche una famiglia di Sikasso, in Mali. Padre, madre e bambino. Arrestati tre giorni prima, a Ghat, alla frontiera con l’Algeria. Li incontriamo nell’ufficio del direttore. Il piccolino ha otto anni, faceva la terza elementare. Il padre lo stringe affettuosamente tra le forti braccia, mentre racconta in arabo, al nostro interprete, che lui in Europa non ci voleva andare. Che era venuto a Sebha perché aveva già lavorato qui nel 2002, con una compagnia tedesca. Hanno con sé i passaporti, ma senza il visto libico. Nel campo sono chiusi in celle separate. Il bimbo sta con la madre. I loro nomi compaiono sulle liste dei prossimi aerei pronti a partire. Nei primi undici mesi dell’anno, soltanto da Sebha, hanno deportato più di 9.000 persone, soprattutto nigeriani, maliani, nigerini, ghanesi, senegalesi e burkinabé. Solo a novembre i rimpatri sono stati 1.120. Zarruq mi mostra l’elenco dei voli: 467 nigeriani deportati il 2 settembre, 420 maliani a metà novembre. Le ambasciate mandano qui i loro funzionari per identificare i propri cittadini, e poi si provvede al rimpatrio. Kabbiun e Ajouas hanno già incontrato l’ambasciata nigeriana. I piedi di Kabbiun sono scalzi. Lo hanno arrestato a Ghat, le scarpe le ha lasciate in mezzo al deserto. Ajouas invece viveva a Tripoli da sei anni. Nessuno di loro ha visto un giudice o un avvocato. Avviene tutto senza convalida e senza nessuna possibilità di presentare ricorso e tantomeno di chiedere asilo politico.

      È il caso di Patrick. Viene dalla Repubblica democratica del Congo, recentemente tornata alle cronache per la crisi nella regione del Kivu. È stato arrestato un mese fa a Tripoli, mentre cercava lavoro alla giornata sotto i cavalcavia di Suq Thalatha. Possiamo parlare liberamente in francese, perché l’interprete non lo conosce. Mi porge un foglio spiegazzato dalla tasca. È il suo certificato di richiedente asilo politico. Rilasciato dall’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i Rifugiati (Acnur) a Tripoli, il nove ottobre 2007. Qua dentro è carta straccia. Come gli altri detenuti, Patrick non ha diritto di telefonare a nessuno, nemmeno all’Acnur. Se non trova prima i soldi per corrompere qualche poliziotto, anche lui, prima o poi, sarà deportato. E come lui i suoi compagni di cella. Sono camerate di otto metri per otto. I detenuti sono buttati per terra su stuoini e cartoni. La luce entra dalle vetrate in cima alle alte pareti. Ogni camerata è riempita con 60-70 persone. Stanno chiusi tutto il giorno, escono solo per i pasti, in un locale adibito a mensa, accanto a un piccolo chiosco dove i detenuti possono comprare bibite, dolci o medicine, sempre all’interno del muro di cinta.

      Le compagnie aeree che si occupano delle deportazioni sono libiche: Ifriqiya e Buraq Air. I soldi pure, garantisce il direttore. Ma è difficile credergli. Dopotutto il rapporto della Commissione europea del dicembre 2004 parlava già allora di 47 voli di rimpatrio finanziati dall’Italia. Zarruq scuote il capo. Dice che da Roma hanno avuto soltanto due fuoristrada per il pattugliamento, con il progetto Across Sahara. E il nuovo centro di detenzione? Ha finanziato tutto la Libia, insiste. Ammette però che l’Italia si era impegnata a costruire un nuovo centro, e che la a sha‘abiyah, la municipalità, aveva anche predisposto un terreno. Ma poi non se ne è fatto niente. Intanto però il vecchio campo è stato restaurato e ampliato, grazie anche ai lavori forzati degli immigrati detenuti. Questo Zarruq non me lo può dire, ma sono voci che corrono tra i rimpatriati, dall’altro lato della frontiera, a Agadez, in Niger. Ad ogni modo, insiste, oggi tutti i rimpatri avvengono in aereo, anche quelli verso il Niger: Sono passati i tempi dei cosiddetti “rimpatri volontari”, quando, nel 2004, oltre 18.000 nigerini e non solo vennero caricati sui camion e abbandonati alla frontiera in pieno deserto, con le decine di vittime che ne seguirono a causa degli incidenti.

      Ma Zarruq non ha intenzione di parlare di questo. E nemmeno il luogo tenente Ghrera. È lui il responsabile delle pattuglie nel Sahara. L’Italia e l’Europa si sono impegnate a finanziare alla Libia un sistema di controllo elettronico delle frontiere terrestri, firmato FinMeccanica. Lui alla sola idea sorride. Lavora nel deserto da 35 anni. Conosce bene il terreno. Per darci un’idea ci accompagna a Zellaf, 20 km a sud di Sebha. Ancora non siamo nel grande Sahara. Eppure davanti a noi non si vede che sabbia. I due fuoristrada, dopo una corsa a cento km all’ora sulle dune, fermano i motori. Ghrera e l’altro autista, ‘Ali, si lavano le mani nella sabbia. E si inginocchiano verso est. Dopo la preghiera, si riavvicinano. Controllare le rotte nel Sahara è impossibile, dice. Sono 5.000 km di deserto. Un’area troppo vasta e un terreno troppo accidentato Gli 89 autisti – quasi tutti libici – arrestati nei primi undici mesi del 2008 sono un’inezia rispetto alle migliaia di persone che attraversano il Sahara ogni anno. Alle missioni di pattugliamento partecipano gruppi di 10 fuoristrada. Stanno fuori per cinque giorni, ci spiega. Poi sorride. Ha trovato una bottiglia vuota di Gin, per terra. L’alcol in Libia è illegale. E infatti sulla bottiglia c’è scritto fabriqué au Niger, prodotto in Niger. Ghrera lancia la bottiglia nella sabbia, poco lontano. Non dice niente. I traffici non riguardano solo gli immigrati. Ci sono l’alcol, le sigarette, la droga, le armi. Prima di riaccendere il motore ribadisce il concetto: anche con il doppio delle pattuglie, il deserto rimane una porta aperta.

      Il centro di detenzione di Sebha non è l’unico campo di detenzione al sud. Ce ne sono almeno altri cinque. Quelli di Shati, Qatrun, Ghat e Brak, nel sud ovest del paese, fanno capo a Sebha, nel senso che gli immigrati arrestati in queste località vengono poi smistati a Sebha dentro i container. L’altro campo si trova 800 km a sud est, a Kufrah, e lì vengono detenuti i rifugiati eritrei e etiopi in arrivo dal Sudan. È il carcere che gode della peggiore fama, tra gli stessi libici.

      Mohamed Tarnish è il presidente dell’Organizzazione per i diritti umani, una ong libica finanziata dalla Fondazione di Saif al Islam Gheddafi, il primogenito del colonnello. Ci incontriamo al Caffè Sarayah, a due passi dalla Piazza Verde, a Tripoli. La sua organizzazione, sotto la guida del suo predecessore, Jum‘a Atigha, ha ottenuto il rilascio di circa 1.000 prigionieri politici e si è battuta per il miglioramento delle condizioni delle carceri libiche. Da un paio d’anni hanno accesso anche ai centri di detenzione degli immigrati. Ne hanno visitati sette. Ha la bocca cucita, davanti a noi c’è un funzionario dell’agenzia per la stampa estera del governo libico. Ma riesce comunque a farci capire che il centro di Kufrah è il peggiore. Le condizioni del vecchio fabbricato, il sovraffollamento, la scadenza del cibo e l’assenza di assistenza sanitaria.

      Per capire il significato delle allusioni di Tarnish, rileggo le interviste fatte ai rifugiati eritrei ed etiopi nel 2007.“Dormivamo in 78 in una cella di sei metri per otto” - “Dormivamo per terra, la testa accanto ai piedi dei vicini” - “Ci tenevano alla fame. Un piatto di riso lo potevamo dividere anche in otto persone” - “Di notte mi portavano in cortile. Mi chiedevano di fare le flessioni. Quando non ce la facevo più mi riempivano di calci e maledivano me e la mia religione cristiana” – “Usavamo un solo bagno in 60, nella cella c’era un odore perenne di scarico. Era impossibile lavarsi” - “C’erano pidocchi e pulci dappertutto, nel materasso, nei vestiti, nei capelli” - “I poliziotti entravano nella stanza, prendevano una donna e la violentavano in gruppo davanti a tutti”. È il ritratto di un girone infernale. Ma anche di un luogo di affari. Sì perché da un paio d’anni la polizia è solita vendere i detenuti agli stessi intermediari che poi li porteranno sul Mediterraneo. Il prezzo di un uomo si aggira sui 30 dinari, circa 18 euro.

      Non sono stato autorizzato a visitare il centro di Kufrah e non ho potuto verificare di persona. Tuttavia il fatto che le versioni dei tanti rifugiati con cui ho parlato coincidano nel disegnare un luogo di abusi, violenze e torture, mi fa pensare che sia tutto vero. Nel 2004 la Commissione europea riferiva che l’Italia stava finanziando il centro di detenzione di Kufrah. Nel 2007 il governo Prodi smentiva la notizia, dicendo che si trattava di un centro di assistenza sanitaria. Poco importa. Dal 2003, Italia e Unione Europea finanziano operazioni di contrasto dell’immigrazione in Libia. La domanda è la seguente: perché fingono tutti di non sapere?

      Nel 2005, il prefetto Mario Mori, ex direttore del Sisde, informava il Copaco: “I clandestini [in Libia, ndr.] vengono accalappiati come cani... e liberati in centri... dove i sorveglianti per entrare devono mettere i fazzoletti intorno alla bocca per gli odori nauseabondi”. Ma i funzionari della polizia italiana sapevano già tutto. Già perché dal 2004 alcuni agenti fanno attività di formazione in Libia. E alcuni funzionari del ministero dell’Interno, hanno visitato in più occasioni i centri di detenzione libici, Kufrah compreso, limitandosi a non rilasciare dichiarazioni. E l’ipocrita Unione Europea? Il rapporto della Commissione europea del 2004, definisce le condizioni dei campi di detenzione libici “difficili” ma in fin dei conti “accettabili alla luce del contesto generale”. Tre anni dopo, nel maggio 2007, una delegazione di Frontex visitò il sud della Libia, compreso il carcere di Kufrah, per gettare le basi di una futura cooperazione. Indovinate cosa scrisse? “Abbiamo apprezzato tanto la diversità quanto la vastità del deserto”. Sulle condizioni del centro di detenzione però preferì sorvolare. Una dimenticanza?

      [1] Testimonianza raccolta dalla scuola di italiano Asinitas, Roma, 2007


      https://fortresseurope.blogspot.com/2006/01/frontiera-sahara-i-campi-di-detenzione.html

      –---------------------------------

      Guantanamo Libia. Il nuovo gendarme delle frontiere italiane

      La porta di ferro è chiusa a doppia mandata. Dalla piccola feritoia si affacciano i volti di due ragazzi africani e un di egiziano. L’odore acre che esce dalla cella mi brucia le narici. Chiedo ai tre di spostarsi. La vista si apre su due stanze di tre metri per quattro. Incrocio gli sguardi di una trentina di persone. Ammassati uno sull’altro. A terra vedo degli stuoini e qualche lercio materassino in gommapiuma. Sui muri qualcuno ha scritto Guantanamo. Ma non siamo nella base americana. Siamo a Zlitan, in Libia. E i detenuti non sono presunti terroristi, ma immigrati arrestati a sud di Lampedusa e lasciati marcire in carceri fatiscenti finanziate in parte dall’Italia e dall’Unione europea.

      I prigionieri si accalcano contro la porta della cella. Non ricevono visite da mesi. Alcuni alzano la voce: “Aiutateci!”. Un ragazzo allunga la mano oltre quelli della prima fila e mi porge un pezzettino di cartone. C’è scritto sopra un numero di telefono, a penna. Il prefisso è quello del Gambia. Lo metto in tasca prima che la polizia se ne accorga. Il ragazzo si chiama Outhman. Mi chiede di dire a sua madre che è ancora vivo. È in carcere da cinque mesi. Fabrice invece non esce da questa cella da nove mesi. Entrambi sono stati arrestati durante le retate nei quartieri degli immigrati a Tripoli. Da anni la polizia libica è impegnata in simili operazioni. Da quando nel 2003 l’Italia siglò con Gheddafi un accordo di collaborazione per il contrasto dell’immigrazione, e spedì oltremare motovedette, fuoristrada e sacchi da morto, insieme ai soldi necessari a pagare voli di rimpatrio e tre campi di detenzione. Da allora decine di migliaia di immigrati e rifugiati ogni anno sono arrestati dalla polizia libica e detenuti nei circa 20 centri fatiscenti sparsi per il paese, in attesa del rimpatrio. Insieme a un collega tedesco, siamo i primi giornalisti autorizzati a visitare questi centri.

      “La gente soffre! Il cibo è pessimo, l’acqua è sporca. Ci sono donne malate e altre incinte”. Gift ha 29 anni. Viene dalla Nigeria. Indossa ancora il vestito che aveva quando l’arrestarono tre mesi fa, ormai ridotto a uno straccio sporco e consumato. Stava passeggiando con il marito. Non avevano documenti e furono arrestati. Non lo vede da allora, lui nel frattempo è stato rimpatriato. Dice di avere lasciato i due figli a Tripoli. Di loro non ha più notizie. Viveva in Libia da tre anni. Lavorava come parrucchiera e non aveva nessuna intenzione di attraversare il Canale di Sicilia. Come molti degli immigrati detenuti dai nuovi gendarmi della frontiera italiana.

      All’Europa invece aveva pensato Y.. C’aveva pensato e come. Disertore dell’esercito eritreo, per chiedere asilo politico, si era imbarcato due mesi fa per Lampedusa. Ma è stato fermato in mare. Dai libici. Da quel giorno è rinchiuso a Zlitan. Anche lui senza nessuna convalida dello stato d’arresto. Prima di farlo entrare nello studio del direttore, un poliziotto gli sussurra qualcosa all’orecchio. Lui fa cenno di sì col capo. Quando gli chiediamo delle condizioni del centro, risponde “Everything is good”. Va tutto bene. È spaventato a morte. Sa che ogni risposta sbagliata gli può costare un pestaggio. Il direttore del campo, Ahmed Salim, sorride compiaciuto delle risposte e ci assicura che non sarà deportato. Nel giro di qualche settimana sarà trasferito al centro di detenzione di Misratah, 210 km a est di Tripoli, dove sono concentrati i prigionieri di nazionalità eritrea.

      Nella provincia esistono altri tre centri di detenzione per stranieri, a Khums, Garabulli e Bin Ulid. Ma sono strutture più piccole e i detenuti vengono poi tradotti nel campo di Zlitan, che può rinchiudere fino a 325 persone, in attesa del loro rimpatrio. Ma quanti sono i centri di detenzione in tutta la Libia? Sulla base delle testimonianze raccolte in questi anni, ne abbiamo contati 28, perlopiù concentrati sulla costa. Ne esistono di tre tipi. Ci sono dei veri e propri centri di raccolta, come quelli di Sebha, Zlitan, Zawiyah, Kufrah e Misratah, dove vengono concentrati i migranti e i rifugiati arrestati durante le retate o alla frontiera. Poi ci sono strutture più piccole, come quelle di Qatrun, Brak, Shati, Ghat, Khums… dove gli stranieri sono detenuti per un breve periodo prima di essere inviati nei centri di raccolta. E poi ci sono le prigioni: Jadida, Fellah, Twaisha, Ain Zarah… Prigioni comuni, nelle quali intere sezioni sono dedicate alla detenzione degli stranieri senza documenti. Anche nelle prigioni, le condizioni di detenzione sono pessime. Scabbia, parassiti e infezioni sono il minimo che ci si possa prendere. Molte donne sono colpite da infezioni vaginali. E non mancano i decessi, dovuti perlopiù all’assenza di assistenza sanitaria o a ricoveri ospedalieri troppo tardivi. Il nome più ricorrente nei racconti dei migranti è quello del carcere di Fellah, a Tripoli, che però è stato recentemente demolito per far spazio a un grande cantiere edilizio, in linea con il restyling di tutta la città. La sua funzione è stata sostituita dal Twaisha, un’altra prigione vicino all’aeroporto.

      Koubros è riuscito a scappare da Twaisha poche settimane fa. È un rifugiato eritreo di 27 anni. Viveva in Sudan, ma dopo che un amico eritreo è stato rimpatriato da Khartoum, non si è più sentito al sicuro e ha pensato all’Europa. Da Twaisha è uscito sulle stampelle. Non poteva pagare la cifra che gli aveva chiesto un poliziotto ubriaco. Allora l’hanno portato fuori dalla cella e preso a manganellate. È uscito grazie a una colletta tra i prigionieri eritrei. Per corrompere una delle guardie carcerarie sono bastati 300 dollari. Lo incontro davanti alla chiesa di San Francesco, a Tripoli. Come ogni venerdì, una cinquantina di migranti africani aspetta l’apertura dello sportello sociale della Caritas. Tadrous è uno di loro. È stato rilasciato lo scorso sei ottobre dal carcere di Surman. È uno dei pochi ad essere stato giudicato da una corte. La sua storia mi interessa. Era il giugno del 2008. Si erano imbarcati da Zuwarah, in 90. Ma dopo poche ore decisero di invertire la rotta, perché il mare era in tempesta. E tornarono indietro. Appena toccata terra furono arrestati e portati nella prigione di Surman. Il giudice li condannò a 5 mesi di carcere per emigrazione illegale. Finiti i quali è stato rilasciato. Gli chiedo se gli fu dato un avvocato d’ufficio. Sorride scuotendo la testa. La risposta è negativa.

      Niente di strano, sostiene l’avvocato Abdussalam Edgaimish. La legge libica non prevede il gratuito patrocinio per reati passibili di pene inferiori a tre anni. Edgaimish è il direttore dell’ordine degli avvocati di Tripoli. Ci riceve nel suo studio in via primo settembre. Ci spiega che tutte le pratiche di arresto e detenzione sono svolte come procedure amministrative, senza nessuna convalida del giudice. Senza nessuna base legale dunque, ma solo sull’onda dell’emergenza. Anche in Libia una persona non potrebbe essere privata della libertà senza un mandato d’arresto. Ma questa è la teoria. La pratica invece è quella delle retate casa per casa nei sobborghi di Tripoli.

      “I migranti sono vittime di una cospirazione tra le due rive del Mediterraneo. L’Europa vede soltanto un problema di sicurezza, nessuno vuole parlare dei loro diritti”. Anche Jumaa Atigha è un avvocato di Tripoli. Nella parete del suo ufficio è appesa una Laurea in Diritto penale dell’Università La Sapienza, di Roma, conferita nel 1983. Dal 1999 ha presieduto l’Organizzazione per i diritti umani della Fondazione guidata dal primogenito di Gheddafi, Saif al Islam. Lo scorso anno si è dimesso. Dal 2003 ha condotto una campagna che ha portato alla liberazione di 1.000 prigionieri politici. Ci descrive un paese in rapido cambiamento, ma ancora lontano da una situazione ideale sul fronte delle libertà individuali e politiche. In Libia non c’è nessuna legge sull’asilo, ci conferma, ma in compenso una commissione si sta occupando di scrivere un nuova legge sull’immigrazione.

      Atigha conosce personalmente le condizioni di detenzione in Libia. Dal 1991 al 1998 è stato incarcerato, senza processo, come prigioniero politico. Ci dice che la tortura è comunemente praticata dalla polizia libica. “Dal 2003 abbiamo fatto una campagna contro la tortura nelle carceri. Abbiamo organizzato conferenze, visitato le prigioni, fatto dei corsi agli ufficiali di polizia. La mancanza di consapevolezza fa sì che la polizia pratichi la tortura pensando così di servire la giustizia”.

      Mustafa O. Attir la pensa allo stesso modo. Insegna sociologia all’Università El Fatah di Tripoli. “Non è un problema di razzismo. I libici sono gentili con gli stranieri. È un problema di polizia”. Attir sa quello che dice. È entrato nelle carceri libiche come ricercatore nel 1972, nel 1984 e nel 1986. Gli agenti di polizia non hanno istruzione - sostiene -, e sono educati al concetto di punizione.

      Le sue parole mi fanno ripensare ai parrucchieri ghanesi nella medina, ai sarti chadiani, ai negozianti sudanesi, ai camerieri egiziani, alle donne delle pulizie marocchine e agli spazzini africani che armati di scope di bambù ogni notte ripuliscono le vie dei mercati della capitale. Mentre gli eritrei si nascondono nei sobborghi di Gurji e Krimia, migliaia di immigrati africani vivono e lavorano, in condizioni di sfruttamento, ma con relativa tranquillità. Sicuramente per sudanesi e chadiani è tutto più facile. Parlano arabo e sono musulmani. La loro presenza in Libia è decennale e quindi tollerata. Lo stesso per egiziani e marocchini. Al contrario eritrei ed etiopi sono qui esclusivamente per il passaggio in Europa. Spesso non parlano arabo. Spesso sono cristiani. E i loro nonni combattevano contro i libici a fianco delle truppe coloniali italiane. E poi si sa che hanno spesso in tasca i soldi per la traversata. Per cui diventano facile mira di piccoli delinquenti e poliziotti corrotti. Per i nigeriani, e più in generale i sub-sahariani anglofoni, è ancora diverso. Che siano diretti in Europa oppure no, il loro destino in Libia si scontra sistematicamente contro il pregiudizio che si è venuto a creare contro i nigeriani, sulla scia di qualche fatto di cronaca nera. Sono accusati di portare droga, alcol e prostituzione, di essere autori di rapine e omicidi, e di diffondere il virus dell’Hiv.

      Il professor Attir, nel 2007, ha organizzato tre seminari sul tema dell’immigrazione nei paesi arabi. In Libia è uno dei massimi esperti. Ed è pronto a smentire la cifre che circolano in Europa. “Due milioni di immigrati in Libia pronti a partire per l’Italia? Non è vero”. In realtà non esistono statistiche di nessun tipo. Ma solo stime. Che però – secondo Attir – non sono attendibili. Basta dare un occhio in giro. La popolazione libica è di cinque milioni e mezzo di persone. Gli stranieri non possono ragionevolmente essere più di un milione, compresi gli immigrati arabi egiziani, tunisini, algerini e marocchini. La maggior parte di loro non ha mai pensato all’Europa. E la Libia ha bisogno di loro, perché è un paese sottopopolato e perché i libici non vogliono più fare lavori pesanti e mal retribuiti. Attir è consapevole delle pressioni che l’Europa sta facendo sulla Libia perché sigilli le sue frontiere. Ma sa che “non c’è modo per farlo”.

      La Libia ha circa 1.800 km di costa, in buona parte disabitati. Il colonnello Khaled Musa, capo delle pattuglie anti immigrazione a Zuwarah, non sa che farsene delle sei motovedette promesse dall’Italia. Potrebbero servire a pattugliare meglio il tratto di mare tra la frontiera tunisina, Ras Jdayr, e Sabratah, ammette. Ma sono solo 100 km. Il 6% della costa libica. E le partenze si sono già spostate sul litorale a est di Tripoli, tra Khums e Zlitan, a più di 200 km da Zuwarah. Il dipartimento anti immigrazione di Zuwarah è nato nel 2005. Il numero di migranti arrestati è sceso da 5.963 nel 2005 a soli 1.132 nel 2007. Per il capo del dipartimento investigazioni, Sala el Ahrali, i dati indicano il successo delle misure repressive. Molti degli organizzatori dei viaggi sono stati arrestati, questo sarebbe il motivo per cui le partenze si sono ridotte. E la costa è più controllata. Ogni dieci chilometri è installata una tenda, in mezzo alla spiaggia. Serve da appoggio ai fuoristrada della polizia, che da due anni pattugliano la litoranea, appoggiati da quattro motovedette della marina. Il tratto di costa attualmente pattugliato è di una cinquantina di chilometri. Parte da Farwah, a una decina di chilometri dalla frontiera tunisina, e finisce 15 km a est di Zuwarah, a Mellitah, nei pressi dell’imponente impianto di trattamento del gas di proprietà dell’Eni e della libica National Oil Company.

      E proprio da Mellitah parte il #Greenstream, il gasdotto sottomarino più lungo del Mediterraneo. Collega la Libia a Gela, in Sicilia. Ironia della sorte, corre lungo la stessa rotta che porta i migranti a Lampedusa. Come dire che mentre sulla superficie del mare l’Europa dispiega le sue forze militari per bloccare il transito degli esseri umani, otto miliardi di metri cubi di gas ogni anno scorrono silenziosi nei 520 km di condotta posata sui fondali di quello stesso mare, in mezzo alle ossa delle migliaia di uomini e donne morti nella traversata del Canale di Sicilia. Un’immagine che sintetizza perfettamente le relazioni degli ultimi cinque anni tra Roma e Tripoli, condotte all’insegna dello slogan “più petrolio e meno immigrati”.

      https://fortresseurope.blogspot.com/2006/01/guantanamo-libia-il-nuovo-gendarme.html
      #gazoduc

      –---------------------------------

      Liens qu’il a mis aujourd’hui sur FB pour accompagner ce message:

      Non conosco nessuno dell’equipaggio di #Lifeline, la nave della ONG accusata dal ministro Salvini di aver agito fuorilegge soccorrendo 239 passeggeri in difficoltà in acque libiche. Purtroppo però conosco bene le carceri libiche. Fui il primo giornalista italiano a visitarle nel 2008 insieme al collega e amico Roman Herzog. Abusi, pestaggi, violenze sulle donne erano la norma già allora. Gli unici che si salvavano erano quelli che riuscivano a farsi mandare abbastanza soldi dai familiari in Europa con cui corrompevano facilmente le guardie colluse con le mafie del contrabbando per farsi rilasciare e tentare di nuovo la traversata. Gli altri, dopo mesi di prigione in condizioni inumane venivano rimpatriati sui voli dell’OIM oppure, molto più spesso, stipati come vuoti a rendere dentro i container dei camion che prendevano la via del deserto, per decine di ore, mentre sotto il sole le lamiere di ferro diventavano un forno, per essere infine abbandonati alla frontiera sud con il Niger e il Sudan, in una terra di nessuno. E quanti ne sono morti anche lì, in mezzo al Sahara. Con molti giornalisti e documentaristi abbiamo denunciato questa situazione fin dal 2007. Da quando Prodi e Amato negoziarono gli accordi di respingimento con Gheddafi a quando Berlusconi e Maroni li misero in pratica nel 2009. Da allora sembra non essere cambiato molto. E allora, pur non conoscendoli, mi azzardo a pensare che l’equipaggio della #Lifeline abbia disobbedito all’ordine di consegnare i passeggeri alla guardia costiera libica temendo per il destino di quegli uomini, di quelle donne e di quei bambini, immaginando il triste destino che li attendeva nelle prigioni oltremare.

      Dopodiché se il comportamento della #Lifeline costituisca un reato lo deciderà un giudice anche alla luce di queste considerazioni. Perché quello che il ministro Salvini si dimentica di ricordare è che la Libia non è Malta, non è la Spagna, non è la Francia. La Libia di oggi non è un paese sicuro.

      Ciononostante, attenzione, gli sbarchi devono cessare. Ma come si fa?

      Si aprono vie legali. Perché, ministro, da contribuenti italiani non vogliamo finanziare altre prigioni in Libia. Vogliamo finanziare asili nido, scuole, parchi, ospedali. Non vogliamo continuare a finanziare le milizie colluse con le stesse mafie del contrabbando che dite di voler combattere.

      Per sconfiggere quelle mafie, azzerare gli sbarchi e porre fine alle tragedie delle traversate c’è un unico modo: legalizzare l’emigrazione Africa-Europa. Perché fin quando quell’emigrazione sarà illegale, ci sarà qualche mafia pronta a lucrarci. Oggi i libici, domani gli egiziani o i tunisini. Il mare è grande e incontrollabile.

      La soluzione sarebbe così semplice che è incredibile credere che i vostri consiglieri non ve l’abbiano prospettata. Andate in Europa e chiedete a gran voce che le ambasciate UE in Africa riaprano i canali legali dei visti che hanno progressivamente chiuso in questi ultimi vent’anni, spingendo centinaia di migliaia di giovani nelle mani del contrabbando libico a cui abbiamo concesso il monopolio della mobilità sud-nord in questo mare.

      Calcolate quante persone ogni anno attraversano il mare per rimanere bloccati in Italia, senza documenti e senza lavoro. Calcolate quanti sono e rilasciate lo stesso numero di visti per ricerca di lavoro. Affinché quelle stesse persone possano comodamente imbarcarsi in aereo, con in tasca un passaporto e un visto europeo liberi di circolare in tutta Europa, ricongiungersi con i propri familiari e cercare lavoro là dove il lavoro c’è, in quel centro e nord Europa che in questi anni ha importato milioni di lavoratori dall’est mentre noi a sud predicavamo il blocco navale e continuavamo a contare i morti.

      In caso contrario, signor ministro, siate più chiari. Dite semplicemente che di negri in Europa non volete vederne. Né per le vie legali né per quelle illegali.

      https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2121309374549318&id=100000108285082

    • La zona SAR libica non esiste. Il grande inganno nel rimbalzo dei soccorsi

      "Una zona SAR libica ad oggi non esiste”, spiega Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, avvocato, esperto di immigrazione, membro del direttivo di Osservatorio Solidarietà. “E non esiste in quanto il governo di Tripoli non ha soddisfatto i requisiti imposti dall’IMO (Organizzazione marittima internazionale) per il riconoscimento delle zone SAR”, aggiunge l’avvocato.

      I requisiti consistono nell’accordo tra lo Stato che si pone come responsabile delle operazioni di salvataggio in una propria area di mare l’Organizzazione marittima internazionale (IMO). A quel punto i dati della zona SAR devono essere inseriti in un database ufficiale e pubblico, il GISIS. A marzo, in seguito al caso Open Arms, Famiglia Cristiana aveva fatto una verifica con l’IMO e la risposta ricevuta era stata: “La Libia non ha inviato le sue informazioni”.

      “Quasi tutte le operazioni di soccorso in acque internazionali nelle ultime settimane sono state coordinate dal Comando della Guardia costiera italiana proprio perché la Libia non esiste come paese unitario e non ha un Comando centrale unificato”, aggiunge Vassallo Paleologo.

      “Ma tutto è cambiato dal caso Aquarius”. Infatti da alcuni giorni anche sul sito dell’IMO compare il riferimento alla zona SAR libica “ma continua a non esistere uno stato unitario e anche le guardie costiere delle diverse città rispondono a milizie diverse“, avverte l’avvocato. “Alla fine il risultato è che il trasferimento di competenze ai libici e l’allontanamento delle Ong produce un ritardo nei soccorsi, un amento delle vittime e delle persone riportate nei centri di detenzione in Libia dove continuano gli abusi”.

      Esiste invece una zona SAR maltese. Ma Malta ha dichiarato unilateralmente la sua zona di ricerca e soccorso, un’area molto ampia che però non è riconosciuta dalle autorità marittime internazionali poiché il Governo de la Valletta non ha mai sottoscritto alcune modifiche della convenzione di Amburgo del 1979 e della convenzione #Solas introdotte nel 2004. Queste norme prevedono che lo sbarco avvenga nel paese che ha coordinato i soccorsi, e da sempre in quel tratto di mare i soccorsi sono stati coordinati dall’Italia. Quindi, in base al diritto internazionale e alla prassi i soccorsi coordinati dall’Italia hanno sempre indicato un porto di sbarco italiano.

      http://osservatoriosolidarieta.org/la-zona-sar-libica-non-esiste-il-grande-inganno-nel-rimbalz
      #Malte #SAR

    • Conséquences pour les droits de l’homme de la « dimension extérieure » de la politique d’asile et de migration de l’Union européenne : loin des yeux, loin des droits ?

      Les objectifs de la délégation des procédures de migration aux pays en dehors des frontières de l’Union européenne sont, entre autres, d’alléger la pression migratoire des États membres aux frontières de l’UE et de réduire le besoin des migrants d’entreprendre des voyages terrestres et maritimes potentiellement mortels. La réinstallation dans toute l’Europe devrait ensuite faciliter un afflux plus régulier sur le continent. Cependant, le transfert des responsabilités et l’engagement de pays tiers dans le renforcement de contrôles aux frontières de l’UE comportent de sérieux risques pour les droits de l’homme. Il augmente le risque que les migrants soient « bloqués » dans les pays de transit par la réadmission et le recours accru à des mesures punitives et restrictives telles que le refoulement, la rétention arbitraire et les mauvais traitements. C’est également un moyen pour de nombreux États membres de l’Union européenne de prendre leurs distances par rapport à la question de l’assistance et de l’intégration des réfugiés, qui est source de divisions politiques.

      Ce #rapport exhorte les États membres à œuvrer ensemble pour que le recours accru à des politiques de dissuasion ne porte pas atteinte au devoir des États européens de respecter et de défendre les droits de l’homme à l’échelle mondiale et à s’abstenir d’externaliser le contrôle des migrations vers les pays où la législation, les politiques et les pratiques ne respectent pas les normes de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et de la Convention des Nations Unies relative au statut des réfugiés.

      http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-fr.asp?fileid=24808&lang=fr

    • Sahel, la France en guerre ?

      Au Mali, alors que la campagne pour les élections présidentielles du 29 juillet bat son plein, l’insécurité liée au terrorisme grandit. La France a-t-elle encore un rôle a jouer ? Elle a depuis 2013 une forte présence militaire entre le Sahel et le Sahara, mais quelle place tient-elle dans la guerre contre le terrorisme ?

      Sahel, la France en guerre ? Par David Dominé-Cohn ntoine de Saint-Exupéry dans Terre des hommes (1939) dresse le portrait des officiers français des compagnies méharistes au Sahara. Développées à partir de 1897 par le commandant Laperrine, ces unités d’infanterie, relevant pour partie de la Légion étrangère, apparentées aussi aux spahis, ont effectué un travail de police et de contrôle des populations des oasis. Chez l’écrivain, le capitaine Bonnafous exerce son autorité, fascinante pour l’observateur occidental, dans un mélange d’héroïsme, d’humanité et d’extrême violence : « À cause de Bonnafous chaque pas vers le sud devient un pas riche de gloire »… et d’insurrections des populations locales.

      Les grandes formes historiques semblent se reproduire dans le désert. Depuis 2013, la France entretient une présence militaire entre le Sahel et le Sahara : 4500 hommes au printemps 2018. Avec 500 opérations en trois ans et demi, l’objectif affiché est d’abord de maintenir la pression sur les groupes terroristes et d’apporter un soutien à la population locale. Les attaques terroristes sur place sont l’occasion de s’interroger sur l’espace du Sahara et du Sahel comme étant redevenu un espace majeur d’action militaire de la France. Témoignant dans le livre de David Revault d’Allones, Les guerres du président (2015), Sacha Mandel, plume de Jean-Yves Le Drian, revendique le terme de guerre pour ce qui a causé, pour la France 22 morts et des dizaines de blessés et des centaines morts et de blessés pour les adversaires. Or peut-on faire la guerre au terrorisme ?

      Faire la « guerre au #Mali » puis faire la guerre au #terrorisme

      L’intervention française au Mali avec l’opération Serval commence le 11 janvier 2013 pour soutenir l’État malien dans la reprise des villes du pays contrôlées par une alliance entre le MNLA (Mouvement national de libération de l’Azawad) touareg, qui réclame le développement et l’indépendance du Nord du pays, l’Azawad, et des mouvements islamistes comme Ansar Dine et le MUJAO (Mouvement pour l’unicité et le jihad en Afrique de l’Ouest) et d’autres issus de la guerre civile algérienne des années 1990 comme AQMI. Les opérations militaires françaises, appuyées par les forces des États voisins, visent d’abord à sécuriser Bamako, comme l’affirme le président Hollande le 15 janvier aux Émirats Arabes Unis. La boucle du fleuve Niger est reprise entre le 22 et le 28 janvier, la ville de Gao le 25. Le 27 janvier par une opération aéroportée de la Légion, Tombouctou est contrôlée, puis Kidal le 30. En février et mars les forces avancent vers le nord, vers Tesslit et Tigharghâr, pendant que Gao connaît un regain de violence et d’actes terroristes kamikazes comme dans la nuit du 9 au 10 février. Un effort important est fait pour séparer les mouvements de l’Azawad des islamistes. Ainsi, le général tchadien Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno déclare le 11 janvier à RFI que ses troupes, qui occupent la ville, entretiennent de bonnes relations avec le MNLA. Le 2 février, dans un discours à Bamako, François Hollande considère l’action française comme inachevée et se donne comme objectif l’éradication du terrorisme. Les opérations antiterroristes scandent toute la seconde moitié de l’année 2013 et le début de 2014. Le 1er août 2014, l’opération Serval et l’opération Épervier au Tchad sont regroupées dans l’opération Barkhane qui porte sur l’ensemble de la bande sahélo-saharienne. Michel Galy (La guerre au Mali. Comprendre la crise au Sahel et au Sahara. Enjeux et zones d’ombre, 2013) rappelle que l’intervention française s’inscrit à la fois dans une forme de tradition française et dans un contexte général de transformation de la région. Au-delà de la remise en cause du mode de gouvernement du président Amadou Toumani Touré, les différents mouvements indépendantistes ou djihadistes s’inscrivent dans des enjeux régionaux où pèsent certains voisins du Maghreb, les puissances d’Afrique de l’Ouest et de toutes les grandes puissances mondiales occidentales ou orientales. Elles sont attentives au développement des mouvements terroristes se revendiquant de l’islam mais aussi à une région de plus en plus stratégique, jeune, au sous-sol très riche et qui sera un foyer de peuplement du XXI siècle.

      De la ligne de front à une ligne de postes

      Barkhane est devenue une opération de surveillance anti-terroriste d’un territoire immense à partir de postes avancés en liaison avec les forces locales. Le 18 avril 2018, Michel Cambon, président de la commission sénatoriale des affaires étrangères, de la défense et des forces armées souligne que dans ce cadre, la stratégie française est celle de « coups de poing » menées par des forces spéciales basées à Ouagadougou grâce au dispositif Sabre. Celui-ci est ancien, plus ancien que Barkhane et Serval. Dans le livre blanc de défense et de sécurité nationale en 2008, la désignation de l’arc de crises, allant de l’Océan atlantique à l’Océan indien entraîne la mise en place d’un plan Sahel qui comporte un large volet anti-terroriste. Comme le souligne Jean- Christophe Notin (La guerre de la France au Mali, 2014), la composante essentielle de ce volet est le prépositionnement d’unités dites Sabre de forces spéciales. Elles ont joué un rôle au début de Serval dans la protection des sites nucléaires du Niger et ont participé aux opérations Serval et Barkhane. Le soutien à la lutte anti-terroriste est un moyen majeur d’influence des grandes puissances en Afrique. Les États-Unis sont ainsi très présents depuis 2007 via leur commandement pour l’Afrique (Africom) ; la qualification de terroriste permet à chacun de se trouver un ennemi commun. Le passage d’une logique d’action militaire de reprise d’un territoire à une action de surveillance, de police et de contre-terrorisme se traduit par de nouveaux besoins en matériel, comme le souligne le sénateur Cambon : « les hélicoptères lourds, les véhicules de type quad/pickup pour la mobilité, les ISMI catcher pour l’écoute des GSM, la biométrie, la capacité « drones » ». Il conclue son rapport par « un message assez clair et assez pessimiste » : une opération militaire ne réglera pas un problème politique.

      Le terrorisme persiste largement dans la région. Le Groupement de Soutien à l’Islam et aux Musulmans, qui fédère plusieurs groupes djihadistes, dont Ansar Dine, des katibats d’al-Qaïda au Maghreb islamique et d’al-Mourabitoune, lance régulièrement des attaques contre les forces dans la région. Le 2 mars 2018, deux attaques à Ouagadougou au Burkina Faso ont fait 8 morts et une soixantaine de blessés. Le 14 avril, le GSIM a lancé une attaque « complexe » avec une quinzaine d’attaquants à Tombouctou contre la force Barkhane et la Mission des Nations unies au Mali. Le groupe a revendiqué son action comme une réponse à des raids aériens. Le 5 juillet, Emmanuel Macron évoque un redéploiement du dispositif français. Le bureau pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest et le Sahel de l’ONU soulignait dans un rapport du 29 juin la montée en capacité des mouvements terroristes autant que le possible resserrement des liens entre les différents mouvements djihadistes violents avec une extension de leurs zones d’activité. La réduction des adversaires à des mouvements avant tout terroristes mais mobiles et circulant dans un large territoire a conduit à un renouvellement des logiques d’action : le droit de poursuite au-delà de la frontière est nécessaire. Créé en février 2014, le G5 regroupe le Mali, le Niger, le Burkina Faso et le Tchad. Il vise le développement régional et la lutte contre le terrorisme. Cependant l’objectif d’une force commune actée en novembre 2015 peine à se réaliser et il a fallu attendre juin 2017 pour que l’ONU salue sa mise en place. Les financements sont aujourd’hui très insuffisants par rapport aux immenses besoins nés des contraintes du territoire. La France occupe donc de fait un rôle central dans la réalisation d’opérations de contreterrorisme par sa capacité très supérieure dans les domaines du renseignement, de la mobilité et de la frappe. Dans un milieu désertique, un espace que l’on traverse, l’action militaire est une action de contrôle de flux qui entraîne soit l’enlisement, soit des reconfigurations politiques, militaires et institutionnelles profondes. La criminalisation des personnes circulant dans de tels espaces est une stratégie classique de contrôle. Pour Hélène Claudot-Hawad (Galy, La guerre au Mali, 2013), la question Touareg a été construite tout au long de la colonisation : à partir des années 1910, l’administration française déploie un projet de tribalisation dans le but de contrôler des groupes et des circulations dans la bande sahélo-saharienne. La question des Touaregs est restée problématique pour les pouvoirs issus de la décolonisation. A l’aube de la décennie 2000 les tensions sont fortes d’autant plus que les organisations régionales de contrebande rejoignent une partie des mouvements islamistes.

      L’envers de la lutte contre les pirates du désert

      Le G5 Sahel se veut l’instrument d’une action régionale centrée sur la lutte anti-terroriste. Le terroriste y est celui qui circule impunément et qui devient ce que Daniel Heller-Roazen a vu dans la figure ancienne du pirate : l’ennemi de tous (L’ennemi de tous. Le pirate contre les nations, 2010, édition originale anglaise 2009). Le pirate brouille la limite entre criminalité et politique : « la piraterie entraine une transformation du concept de guerre. » C’est dans cette perspective qu’on peut lire le rapport du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l’Homme qui dénombre au Mali 1200 violations entre janvier 2016 et juin 2017 faisant 2700 victimes dont 441 morts. Si plus de 70% des violations sont le fait d’acteurs non étatiques on peut, par exemple, s’interroger sur le statut des 150 arrestations administratives faites par les forces de Barkhane. Les « neutralisations » des terroristes, leur mort pendant des combats ou suite à des frappes aériennes, posent également question. Le respect des Droits de l’Homme est en jeu, mais aussi le cadre juridique dans lequel interviennent les troupes françaises. En arrière plan, le rapport de l’ONU pointe que 20% des violations sont le fait des forces de sécurité maliennes. A l’horizon de ce rapport qui suit plusieurs autres avant lui, par exemple celui en mai 2017 de la FIDH « Mali : Terrorisme et impunité font chanceler un accord de paix fragile » souligne les impasses d’une approche centrée sur l’anti-terrorisme et qui ne vise pas un processus politique global dans la région. De ce fait, interroger l’action française au Sahel c’est aussi nous interroger sur le rapport au territoire des autres, particulièrement des pays en développement, le rapport aux flux dans un contexte d’urgence migratoire. Cela questionne les actions militaires futures. Ces engagements sont usants pour les hommes et les matériels et constituent un poids considérable sur notre appareil militaire. Les opérations de lutte contre le terrorisme sont légitimes dans la mesure où la terreur et les actes criminels ne sauraient être tolérés. Il faut mesurer le dilemme moral qui pèse sur tout gouvernant à la tête d’une puissance militaire capable d’une opération pour faire cesser ce qui constitue à un moment donné un scandale moral. Mais il faut admettre que ce qui constitue un scandale moral aujourd’hui s’inscrit dans des problématiques plus vastes et plus anciennes. Oublier que le terrorisme et les terroristes sont les manifestations de problèmes plus larges qu’eux-mêmes, c’est accepter de croire qu’il est possible aujourd’hui, en démocratie de faire la guerre à un mode d’action et à des idées et de gagner. L’aveuglement de certaines grandes puissances face à ces enjeux tient souvent du refoulement de problèmes qui leurs sont propres. Dans un coin du parc Montsouris à Paris, un obélisque commémore le colonel Flatters et ses compagnons tués par des Touaregs en 1881 à Bir el-Garama en tentant de rejoindre le Soudan français par le Sahara. Son expédition était l’aboutissement d’un projet porté depuis 1879 par la commission supérieure du Transsaharien visant à la création d’un chemin de fer allant de l’Algérie à Dakar via le Mali dans une double perspective de contrôle des circulations sahélo-sahariennes et donc des populations y vivant mais aussi des ressources présentes dans la région et pouvant présenter un intérêt colonial. L’échec de la mission Flatters n’a pas limité ces entreprises puisque le contrôle de ces espaces de désert a été un axe politique majeur des autorités coloniales de l’Algérie comme de l’Afrique occidentale française.

      https://aoc.media/analyse/2018/07/11/sahel-france-guerre

      signalé par @isskein via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • États africains, portiers de l’Europe

      À coups de milliards versés par l’Union européenne, les États africains deviennent les nouveaux gardes-frontières du Vieux Continent. Cette vaste enquête menée dans douze pays explore les rouages et les conséquences humaines de cette politique européenne controversée, dont les exilés paient le prix fort.

      L’Espagne a été la première à franchir le pas : face à l’afflux de migrants sur les côtes des #Canaries, le pays a décidé de subventionner plusieurs pays d’#Afrique_de_l’Ouest afin qu’ils se chargent d’arrêter à leurs frontières les candidats à l’exil. L’#Union_européenne a emboîté le pas à l’Espagne, en conditionnant l’#aide_au_développement à destination d’une vingtaine de pays africains à un renforcement de ces contrôles. Policiers et militaires européens sont parallèlement envoyés sur place pour aider à briser les routes migratoires. L’UE n’hésite d’ailleurs pas à faire de dictatures comme l’#Érythrée et le #Soudan ses « partenaires » dans la chasse aux migrants. Les véritables gagnants de ces interventions à grande échelle sont les entreprises d’armement et de sécurité européennes, dans lesquelles sont réinvesties les subventions versées. Au fil d’une vaste enquête dans douze pays, Jan M. Schäfer explore les rouages et les conséquences humaines de cette politique européenne controversée, dont les exilés paient le prix fort.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/078195-000-A/etats-africains-portiers-de-l-europe
      #film #documentaire
      #business #armes #armement

      Le documentaire n’est plus disponible sur arte, mais peut être visionné sur Youtube, voici quelques liens actuellement valides :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUSIi-qP2pY


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0nf5c4FOPo

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu7VvY5fs7Y

    • La relation dangereuse entre migration, développement et #sécurité pour externaliser les frontières en Afrique

      L’ARCI, dans le cadre du projet de monitorat de l’externalisation des politiques européennes et italiennes sur les migrations – parallèlement à son travail de communication constant sur l’évolution des accords multilatéraux et bilatéraux avec les pays d’origine et de transit, a produit ce document d’analyse pour alerter la société civile et les gouvernements sur les dérives possibles de ces stratégies qui conduisent à des violations systématiques des droits fondamentaux et des Conventions internationales


      https://www.arci.it/documento/la-relation-dangereuse-entre-migration-developpement-et-securite-pour-externali
      #rapport #Soudan #Niger #Tunisie

      In English :
      https://www.arci.it/documento/the-dangerous-link-between-migration-development-and-security-for-the-externali

    • Giochi pericolosi: delocalizzare in Africa le frontiere Ue

      Più di 25mila persone riportate nell’inferno e 600 morti nel solo mese di maggio 2018. L’esternalizzazione delle frontiere – ovvero la collaborazione con i Paesi di origine e transito per espellere facilmente i migranti o bloccarli prima dell’arrivo – nuoce gravemente alle vite dei migranti ma anche ai diritti dei cittadini dei Paesi in cui sono state delocalizzate le frontiere della Fortezza Europa e non fa certo bene alle “democrazie” che vogliono rendere invisibili i profughi messi in fuga dalle loro stesse politiche commerciali. «Esternalizzare significa spingere le responsabilità giuridiche e politiche dei nostri Paesi più a sud nella cartina del mondo, alla ricerca di una totale impunità o nel tentativo di farla ricadere su altri Paesi». A tre anni dal vertice della Valletta dove furono sancite le linee guida dell’esternalizzazione, l’Arci fa un bilancio dell’impressionante subappalto europeo a regimi come quelli nigerino, sudanese, tunisino (sono più famosi gli accordi con Libia, Egitto e Turchia) per richiamare l’attenzione di società civile e governi sugli effetti negativi di queste strategie e le loro implicazioni in merito alle violazioni sistematiche dei diritti fondamentali di migranti e popolazioni interessate. Si tratta di “La pericolosa relazione tra migrazione, sviluppo e sicurezza per esternalizzare le frontiere in Africa“, un documento d’analisi curato da Sara Prestianni dell’ufficio Immigrazione dell’Arci nell’ambito del progetto di monitoraggio Externalisation Policies Watch che ha previsto missioni sul campo tra il dicembre 2016 e luglio 2018.

      Tanto è devastante per i diritti umani, quanto fa bene ai bilanci dell’industria militare del Nord del mondo e al destino politico dei governi populisti e xenofobi che, «con la guerra ai migranti, alimentano l’immaginario di un nemico da combattere alle nostre porte, e che con la loro presenza nel continente africano si giocano la partita dell’influenza territoriale». “Aiutarli a casa loro” significa fornire carri armati ed elicotteri, sistemi biometrici e satellitari, eserciti e truppe: il rapporto segnala come il processo di esternalizzazione del controllo della frontiera europea in Africa sembra evolversi verso una predominanza della dimensione militare e della sicurezza. EucapSahel, missione “civile” per “modernizzare” le forze dell’ordine di Niger e Mali, da forza antiterrorismo è diventata centrale nella politica di gestione delle frontiere – poi ci sono le missioni militari italiane in Libia e Niger, quindi la forza congiunta G5 Sahel che – oltre ad un contributo di 100 milioni di euro – si è vista attribuire ulteriori 500 milioni di euro nel summit del marzo 2018. Si tratta di cifre ingenti che potrebbero essere usate per una reale politica di cooperazione allo sviluppo o di integrazione, come ha detto proprio a Left Selly Kane, responsabile Immigrazione della Cgil nazionale.

      La militarizzazione dell’esternalizzazione, però, non solo serve a bloccare gli arrivi in Europa ma coincide con gli interessi dell’industria italiana della sicurezza e con la concorrenza interna all’Ue per una presenza geostrategica in quelle aree. La trasformazione di Frontex nell’European Border and Coastguard Agency è solo una delle tante proposte “suggerite” dalle lobby militar-industriali alla Commissione europea. Avverte il rapporto Arci (dal quale attingiamo con ampi stralci): «L’attuazione del processo di esternalizzazione deve essere osservato anche come esempio di riduzione dello spazio democratico all’interno dell’Europa stessa e degli Stati membri. Per molte delle attività e dei fondi attribuiti per l’attuazione di tali politiche è stato aggirato il controllo democratico del Parlamento europeo cosi come, a livello italiano, si è evitata la ratificazione degli Accordi Bilaterali da parte delle Camere, in flagrante violazione dell’Art 80 della Costituzione».

      Che poi «le procedure di selezione e monitoraggio dei progetti finanziati dal Trust Fund risultino «non trasparenti e i processi di valutazione privi di coerenza» (come denunciato nel rapporto Concord) non sembra scuotere la coscienza dei governi europei avvezzi a scandali di vario tipo. Per questo il rapporto sottolinea «il compito fondamentale delle associazioni della società civile di analizzare queste politiche, riportando le responsabilità giuridiche e politiche ai diretti responsabili».

      L’analisi dell’uso dei fondi europei e italiani per attività di controllo delle frontiere – anche grazie alla retorica “aiutiamoli a casa loro” – evidenzia una parte dei progetti finanziati con l’Eutf (Centro operativo Regionale di supporto al processo di Khartoum e all’Iniziativa nel Corno d’Africa) prevede la formazione di forze di polizia e guardie di frontiera, la diffusione del sistema biometrico per la tracciabilità delle persone e la “donazione” di elicotteri, veicoli e navi di pattuglia, apparecchiature di sorveglianza e monitoraggio, «aprendo cosi alla relazione sempre più strutturata tra migrazione, sviluppo e sicurezza». L’obiettivo dell’istituzione del Fondo fiduciario era quello di ottenere maggior collaborazione da parte dei governi locali nel controllo dei flussi attraverso il finanziamento di programmi di sviluppo (sia nei Paesi di origine che di transito) e mediante il rafforzamento delle forze di polizia lungo le rotte. Una strategia europea «drammaticamente efficace»: nel 2017 il numero di ingressi irregolari in Europa è diminuito del 67%. Una diminuzione che si accompagna ad una pesante riduzione del rispetto dei diritti sia dei migranti, in mare e in terra, che della popolazione di molti dei Paesi africani coinvolti. Italia e Ue hanno calpestato tanto le Convenzioni internazionali di cui sono firmatarie che i diritti fondamentali, tra cui il diritto alla vita. La chiusura della rotta del Mediterraneo ha portato l’Italia, grazie al contributo europeo, a subappaltare le operazioni di salvataggio alla Guardia costiera libica, pur cosciente, come evidenziato dalla decisione del Consiglio di sicurezza dell’Onu, del profondo legame di questo corpo con le milizie, nonché delle violenze perpetrate sia in mare che sulla terraferma. La campagna denigratoria delle Ong che salvano vite in mare è funzionale alle politiche di esternalizzazione delle frontiere.

      Se i migranti vengono esposti a rischi sempre maggiori non se la passano meglio i cittadini dei Paesi di transito contro i quali vengono adoperati gli “aiuti a casa loro” gentilmente forniti dall’Europa. Una dinamica visibile sia nel Mediterraneo orientale, fra Turchia e Siria (l’Ue è particolarmente affabile di fronte alla deriva dittatoriale di Erdogan suo partner nel blocco di profughi afgani e siriani), sia sulla rotta del Mediterraneo Centrale. Armarsi per diventare il gendarme d’Europa è una scusa per rafforzare l’arsenale nazionale, spesso a discapito dei loro stessi cittadini. Un accordo tra Italia ed Egitto del settembre 2017, nell’ambito del progetto Itepa, prevede l’istituzione di un centro di formazione per alti funzionari di polizia incaricati della gestione delle frontiere e dell’immigrazione dai Paesi africani presso l’Accademia di polizia egiziana. Con buona pace della battaglia per verità e giustizia per Giulio Regeni.

      Ricapitolando: i governi Ue hanno firmato accordi per legittimare i governi di tali Paesi chiudendo un occhio sulle violazioni dei diritti umani e finanziando e formando aguzzini già abbondantemente specializzati nella repressione e negli abusi dei diritti umani.

      Il Sudan è al centro dello scacchiere delle rotte migratorie, luogo di transito obbligato per i migliaia di rifugiati del Corno d’Africa ma anche paese di origine. La collaborazione della Fortezza Europa con Al Bashir «è uno strumento di repressione dei rifugiati obbligati a transitare da quel paese per fuggire, ma anche per i cittadini sudanesi in Europa, a rischio di sistematica e delle popolazioni rimaste nel paese che, con il ruolo rafforzato del dittatore sudanese, rischiano un ulteriore aumento della repressione». Un attivista incontrato durante la missione effettuata da Arci a Khartoum nel dicembre del 2016 spiega: «Non ci sarà mai giustizia per il Darfour fino a quando i vostri Stati considereranno Al Bashir un interlocutore credibile per il controllo dei migranti invece di chiudere ogni dialogo con lui. Per Al Bashir l’esternalizzazione delle frontiere è un modo per far vacillare l’embargo economico e politico imposto dopo i molteplici mandati di arresto emessi dalla Corte penale internazionale per crimini di guerra e contro l’umanità.

      Nel 2016 il dittatore sudanese ha dispiegato una nuova forza paramilitare – i Rapid support forces (Rsf) – alla frontiera nord con la Libia per il controllo dei migranti in uscita. Tra le fila dei RSF ci sono molti capi della milizia Jan Jaweed, tra le forze che più si sono sporcate le mani di sangue per l’eccidio nel Darfour e ora riciclati dallo stesso Al Bashir. Dalla fine del 2017 è stato annunciato il dispiegamento dei RSF anche nella regione di Kassala, nella zona di confine con l’Eritrea. «Di fatto la presenza di questi miliziani non fa altro che aumentare il numero d’interlocutori a cui i migranti sono obbligati a pagare tangenti e le violenze che sono costretti a subire». Refugees Deeply denuncia come personaggi chiave del regime sono i principali complici del traffico di migranti. Coloro che fingono davanti ai funzionari europei di controllare le frontiere sono di fatto coloro che gestiscono il passaggio. Una formula che l’Europa già conosceva all’epoca di Gheddafi che chiudeva e apriva le frontiere libiche «lucrando sulla vita di chi cercava di trovare rifugio, in nome della collaborazione con la UE». A Khartoum il clima di terrore che vivono i rifugiati eritrei è palpabile, vivono nascosti per evitare di essere arrestatie sanzionati o dalla polizia “dell’ordine pubblico” (di matrice islamica) che in tribunali speciali giudica comportamenti considerati illegali, o per aver violato il Sudan’s Passport and Immigration Act per cui incombono multe fino a360$. Il contributo europeo in Sudan per il controllo della migrazione ammonta a 200 milioni di euro. Nei campi avvengono continue incursioni da parte di sicari del regime di Afewerky o di trafficanti che rapiscono gli eritrei obbligandoli poi a telefonare alla famiglia in Europa, promettendola liberazione solo in cambio di soldi e progetti (come BMM e ROCK) consentono al regime sudanese di aggirare l’embargo di armi.

      Il report è un pozzo di informazioni. Per esempio quella dell’accordo di polizia firmato il 3 agosto del 2016 dal capo della nostra Polizia Gabrielli con il suo omologo sudanese che ha permesso di attuare il charter Torino-Khartoum del 24 agosto carico di sudanesi, molti provenienti dal Darfour, arrestati in retate a Ventimiglia. Le autorità italiane sarebbero rimaste totalmente impunite per questa violazione dei diritti umani se non fosse per l’importante azione di Asgi e Arci che, in collaborazione con i parlamentari europei della GUE, hanno incontrato alcuni dei sudanesi espulsi da Torino portando il loro caso davanti alla Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo. Le polizie di Francia e Belgio si comportano proprio come quella italiana.

      Il Niger è il principale beneficiario del Fondo Fiduciario Europeo per l’Africa – quasi 200 milioni di progetti finanziati ad oggi a cui si aggiunge la recente promessa di ulteriori 500 milioni nella regione del Sahel – e del nostrano Fondo Africa – 50 milioni di euro in cambio dei quali il Niger si impegna a creare nuove unità specializzare necessarie al controllo dei confini e nuovi posti di frontiera – così come dei fondi allo sviluppo: è ormai la frontiera sud dell’Europa, «il laboratorio più avanzato della politica di esternalizzazione». La criminalizzazione del “traffico illecito dei migranti” sancito nel 2015 obbliga a nascondersi chi tenta di andare verso l’Algeria o la Libia e in alcuni casi di imbarcarsi poi verso Italia e Spagna. I ghetti si spostano sempre più alla periferia della città, le partenze si fanno di notte e alla spicciolata. I costi del viaggio aumentano. Un ex passeur, citato nello studio, dice: «Se prima andare in Libia costava 150mila FCFA e in Algeria 75mila, ora, con l’aumento dei controlli ed il rischio i farsi arrestare, i prezzi sono saliti: 400mila per la Libia e 150mila per l’Algeria». L’Algeria ha risposto con sistematiche e violentissime retate di migranti ed il loro abbandono alla sua frontiera sud senza distinzioni in base allo status dei migranti. Il Teneré, come il Mediterraneo, si sta trasformando in un deserto di morte. Ma come spiega in un’inchiesta Giacomo Zandonini, in Libia, nonostante la criminalizzazione, si è continuato a entrare.

      L’Ue, con il Fondo Fiduciario, ha cercato di proporre delle alternative di riconversione per spingere i passeurs a lasciare l’attività, ma a una cifra che risulta ridicola a fronte dei milioni di FCFA che un passeur poteva guadagnare trasportando uomini e donne nel deserto.

      In Niger, uno dei Paesi più poveri al mondo seppure ricco di materie prime qualiuranio, oro e petrolio, si fronteggiano anche gli interessi italiani contro quelli francesi. Bazoum, ministro dell’interno nigerino sta negando all’Italia l’accesso dei suoi militari nel nord del paese. Annunciata prima come operazione Deserto Rosso, poi rinnegata, la missione militare italiana in Niger è stata infine ripresentata al voto al Parlamento a Camere sciolte nel febbraio 2018, con un budget di 30 milioni di euro per 9 mesi di presenza di 400 uomini nel nord del paese. Riproposta dalla neo ministra Trenta con riferimento ad un eventuale appoggio agli americani che proprio ad Agadez stanno costruendo un enorme base per i droni armati. Lo stop alla presenza armata italiana è probabilmente legata ad una opposizione francese che non cede tanto facilmente la roccaforte di Madama, al confine con la Libia.

      Infine la Tunisia, collaboratore dell’Ue nel ruolo di intercettazione dei migranti partiti dalle coste della vicina Libia e perciò rifornita di mezzi navali. Un contributo del Fondo Africa, istituito nel 2017, per un totale di 12 milioni di euro, è transitato dal MAECI al Dipartimento di Sicurezza del Ministero degli Interni alla voce “Migliorare la gestione delle frontiere e dell’immigrazione, inclusi la lotta al traffico di migranti e le attività di ricerca e soccorso”. La Commissione ha annunciato lo stanziamento di ulteriori 55 milioni di euro in Marocco e Tunisia in un programma che sarà gestito dal Ministero degli Interni Italiano e ICMPD (InternationalCentre for Migration Policy Development). Se la Tunisia dimostra un alto grado di collaborazione nelle attività di monitoraggio delle proprie coste e di identificazione dei suoi cittadini in vista dell’espulsione, sembra però rigettare l’idea di costruzione di punti di sbarco dei migranti partiti dalla Libia sul suo territorio. Asgi, Arci e l’associazione tunisina FTDES, nel maggio 2018, hanno monitorato le procedure di espulsione dei cittadini tunisini dall’aeroporto di Palermo. Numerose le violazioni dei diritti di cui sono stati vittime durante la loro permanenza in Italia, ed in particolare detenzione illegale senza convalida del giudice all’interno di una struttura – l’hotspot – che manca di base giuridica nella legislazione italiana, nonché spesso vittime di trattamenti degradanti. I tunisini lamentano la presenza di sonniferi nel cibo e l’inganno usato per l’espulsione, facendo credere loro che dopo il trasferimento a Palermo sarebbero stati poi liberati. Lo stesso Garante Nazionale dei diritti delle persone detenute o private della libertà personale, a seguito del monitoraggio effettuato sulle operazioni di rimpatrio, esprime viva preoccupazione per la «pratica di non avvisare gli interessati per tempo dell’imminente rimpatrio, e cioè con un anticipo utile a verificare eventuali aggiornamenti della propria posizione giuridica, prepararsi non solo materialmente ma anche psicologicamente alla partenza e avvisare i familiari del proprio ritorno in patria». A nessuno è stato permesso difare richiesta d’asilo in una logica assurda per cui l’Italia considera i tunisini provenienti da un paese sicuro, in contrasto con la convenzione di Ginevra per cui lo studio di ogni caso deve essere fatto sulla base della singola storia personale e non sulla base del paese di origine. Con i polsi bloccati da fascette di plastica, i tunisini sono scortati da due poliziotti ciascuno fino all’aeroporto di Enfidha, più discreto di quello di Tunisi. Spesso picchiati e insultati, vengono poi rilasciati, senza neanche un centesimo in tasca. Molti sono al secondo, terzo viaggio.

      https://left.it/2018/08/07/giochi-pericolosi-delocalizzare-in-africa-le-frontiere-ue

    • Europe Is Making Its Migration Problem Worse. The Dangers of Aiding Autocrats

      Three years after the apex of the European refugee crisis, the European Union’s immigration and refugee policy is still in utter disarray. In July, Greek officials warned that they were unable to cope with the tens of thousands of migrants held on islands in the Aegean Sea. Italy’s new right-wing government has taken to turning rescue ships with hundreds of refugees away from its ports, leaving them adrift in the Mediterranean in search of a friendly harbor. Spain offered to take in one of the ships stuck in limbo, but soon thereafter turned away a second one.

      Behind the scenes, however, European leaders have been working in concert to prevent a new upsurge in arrivals, especially from sub-Saharan Africa. Their strategy: helping would-be migrants before they ever set out for Europe by pumping money and technical aid into the states along Africa’s main migrant corridors. The idea, as an agreement hashed out at a summit in Brussels this June put it, is to generate “substantial socio-economic transformation” so people no longer want to leave for a better life. Yet the EU’s plans ignore the fact that economic development in low-income countries does not reduce migration; it encourages it. Faced with this reality, the EU will increasingly have to rely on payoffs to smugglers, autocratic regimes, and militias to curb the flow of migrants—worsening the instability that has pushed many to leave in the first place.

      https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/africa/2018-09-05/europe-making-its-migration-problem-worse?cid=soc-tw-rdr

    • À QUI VA LA FORTUNE DÉPENSÉE POUR LUTTER CONTRE L’IMMIGRATION ?

      La politique migratoire européenne, de plus en plus restrictive, est une aubaine pour de nombreuses sociétés privées. En effet, les Etats européens sous-traitent des pans entiers de la gestion des migrations : surveillance des frontières, construction, entretien, surveillance et gestion de murs et de centres de rétention, délivrance des visas, livraison de repas, etc. Tous les éléments de cette politique coûteuse, inefficace et criminelle, profitent à de grandes entreprises, comme #Bouygues ou #Sodexo, pour ne citer que deux exemples français.

      Les migrations font partie de l’histoire de l’humanité mais les frontières n’ont jamais été aussi fermées qu’aujourd’hui. Les conventions issues des politiques migratoires actuelles ont divisé les migrants en différentes catégories (politiques, économiques, climatiques...) en fonction de la supposée légitimité ou non d’avoir accès au droit d’asile ou à séjourner sur un territoire étranger. « Le migrant économique », qui se déplace pour fuir la misère engendrée par les politiques liées au remboursement de la dette, est la catégorie qui bénéficie du moins de droits et son accès aux territoires extérieurs varie en fonction des besoins de main-d’œuvre ou des politiques de fermetures aux frontières.

      Ainsi, parmi les millions de personnes qui fuient leurs conditions de vie indécentes, celles qui migrent pour des raisons économiques seraient des migrants illégitimes ? Tout comme celles à qui on n’accorde pas le statut de réfugié politique mettant leur vie en péril ? Confrontés à une crise migratoire ou une crise de l’accueil ? Ces flux migratoires liés aux situations économiques sont en grande partie le résultat des politiques d’austérité et d’endettement insoutenables imposés par les Institutions financières internationales et les pays industrialisés du Nord aux pays appauvris du Sud, et par les pays du centre – dont ceux de l’Europe – aux pays de la périphérie. Ces politiques ont eu comme effet d’amplifier le phénomène de la pauvreté, de généraliser la précarité et, par conséquent, des situations d’exils. Les situations qui encouragent l’exode de populations pauvres sont la conséquence d’enjeux géostratégiques liés aux ressources et donc aux richesses, ou sont provoqués par l’hémorragie de capitaux pour honorer le service d’une dette bien souvent entachée d’illégitimité.

      Malmenés par la guerre ou la misère, les candidats à l’exil se retrouvent sur des routes rendues de plus en plus périlleuses par les politiques de gestion de l’immigration irrégulière. En plus d’être extrêmement coûteuses pour les populations qui en supportent les coûts, ces politiques criminalisent les migrants et les forcent à emprunter des voies de plus en plus dangereuses, comme les traversées en mer sur de frêles embarcations et à devoir s’adresser à la mafia des passeurs. Elles sont criminelles, coûteuses et inefficaces. Les murs n’ont jamais résolu de conflits et ne bénéficient qu’aux firmes qui les conçoivent, les construisent et les contrôlent.

      Loin d’adopter une politique d’accueil aux réfugiés conformément au droit international tel que stipulé par la Convention de Genève, les États adoptent des politiques sécuritaires qui bafouent le droit fondamental de liberté de circulation inscrit dans l’article 13 de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme |1|. Alors que de nouveaux traités de libre-commerce ne cessent de prôner la libre-circulation des marchandises et des capitaux, les candidats à l’exil font face à des « agences de sécurité » lourdement armées et équipées par les grands industriels qui enfreignent le droit de circulation des laissés-pour-compte. Le fond de la Méditerranée est transformé en véritable fosse commune |2|, les frontières se referment et des murs sont érigés un peu partout sur la planète. Une fois passée la frontière, s’ils ne sont pas déportés vers leur pays d’origine, les migrants s’entassent dans des camps inhumains ou sont enfermés dans des centres de détention |3| qui leur sont dédiés, tels les 260 que l’on compte au sein de l’UE en 2015 |4|. Seule une faible proportion d’entre eux, suivant un fastidieux parcours bureaucratique, parvient à obtenir un droit à l’asile distribué avec parcimonie.

      A quel point les politiques migratoires européennes sont-elles dictées par l’activité de lobbying des entreprises privées de l’armement et de la sécurité ? Avec ces politiques sécuritaires, les migrants sont considérés non plus comme des personnes mais comme des numéros remplissant des quotas arbitraires pour honorer des courbes statistiques irrationnelles satisfaisant bien plus les cours de la Bourse que le bien-être collectif et les valeurs de partage et de solidarité.

      Qu’importent les conditions de travail des employés et les conditions d’accueil des migrants au mépris de leurs droits et de la dignité humaine, de plus en plus d’entreprises privées nationales ou multinationales profitent d’un business en pleine expansion aux dépens de la justice sociale et des budgets de nos États.

      Frontex, une agence européenne coûteuse, puissante, opaque et sans contrôle démocratique

      L’Europe a créé l’espace Schengen en 1985, elle l’a communautarisé en 1997 avec le traité d’Amsterdam. L’objectif annoncé était de créer un espace de « liberté, de sécurité et de justice » au sein de l’Union européenne (UE). Dans les faits, la liberté de circulation au sein de l’Europe a avancé à deux vitesses en fonction des pays et a principalement concerné les marchandises. Au fur-et-à-mesure, l’UE s’est coordonnée pour contrôler ses frontières extérieures en tentant d’appliquer une politique commune et un « soutien » aux pays ayant une frontière extérieure propice à l’entrée de migrants comme la Grèce, l’Espagne ou encore l’Italie. Depuis 2005, L’UE s’est dotée d’un arsenal militaire, l’agence Frontex, pour la gestion de la coopération aux frontières extérieures des États membres de l’Union européenne. Cette agence est la plus financée des agences de l’UE à l’heure où des efforts budgétaires sont imposés dans tous les secteurs.

      Cette agence possède des avions, des hélicoptères, des navires, des unités de radars, des détecteurs de vision nocturne mobiles, des outils aériens, des détecteurs de battement cardiaque... Frontex organise des vols de déportations, des opérations conjointes aux frontières terrestres, maritimes et aériennes |5|, la formation des gardes-frontières, le partage d’informations et de systèmes d’informations notamment via son système EUROSUR, qui a pour objectif la mise en commun de tous les systèmes de surveillance et de détections des pays membres de l’UE, etc. Son budget annuel n’a cessé d’augmenter jusqu’à ce jour : de 19 millions d’euros en 2006, il est passé à 238,7 millions en 2016 ! Les moyens militaires qui lui sont dévolus et son autonomie par rapport aux États membres ne cessent de croître.

      Depuis fin 2015, la tendance vers une ingérence de la Commission européenne dans les États membres s’accentue : La Commission européenne élargit le mandat de Frontex, elle devient « le corps européen de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes ». Cette nouvelle agence peut dorénavant agir dans le processus d’acquisition d’équipement des États membres. Elle a notamment la possibilité d’intervention directe dans un État membre sans son consentement par simple décision de la Commission européenne. Elle a par exemple la possibilité de faire des « opérations de retour conjoint » de sa propre initiative |6|, l’objectif étant de sous-traiter à l’agence le renvoi forcé des personnes indésirables, à moindre coût mais au détriment du respect des droits humains.

      Migreurop et Statewatch, deux ONG qui défendent les droits des migrants, ont dénoncé une zone de flou entourant l’agence Frontex qui ne permet pas de faire respecter les droits humains fondamentaux : une responsabilité diluée entre l’agence et les États, une violation du droit d’asile et un risque de traitement inhumains et dégradants. La priorité du sauvetage en mer, normalement reconnue à Frontex, passe en second plan face au contrôle militarisé. En novembre 2014, l’Italie illustre dramatiquement cette situation en mettant fin à Mare Nostrum, opération de sauvetage de la marine italienne qui a sauvé des dizaines de milliers de vies en mer. L’opération Triton mise en place par Frontex l’a remplacée avec un budget trois fois moindre, une portée géographique plus limitée et surtout avec un changement de perspective orienté sur le renforcement des frontières plutôt que les missions de recherche et sauvetage en mer |7|.

      Plus Frontex est subventionnée, plus elle délègue à des entreprises privées. Via l’argent public qu’elle perçoit, l’agence s’adresse à des entreprises privées pour la surveillance aériennes mais aussi pour la technologie de pointe (drones, appareils de visions nocturnes…). De nombreuses multinationales se retrouvent à assumer les « services » qui étaient auparavant assumés par les États et pour des questions de rentabilité propre au secteur privé, les coûts augmentent. Le contrôle aux frontières est devenu un business florissant.

      Le complexe militaro-industriel de l’immigration irrégulière un business florissant qui grève les caisses des États

      La dangerosité accrue des parcours profite aux passeurs et aux réseaux criminels auxquels les migrants sont obligés de faire appel, alors que ces mêmes politiques de gestion des flux migratoires disent les combattre. Mais, d’autres secteurs d’activité moins médiatisés tirent un avantage financier bien plus important de l’immigration irrégulière, tellement important qu’on peut se demander s’ils ne font pas tout pour l’encourager ! Pour les gestionnaires des centres de détentions pour migrants ; les sociétés qui y assurent la livraison des repas, la sécurité ou le nettoyage ; les entreprises qui fournissent gardes et escortes de celles et ceux que l’on expulse ; les fabricants d’armes et l’industrie aéronautique ; la technologie de pointe pour la surveillance des frontières ou les sous-traitants pour la délivrance des visas, la crise des migrants constitue une véritable aubaine, voire un filon en or.

      Cette proportion non négligeable de services autrefois du ressort exclusif de l’État est maintenant gérée par de grands groupes privés qui – pour des raisons d’image notamment – s’abritent derrière une kyrielle de sous-traitants. Cette privatisation rampante grève encore plus les caisses des pouvoirs publics, favorise l’opacité et dilue les responsabilités en cas d’incident au cours des interventions, mettant les États à l’abri de violations de la loi, pourtant fréquentes |8|.

      Instrumentalisation de l’aide publique au développement

      L’Union européenne utilise les financements de l’#Aide_publique_au_développement (#APD) pour contrôler les flux migratoires, comme avec le #Centre_d’Information_et_de_Gestion_des_Migrations (#CIGEM) inauguré en octobre 2008 à Bamako au Mali par exemple4. Ainsi, le 10e #Fonds_européen_de_développement (#FED) finance, en #Mauritanie, la formation de la police aux frontières. Pour atteindre les objectifs qu’ils se sont eux mêmes fixés (allouer 0,7 % du revenu national brut à l’APD), certains États membres de l’UE comptabilisent dans l’APD des dépenses qui n’en sont clairement pas. Malgré les réticences des États membres à harmoniser leurs politiques migratoires internes, ils arrivent à se coordonner pour leur gestion extérieure.

      « Crise migratoire » ou « crise de l’accueil » ? L’Europe externalise ses frontières

      À la croisée des chemins entre l’Europe et l’Asie, la Turquie et la Grèce sont des pays de transit pour de nombreux migrants et réfugiés faisant face aux conflits chroniques et à l’instabilité politique et économique du Moyen-Orient. Après avoir ouvert ses frontières en 2015, dans un contexte de crise, l’UE se rétracte, dépourvue d’une réflexion à long terme sur sa politique d’accueil.

      Ainsi, sans grande opposition du gouvernement Tsipras, l’UE signe avec le gouvernement turc un accord visant à contrôler et filtrer l’immigration. L’accord qui entre en vigueur le 20 mars 2016, prévoit de renvoyer en Turquie tout nouveau migrant, réfugiés syriens compris, arrivé en Grèce. Et pour chaque Syrien renvoyé, l’UE réinstallera en Europe, un autre Syrien séjournant en territoire turc. On pourrait croire à un vulgaire arrangement comptable, il n’en est rien. Le rapport est clairement déséquilibré. L’UE a spécifié un quota maximum de 72 000 syriens réinstallés alors que plus d’1 millions ont été refoulés du territoire européen. Par ces échanges déshumanisés, l’UE se donne la liberté de choisir ses immigrés en fonction de ses intérêts économiques. En échange, l’UE promet 6 milliards d’euros à la Turquie, dit vouloir relancer les négociations d’adhésion du pays à l’Union et accélère le processus de libéralisation des visas pour les citoyens turcs. De plus, Ankara s’engage à enrayer le flux migratoire vers l’Europe. En conséquence de quoi, l’argent donné sert bien plus à ériger des murs qu’à accueillir. Déjà, béton, barbelés et militaires s’installent à la frontière turco-syrienne pour consolider l’Europe forteresse.

      D’autres accords ont déjà été conclus en ce sens mais aucun n’avait atteint de tels montants, ni ne comportait de tels enjeux. Le fait qu’il soit conclu directement par l’UE marque également le début d’une nouvelle ère. L’institution eurocrate négocie maintenant au nom et en amont de ses États membres, se substituant aux politiques nationales en termes d’affaires étrangères.Avec cet accord, l’UE se targue de respecter le droit international. Mais autant la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme que la Convention de Genève sur les réfugiées stipulent qu’une expulsion ne peut se faire que vers un pays considéré comme sûr. Or, on ne peut décemment pas, à la signature de l’accord, considérer la Turquie comme une terre sûre et accueillante pour les migrants. Le président Erdoğan a en effet entamé une purge sans précédent et se révèle encore plus répressif envers ses opposants politiques, depuis qu’il sait l’Europe dépendante et conciliante. Et il ne suffit pas de fustiger le gouvernement turc. Au cœur même de l’Europe, les murs s’érigent et les politiques autoritaires et xénophobes refont surface.
      Privatisation de la « gestion » des migrations

      Une telle gestion de l’immigration grève les recettes des États pour, in fine, bénéficier aux sociétés privées et leurs actionnaires aux dépens de la satisfaction des services publics essentiels aux populations concernées. Le lobbying de ces sociétés s’inscrit dans une surenchère militariste qui profite aux grandes entreprises du secteur. Au lieu d’investir dans des infrastructures d’accueil dignes et dans la gestion des conflits dont les pays industrialisés sont en grande partie responsables, l’orientation politique de nos dirigeants va dans le sens d’un accroissement des budgets liés à la sécurité et aux polices aux frontières.

      Les flux migratoires constituent non seulement une source de revenus pour les passeurs, mais également, dans des proportions bien plus importantes, un juteux business pour les grandes entreprises, qui rappelons-le, s’arrangent pour payer le moins d’impôt sur leurs bénéfices et accroître les dividendes de leurs actionnaires. Le marché de la sécurisation des frontières, estimé à quelques 15 milliards d’euros en 2015, est en pleine croissance et devrait augmenter à plus de 29 milliards d’euros par an en 2022 |9|.

      Dans un contexte de crise migratoire aiguë, de contrôles exacerbés, de détentions et déportations en forte augmentation, une multitude de sociétés privées se sont trouvé un juteux créneau pour amasser des profits.

      Concrètement, de plus en plus de sociétés privées bénéficient de la sous-traitance de la délivrance des visas (un marché entre autres dominé par les entreprises #VFS et #TLS_Contact), et facturent aux administrations publiques la saisie des données personnelles, la prise des empreintes digitales, des photos numérisées... Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, le recours au privé a fait monter les prix des visas et le coût supplémentaire est supporté par les requérants. Mais les demandes introduites pour obtenir visas ou permis de séjour ne sont pas à la portée de tout le monde et beaucoup se retrouvent apatrides ou sans-papiers, indésirables au regard de la loi.

      La gestion des centres de détention pour migrants où sont placés les sans-papiers en attente d’expulsion est, elle aussi, sous-traitée à des entreprises privées. Ce transfert vers la sphère privée renforce le monopole des trois ou quatre multinationales qui, à l’échelle mondiale, se partagent le marché de la détention. Ainsi, près de la moitié des 11 centres de détention pour migrants du Royaume-Uni sont gérés par des groupes privés. Ces entreprises ont tout intérêt à augmenter la durée d’incarcération et font du lobbying en ce sens, non sans résultats. Ainsi, les sociétés de sécurité privées prospèrent à mesure que le nombre de migrants augmente |10|. En outre, l’hébergement d’urgence est devenu un secteur lucratif pour les sociétés privées qui perçoivent des fonds de certains États comme l’Italie, aux dépens d’associations humanitaires qui traditionnellement prennent en charge les réfugiés.

      En Belgique, entre 2008 et 2012, le budget consacré aux rapatriements forcés - frais de renvois, sans même compter les séjours en centre fermé des quelque 8 000 détenus chaque année - est passé de 5,8 millions d’euros à 8,07 millions d’euros |11|.

      La société française Sodexo a vu les détentions de migrants comme une opportunité d’extension de ses activités dans les prisons. L’empire du béton et des médias français Bouygues est chargé de la construction des centres de détention pour migrants dans le cadre de contrats de #partenariats_publics-privés (#PPP) |12| et l’entreprise de nettoyage #Onet y propose ses services. Au Royaume-Uni, des multinationales de la sécurité telles #G4S (anciennement Group 4 Securitor) |13|, Serco ou #Geo, ont pris leur essor grâce au boom des privatisations. Aux États-Unis, #CCA et GEO sont les principales entreprises qui conçoivent, construisent, financent et exploitent les centres de détention et #Sodexho_Marriott est le premier fournisseur de services alimentaire de ces établissements.

      Certaines sociétés en profitent même pour faire travailler leurs détenus en attente de leur expulsion. Ainsi, au centre de Yarl’s Wood géré par l’entreprise #Serco au Royaume-Uni, le service à la cantine ou le nettoyage des locaux est effectué par des femmes détenues contre une rémunération 23 fois moindre que le salaire pratiqué à l’extérieur pour ce type de tâche (50 pence de l’heure en 2011, soit 58 centimes d’euros). Le groupe GEO, qui en 2003 a obtenu la gestion du camp de Guantanamo « offre » à ses occupants aux centres de Harmondsworth près de l’aéroport d’Heathrow et de Dungavel en Écosse, des « opportunités de travail rémunéré » pour des services allant de la peinture au nettoyage |14|. Ces entreprises ne lésinent pas sur l’opportunité d’exploiter une main d’œuvre très bon marché et sans droits.

      L’immigration rapporte plus qu’elle ne coûte

      Les quelques migrants qui finalement parviennent à destination se mettent alors à la recherche d’un emploi et le pays d’accueil profite d’une main-d’œuvre bon marché dont il s’épargne les frais de formation payée par le pays d’origine |15|. Une telle main-d’œuvre, flexible et exploitable à merci, comble un besoin dont les économies des pays industrialisés ne peuvent se passer si facilement.

      Loin de constituer une menace et contrairement à une idée fausse, les migrations ont généralement un impact positif sur les économies des pays d’accueil. Sur un plan purement économique, d’après l’OCDE, un immigré rapporte en moyenne 3 500 euros de rentrées fiscales annuelles au pays qui l’accueille |16|. Les sans-papiers qui travaillent ont des fiches de paies, souvent au nom de tierce personne et cotisent à une couverture sociale dont ils ne peuvent bénéficier.

      En définitive, s’installe le doute quant aux résultats attendus d’une telle stratégie de gestion des flux de déplacements humains. La politique anti-migratoire mise en œuvre tue, l’Europe compte les morts mais continue à dresser ses barricades. Pourtant les migrations ne sont pas un problème, un fléau en tant que tel contre lequel il faut lutter. Les migrations sont la conséquence des conflits, des persécutions, des catastrophes environnementales, des injustices sociales et économiques dans le monde. Et c’est à ces causes-là qu’il faut s’attaquer, si l’on veut mener une politique migratoire réellement juste et humaine.

      https://www.lautrequotidien.fr/articles/lesprofiteurs
      #privatisation #Frontex

    • Border-induced displacement: The ethical and legal implications of distance-creation through externalization

      Introduction: The role of #distance

      The externalization of European border control can be defined as the range of processes whereby European actors and Member States complement policies to control migration across their territorial boundaries with initiatives that realize such control extra-territorially and through other countries and organs rather than their own. The phenomenon has multiple dimensions. The spatial dimension captures the remoteness of the geographical distance that is interposed between the locus of power and the locus of surveillance. But there is also a relational dimension, regarding the multiplicity of actors engaged in the venture through bilateral and multilateral interactions, usually through coercive dynamics of conditional reward, incentive, or penalization. And there are functional and instrumental dimensions too, concerning the cost-effectiveness of distance-creation (in both ethical and legal grounds) vis-à-vis the (unwanted) migrant, who, removed from sight, is no longer considered of concern to the supervising State,[1] and the range of externalizing policy devices at the service of externalising agents in terms of purpose, format, delivery, and ultimate control.[2] European borders thus (re-)emerge as ubiquitous, multi-modal and translational systems of coercion – as an interconnected network of ‘little Guantánamos’.[3] This, in turn, creates a distance, both physically and ethically, that is utilized to shift away concomitant responsibilities.[4]
      Distance, as the next sections will demonstrate, plays a crucial role as a mechanism not only of dispersion of legal duties, blurring the lines of causation and making attribution of wrongful conduct a difficult task, but also as an artefact of oppression and displacement in itself. It does not prevent (unwanted) migration but rather makes it unviable through legally sanctioned, safe channels, diverting it through ever more perilous routes. The immediate effect of this distance that externalization engenders is at least threefold. First, it leads to the disempowerment of migrants, who are left with no options for safe and legal escape, being instead coerced into dangerous courses operated by smugglers. Second, it legitimizes the actors enforcing externalized control on behalf, and for the benefit, of the European Union and its Member States. Repressive forces in third countries gain standing as valid interlocutors for cooperation, as a result; their democratic and human rights credentials becoming secondary, if at all relevant, as the Libyan case illustrates below. Third, legal alternatives, like the relaxation of controls or the creation of safe and regular pathways, are rejected; perceived as an illogical concession to the failure of the externalization project.
      The final outcome, and what constitutes the focus of this contribution, is the ‘border-induced displacement’ effect,[5] resulting from the combination of the processes of extraterritorialisation and externalization taken together. Border-induced displacement is not equivalent to the original reasons forcing people into exile, but rather functions as a second-order type of (re-)displacement, produced precisely via (the violence implicated in) border control. This then leads to forms of ‘engineered regionalism’, that is, politics re-producing displacement in certain areas closest to the origin of flows.[6] ‘Safe third country’ rules and practices are the main vehicle of this development, discernible also within the EU, where the Dublin System has ‘rulified’ an asymmetric allocation of responsibility for asylum claims to peripheral countries situated at the external common frontiers of the Union, like Spain, Italy and Greece.[7] In the case of externalization, border-induced displacement is then imposed upon already-displaced persons by non-European actors implementing the EU’s pre-emptive control agenda, reinforcing prevailing patterns of exploitation and existing hierarchies of exclusion and subordination.
      The ethical and legal consequences of ‘distance-creation’ are what we turn to analyse in the remainder of this article. Section 2 pays attention to the assumptions and ethical and political-economic dimensions behind this strategy, discussing exit control, coercion, and the democratic legitimization of unelected actors enforcing the EU border within third countries. Section 3 investigates the legal impact of externalization and extraterritorialization, centring on the apparent accountability gaps that it generates, contesting the legality of responsibility dispersion mechanisms. The overall conclusion we reach is that the ‘rulification’ of externalization at EU level does not render it ethically and legally tenable under international law. The ‘lawification’ at EU level of practices inconsistent with human rights is insufficient to render them compatible with international legal standards.
      2. Ethical distance-creation: Examining attempts to justify externalization and border-induced displacement

      Although immigration ethics has thrived as a discipline since its late arrival in the 1980s, debates on border control between cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism have often remained at an ideational level and generally based on liberal democratic foundations,[8] thus overlooking the composite ways through which border control is realized and experienced on the ground. This includes practices of externalization and extra-territorialization. Often, the assumptions guiding ethical debates on border control have reproduced a territorially trapped gaze, circumscribed by methodological nationalism,[9] which, through a set of idealized premises, reduces the complex and transnational dynamics of displacement and border control to a phenomenon of mis-placement between territorially bordered societies.[10] Such reduction is marred by what can be called reactive and regionalist postulations. These view border control, first, as a manifestation of State agency, and, second, as only a response to migration flows. Third, they naturalize the containment of displacement within certain regions, perceiving the phenomenon as geographically and morally distant from Europe.
      But immigration ethics is far from alone in reproducing methodological nationalism and reactive and regionalist conjectures, as these mirror prevailing paradigms about the relationship between displacement and borders.[11] However, it is instructive, nonetheless, to examine European externalization by applying existing ethical debates about the democratic legitimacy, coercion, and rights of border control to the issue of externalization.[12]
      2.1. The democratic legitimacy question

      One fundamental debate has concerned the democratic legitimacy of border control as such. Assuming that freedom and democracy are instrumentally valuable for securing individual autonomy, a principled concern is that the coercive aspects of border control amount to violations of autonomy when they happen without the consent of those exposed to them. In order for border control to be legitimate from a liberal democratic perspective, it would have to be justifiable to non-members – however the demos may initially be defined – through a deliberative process.[13] Yet, proponents of border control might argue that access to asylum procedures can resolve this concern, if asylum applications are seen as granting such deliberative voice to them. Although this debate has only concerned an undifferentiated notion of border control, we can extend it to the politics of externalization, if we imagine proponents to argue that, if externalized control is able to respect individual autonomy, it might also be deemed democratically legitimate.[14] The strength of such an argument will then depend on the meaning and function of externalization.
      European externalization processes occur when European Member States, through bi-, multi- or supranational venues, complement policies of controlling cross-border migration into their territories with pre-emptive initiatives realizing such control extra-territorially and/or through sub-contracting to actors and agencies other than their own.[15] Externalization has been discussed in terms of policy transfer, issue-linkages, and ripple effects,[16] but, crucially, its dynamics apply also to intra-European relations. For many years, the Dublin system has served to transfer the border control burdens of North-Western Member States to South-Eastern ones, causing heated discussions about lacking solidarity,[17] similar to those between European and non-European countries.[18]
      Justifications offered for externalization oscillate between grammars of securitized control and humanitarian care.[19] For instance, the June 2018 proposal by the EU ministers about ‘controlled centres’ and ‘regional disembarkation platforms’, whereto ‘boat migrants’ can be deported, is framed as an innovative idea allowing Member States both to ‘stem illegal migration’ and simultaneously save vulnerable migrants by breaking the ‘business model’ of smugglers and traffickers purportedly in accordance with human rights and the rule of law.[20]
      Yet, the 2018 externalization proposal is not as innovative as it may seem. Between the 1980s and mid-2000s, five very similar – and similarly controversial – externalization proposals were put forth by the British, Danish, Dutch, and German governments and by the European Commission. And they all revolved around externalized centres in Eastern Europe and North Africa whereto EU Member States would send asylum seekers or interdicted ‘boat migrants’. The terminologies varied from ‘regional protection areas’ by the British, ‘processing centres’ by the Danes, ‘reception centres’ by the Dutch, ‘EU reception centres’ by the German, and ‘Regional Protection Programmes’ (RPPs) by the European Commission.[21] All but the RPP proposal focused on administrative deportation from European territory, so that, as put by the Blair government, ‘refoulement should be possible and the notion of an asylum seeker in[land] should die’.[22] By 2005, the German proposal had dropped any talk of extraterritorial asylum processing and moved on to identifying Libya as a promising collaborator for pre-emptive containment.[23] In light of the concurrent dysfunctional intra-European dynamics of the Dublin system, the proposals between 1986 and 2018 illustrate how the externalization logic has long been invoked as a magic remedy to the Dublin ills, always couched in crisis-laden and emergency-driven rhetoric, while also holding out vague promises of protection.
      Externalization can be criticized for co-opting protection in favour of methods of ‘consensual containment’ that re-produce displacement in regions neighbouring the EU.[24] For instance, especially since 2017, Italy and the EU have pursued a policy of transferring search and rescue to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard (LYCG), thereby effectively turning missions into operations of exit control. It is due to their material contribution and close involvement in the internal command-and-control structure of the Libyan forces that the LYCG performed 19,452 pull-backs in 2017.[25] Political discourses on externalization can, however, be seen as arguing that this kind of regionalist engineering creates ‘protection elsewhere’ based on three claims, popular in ethical discussions on border control within liberal national regimes. In the following, we analyse them through standing ethical debates about coercion and prevention, peoples’ rights to enter and exit territories, and democratic legitimacy.
      2.2. Coercion: From ‘protection elsewhere’ to ‘protection nowhere’

      First comes the claim that border control, and thus also its externalized manifestations, is not illegitimately coercive, because it is only preventive. Here, coercion has been referred to as when individuals are forced to do a specific thing, while prevention is taken to mean when they are forced not to do a specific thing.[26] Second comes the aforementioned argument that border control can be legitimate when agreed upon democratically.[27] Third follows the statement of an entry/exit-asymmetry signifying that people’s rights against one State not to prevent them from exiting its territory is held to be morally paramount, but that it does not entail an equally forceful obligation on any other State to let them enter their territory.[28]
      Combining these claims, we then arrive at a ‘protection elsewhere’ argument maintaining that externalization is legitimate, since agreed to by all governments involved, and because it preserves displaced persons’ rights through extraterritorial asylum processing. Even if the policy may block their movement, this argument goes, it only prevents them from entering European territory, while still allowing them to find protection elsewhere, after having exited their own country. The zero-sum game effect that the generalisation of this policy would generate goes unaverted – if all countries did the same there would be ‘protection nowhere’.[29]
      But this argument is categorically flawed. Its definitions of coercion and prevention are problematic and rest upon a disconnect between abstract assumptions about border control guiding liberal nationalistic immigration ethics and the actual reality of displacement and European border surveillance, discounting its concrete effects on the ground. EU externalization practices yield extremely coercive checks amounting to violent regimes of exit control, also contravening the legally-sanctioned right – assumed in debates on immigration ethics – to leave one’s own country.[30] That is, even if one, for the sake of argument, assumes the right to exit to hold more value than that of entry – since at international law one is universally applicable while the other is only opposable to one’s own country[31] – actual externalization practices still violate not just the latter, but also the former.[32] The containment of migrants in Libyan detention structures, for instance, reveals an abusive regime that bars access to asylum. Amnesty International has counted twenty reports from reliable monitors, including UN and EU sources, attesting to this reality.[33] The abject brutality facing displaced persons, contained and circulated through externalization, can only be labelled non-coercive prevention from a Eurocentric, and extremely abstract vantage point. In truth, they cause suffering on such a scale that they may amount to atrocity crimes, according to the ICC Prosecutor,[34] and, as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has put it, they constitute ‘an outrage to the conscience of humanity’ – at least as far as the situation in Libya is concerned.[35] Collaborative border infrastructures are endowed with the power to coerce at a distance, with externalization leading to practices of ‘remote control’ that extraterritorially negate access to the European asylum systems to those (theoretically) entitled to international protection,[36] literally ‘trapping’ migrants in a constant ‘cycle of abuse’.[37]
      Nevertheless, even if the ethical ‘protection elsewhere’ argument must be rejected as an invalid justification for current European externalization policies the reasons for it are instructive. Seeing how externalization produces highly coercive collaborative regimes of exit control makes clear the problematic ramifications of the reactive and regionalist assumptions on which it rests. Conventional views on international relations and forced migration see the displacement to which borders respond as induced by conflicts or developmental or environmental factors.[38] Yet, while attention to the causes of displacement is important, this model embraces borders as only reactive to – rather than also constitutive of – displacement. But this is wrong. A range of border practices and infrastructures, performed at or beyond the physical frontiers of the EU, such as interdiction, detention, and deportation, do not just react to, but also in themselves cause displacement, by diverting flows towards increasingly dangerous routes and by multiplying death ratios at sea and at border zones.[39] This ‘border-induced displacement’, therefore, challenges the regionalist and reactive premise that the production of forced migration is primarily a problem created outside European territory and agency and contests the structural incorporation of (foreseeably lethal) coercion as a legitimate mechanism of border control.
      EU-Libyan relations, since the 2000s, illustrate how externalization has built the infrastructures enabling this kind of coercive re-displacement. This problematizes prevailing assumptions still dominating immigration ethics and politics, namely that the agency of border control consists of States’ discretion over movement across their territorial borders. Externalization underscores the need to consider more composite notions of agency – and thus responsibility – decoupled from national territories, and spanning several governments, organisations as well as non-state actors.
      The decades-long European-Libyan collaboration on border control is a case in point. After the European Commission decided to lift its arms embargo against Libya in 2004, two ‘technical missions’ followed. The first, in 2004, was meant to ‘identify concrete measures for possible balanced EU-Libyan cooperation particularly on illegal immigration’ and the second, in 2007, to develop ‘an operational and technical partnership’ for extraterritorial border control.[40] The case of Libya is but one example of how European externalization policies have facilitated the transformation of European border control into a flourishing market of violent deterrence and containment,[41] with little to do with a rights-based protection paradigm, and also how third countries’ control apparatuses have become a lucrative export venture for the arms-, security-, and IT-industries of the EU Member States.[42]
      2.3. Trading in rights for border control

      Companies like Spanish Indra, British BAE Systems, Italian Leonardo, French Thales and Ocea, Dutch Damen, German Rheinmetall and Airbus all compete for contracts to expand the capacity for surveillance and control of not just Libya, but also other Eastern European, North African and Middle Eastern countries collaborating on EU externalization. In 2012, an industrial consulting actor valued the global border industry at €25.8 billion, projecting an increase to €56 billion by 2022.[43] And European sales of patrol boats, jeeps, planes, drones, satellites, helicopters, radar systems and whole surveillance mechanisms for border control purposes were part of the EU export licenses worth €82 billion to the Middle East and North Africa between 2005–2014.[44] This political economy of externalization also applies to the industries of EU partner countries. For instance, in 2016, the EU channelled more than €83 million to contracts with Turkish Aselsan and Otokar to provide heavily armoured vehicles placed, respectively, at the Greek-Turkish border and the newly constructed 911 kilometre border-wall between Turkey and Syria.[45]
      The dynamics reshaping third-country border infrastructures elucidate how borders can function as engines of, rather than just responses to, displacement. This means that arguments for externalization appealing to democratic legitimacy face more problems than merely the barring of access to asylum procedures: First, because when EU Member States use their political-economic leverage to make externalization deals with non-EU countries, they are effectively asking them to replace their own public interest with the EU preference of avoiding asylum seeker flows towards the Member States. Second, because several examples, like the EU collaboration with Libyan actors, including militias and former traffickers, as further discussed in the next section, illustrate how the EU’s externalization partners very often lack democratic legitimacy.[46] EU border externalization entrenches forms of undemocratic governance in third countries, empowering undemocratic actors, transforming their relative weight within domestic structures, and weakening democratic channels of scrutiny, accountability, and power control. Externalization thereby risks creating a vicious cycle, where the influx of arms and funds to those actors willing to enact the European containment agenda grants them political validity, which is then used to undermine not only migrant rights, but also to repress domestic opposition and dissidence and thus destabilize internal democratisation processes. The short-term European goal of preventing asylum seeker flows thereby risks compromising the stated long-term goal of tackling the root causes of displacement,[47] which is sacrificed in the altar of externalised ‘integrated border management’.[48]
      3. Legal distance-creation: The juridical implications of externalization and border-induced displacement

      Externalization has not only been encapsulated in political and policy arguments and practices, but has also been embedded in law through the ‘protection elsewhere’ model. The ‘protection elsewhere’ model ultimately rests on the assumption that refugees and migrants are best served ‘at home’, whether it be in their countries of origin or in the neighbouring region (but away from the EU at any rate). ‘Onward movements’ defy this logic and are thus seriously penalized. Responsibility for reception and asylum has accordingly been delegated (or redirected) to countries proximate to the source of flows, via targeted rules on ‘safe third countries’ and readmission agreements that legalise the practice. But, as stated above, this (re-)allocation of protection duties to peripheral States is also part and parcel of the Common European Asylum System within the EU. The Dublin Regulation enshrines and ‘rulifies’ this vision for the Member States, allowing non-external border countries to deflect responsibility in a legal manner.
      Against this background, EU countries feel legitimized to claim their own irresponsibility vis-à-vis non-Member States,[49] projecting the model onto their external relations and imposing compliance with EU control rules as a matter of course. Fatalities at sea and elsewhere are then presented as the result of disorder and illegality; something avoidable if only (EU) rules were observed and effectively enforced by non-EU partners. The structural conditions imposed by the externalization apparatus, and the injustice that ensues, are usually disregarded or downplayed as unintended collateral damage. The fact that illegality is the only way out of a situation of want or persecution, and that smuggling is the only remaining vehicle to reach safety, is routinely silenced. It is the smugglers who profit of the precarious situation of ‘boat migrants’ – the argument goes. So, the eradication of smuggling and a return to (EU) law and order is portrayed as the solution. The option to relax border control rules and adapt them to the imperatives of human dignity, decriminalising the irregular movement of forced migrants, is not even contemplated. That would be perceived as an illogical concession; a descent into chaos and the negation of the rule of (EU) law. This EU-centric conception of the law is what sustains the externalization edifice and nurtures the collaboration with third countries.
      At the legal-strategic level, externalization politics are accompanied by at least two degrees of ‘irresponsibilitization’, enshrined in, and sanctioned by, EU law: responsibility diffusion and responsibility denial. ‘Diffusion’ refers to the relational dimension of externalization, to situations of multi-actor alliance where the causation chain and attribution operation become unclear, with different agents and organs of different States contributing to a particular (unlawful) result. By contrast, ‘denial’ captures scenarios of outright disclaiming of responsibility, where this is said to belong to a different actor altogether, according to the (usually EU-based) rules in place (or their self-serving interpretation).
      3.1. Responsibility diffusion

      The creation of physical distance, via exit control, disembarkation platforms, holding sites, or reception camps abroad, contributes to ‘irresponsibilitization’ through diffusion. None of the proposals put forth so far clarifies exactly who should be considered responsible for those intercepted in, and repatriated to, Libya or any alternative location hosting the centres. The overall supposition appears to be that EU Member States would ultimately escape the task.[50] But there is some residual notion that European countries could not completely ‘circumvent’ their obligations[51] – albeit without elaboration, even the Legal Service of the European Parliament concedes that migrants sent to disembarkation platforms located outside the territory of the Member States ‘should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the 1951 Geneva Convention […] and in the European Convention of Human Rights’, including the principle of non-refoulement.[52]
      Actually, under international law, ‘no State can avoid responsibility by outsourcing or contracting out its obligations’.[53] Cooperation with third countries does not exonerate EU Member States from their non-refoulement and related duties – both under general customary law and as per the relevant international Conventions.[54] According to the Strasbourg Court, ‘[w]here States establish […] international agreements to pursue cooperation in certain fields of activity’, whatever their legal nature, validity, and intent,[55] ‘there may be implications for the protection of fundamental rights’. With this in mind, it would be ‘incompatible with the purpose and object of the [European Convention of Human Rights][56] if Contracting States were thereby absolved from their responsibility under the Convention in relation to the field of activity covered by such [agreements]’.[57] As a result, ‘[i]n so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the Contracting State […]’.[58] Despite its cooperation with Libya or any other third country, the independent responsibility of each EU Member State participating in the scheme of externalized migration controls subsists, ‘where the person[s] in question […] risk suffering a flagrant denial of the guarantees and rights secured to [them] under the Convention’.[59]
      Nor would Member States be able to evade responsibility by transferring functions to the UNHCR or the IOM – whatever their support and potential separate liability.[60] ‘Absolving Contracting States completely from their Convention responsibility in the areas covered by such a transfer would [again] be incompatible with the purpose and object of the Convention’, as Strasbourg clarifies. The final effect would be for ‘the guarantees of the Convention [to] be limited or excluded at will thereby depriving it of its peremptory character and undermining the practical and effective nature of its safeguards’,[61] negating the basic premise of the pacta sunt servanda principle.[62] And the same is true in regard to other instruments of international human rights law.
      Even though several actors combine to produce re-displacement, individual responsibility for its effects cannot be deflected. The principle is well established in international law. Article 47 of the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) contemplates precisely the scenario where several States participate in the same internationally wrongful act, stipulating that in such cases ‘the responsibility of each State may be invoked in relation to that act’.[63] Each State retains responsibility and, according to the ILC Commentary, ‘is separately responsible for the conduct attributable to it’. The fact that one or more additional States also contribute to the same act in no way reduces the responsibility of each single country.[64] So, any orders or transfers performed, or orchestrated by, EU Member States will engage their responsibility for any resulting breaches of their international commitments.
      Neither the ‘disembarkation platforms’ proposal, nor any other of the similar initiatives emerged since the 1980s explored above specifies where exactly those repatriated or ‘pulled back’, whether to Libya or other third countries, would be accommodated.[65] It is conceivable that proponents envisage offshore reception centres to be closed, since the ultimate aim is to contain and deter irregular movement.[66] This then entails large-scale, and potentially long-term, detention, in breach of Article 5 ECHR guarantees,[67] which have been recognised to apply extraterritorially, extending to cases of deprivation of liberty abroad.[68] Yet, the border-induced displacement effects of externalization practices, like involuntary retention in international waters, forcible transfer to warships, coercive escorting or imposing of a certain course, constitute restrictions of physical freedom and need to accommodate the legal safeguards of the Convention.[69]
      It is not known whether the ‘disembarkation platforms’ proposal foresees transfers to the country concerned to be automatic. Should that be the case, EU Member States risk incurring direct and indirect violations of the prohibition of collective expulsion and the (non-derogable/non-limitable) protection against refoulement. Regarding the latter, the Strasbourg Court attaches paramount importance to country information contained in reports from independent sources,[70] so that when reliable accounts of the circumstances prevailing in the receiving State make it ‘sufficiently real and probable’ that the general situation entails a ‘real risk’ of ill treatment in the sense of Article 3 ECHR, a refoulement presumption is activated and removal cannot be performed.[71] What is more, on account of the absolute character of Article 3, Contracting Parties must undertake the relevant investigation proprio motu and abstain from actions/omissions that put individuals at risk. As the Court asserted in Hirsi, ‘it [is] for the national authorities, faced with a situation in which human rights [are] systematically violated […] to find out about the treatment to which the applicants would be exposed after their return’.[72] So, the Member States concerned are to comply with their non-refoulement obligations proactively, regardless of whether the persons in question seek protection or specifically alert of the dangers faced upon return. The fact that potential applicants fail to request asylum or to formally oppose their removal does not absolve Contracting Parties of their Convention duties,[73] and especially their positive due diligence obligations.
      This includes the requirement to provide access to adequate procedures.[74] Member States must offer a real opportunity for individuals to submit and defend their claims,[75] including an ‘effective remedy’.[76] This requires that the remedy in question be able to ‘prevent the execution of measures that are contrary to the Convention and whose effects are potentially irreversible’. Therefore, ‘it is inconsistent with Article 13 [ECHR] for such measures to be executed before the national authorities [of the Member State concerned] have examined whether they are compatible with the Convention’.[77] In these cases, appeals must have ‘automatic suspensive effect’.[78] And screening on board interdicting vessels or somewhere else offshore cannot satisfy these requirements.[79] Procedural responsibilities, just like substantive guarantees, cannot be deflected, postponed, or negated. The ultimate guarantors of ECHR safeguards are the Contracting Parties, which must ‘secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention’.[80]
      Due diligence commands the dual duty to refrain from any conduct that may result in arbitrary violations as well as the obligation to enact laws and policies that effectively protect individuals against abuse. Following the Human Rights Committee’s recent General Comment on the Right to Life, by analogy, State Parties are required to ‘organise all State organs and governance structures through which public authority is exercised in a manner consistent with the need to respect and ensure [human rights]’. This includes a duty of ‘continuous supervision’ in order to ‘prevent, investigate, punish and remedy’ any harm.[81] As a result, actions such as the ‘sale […] of […] weapons’, and presumably other similar law enforcement and border control equipment, must be preceded by a conscientious examination of its foreseeable impact on human rights.[82] As members of the international community and as subjects of customary law, States must take into account
      ‘their responsibility […] to protect lives and to oppose widespread or systematic attacks on [human rights]’[83] – like those sustained by migrants in Libya.[84] And, in particular, States have an obligation under general international law ‘not to aid or assist activities undertaken by other States and non-State actors that violate [human rights]’.[85]

      All these reasons should lead to the rejection of ‘disembarkation platforms’ and similar initiatives as ‘externalization fantasyland’.[86] EU Member States should not invest in a formula that promotes cooperation with human rights perpetrators and impedes the fulfilment of their pre-contracted obligations – such a course would hardly qualify as a good faith implementation of their binding commitments.[87] Instead, domestic systems of territorial protection should be reinforced, including the necessary intra-EU solidarity and responsibility-sharing mechanisms to make them effective.[88] Physical distance-creation, through off-shoring and outsourcing, does not translate into an erasure or diminution of legal duties. EU rules on ‘safe third countries’ and readmission cannot (unilaterally) undo international standards.[89]
      3.2. Responsibility denial

      Besides tools of responsibility deflection, mechanisms of outright denial of obligations are equally challenging. Usually, the capacitation of third countries’ control infrastructures, mimicking the Schengen ‘integrated border management’ system,[90] is framed as unproblematic. The transfer of funds, know-how, and equipment, as in the cases referred to in the previous section, are considered to emanate from a spirit of solidarity with non-EU partners and to be fully in line with the relevant criteria. The ethical distance between the EU or Member State gifting assets, ceding resources, or providing training and any potential human rights violations that may ensue is taken to preclude liability. There is no intent – no dolus specialis – intervening in the operation. Thus, the denial of responsibility on the European side for the atrocities in Libya, the abuses in Turkey, or the fatalities at sea associated with border-induced displacement, commonly recurs.[91]
      Yet, international law paints a more complex picture.[92] If one considers that it is ‘thanks’[93] to Italy, for instance, that the LYCG continues to exist in any functional form in the post-Kaddafi period,[94] an outright denial of responsibility becomes difficult.[95]
      Especially since the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding between Italy and the Libyan Government of National Accord in February 2017,[96] the delivery of training, equipment, and assets (including the four main patrol vessels employed by the LYCG) has intensified. Italy has created a dedicated ‘Africa Fund’, € 2.5 million of which has been allocated to the maintenance of LYCG boats and the training of their crews.[97] The EU, too, has committed € 46 million to prop up Libyan interdiction capacity.[98] It has been calculated that the total combined investment by Italy and the EU will be € 285 million by 2023,[99] with the EU alone providing € 282 million – most of which via programmes administered, coordinated, or supervised by Italy.[100] In addition, an extension of the Mare Sicuro Operation, named NAURAS,[101] was approved by the Italian Parliament in August 2017, consisting of four ships, four helicopters, and 600 servicemen, of which 70 per cent are deployed at sea, with the other 30 per cent stationed in Tripoli harbour. Their key mission, as declared by the Italian Navy itself, is to ‘establish [the] operational condition[s] for LN/LNCG [i.e. Libyan Navy and LYCG] assets and develop C2 [ie command-and-control] capabilities’. Meanwhile, an ‘ITN [ie Italian Navy] naval asset in Tripoli Harbour [is] acting as LNCC [ie Libyan Navy Communication Centre] and logistic assistance/support hub’, thus assuming the function of a floating maritime rescue coordination centre.[102]
      The nature of the LYCG as a proxy for Italian interdiction has furthermore been confirmed by the judge of Catania adjudicating on the related case concerning the rescue ship Open Arms of the NGO Proactiva. In his decision, the judge takes as proven the crucial role played by Italy in leading LYCG operations. The judge goes so far as to affirm that the interventions of Libyan patrol vessels happen ‘under the aegis of the Italian Navy’ and that the coordination of rescue missions is ‘essentially entrusted to the Italian Navy, with its own naval assets and with those provided to the Libyans’.[103] This corroborates the ‘high degree of integration’ between the two,[104] and the ‘effective control’ exercised by Italy over LYCG operations, making ensuing violations attributable to it.[105]
      The subsequent abuse of those pulled back to Tripoli happens despite Italy’s knowledge of the desperate situation facing migrants in Libya, including widespread and systematic torture, rape, inhuman and degrading treatment, and enslavement. The Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs himself admitted that ‘taking [migrants] back to Libya, at this moment, means taking them back to hell’.[106] Nonetheless, the interdiction by proxy policy of Italy continues.[107] Amnesty International estimates that there are over 10,000 persons currently held in official detention centres in Libya – all of which funded through EU/Italian money. And, virtually all of them have been brought there as a result of their interdiction at sea by the EU/Italian-equipped and -trained LYCG.[108] Consequently, the combination of control exercised – though ‘contactless’[109] – and the knowledge of the circumstances migrants face should be understood to render Italy answerable for the resulting human rights violations, even if the LYCG is used as a surrogate.
      As per Article 8 ARSIWA, ‘[t]he conduct of a person or group of persons [such as the LYCG] shall be considered an act of a State [i.e. Italy in this case]’, when the group in question ‘is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct’. Taking the Italian Navy and the Judge of Catania’s assertions at face value, the LYCG are to be considered ‘auxiliaries’ of the Italian border machinery deployed extraterritorially, ‘instructed to carry out particular [interdiction] missions abroad’. The Italian Navy conducts the specific operations through its NAURAS effectives exercising coordination as well as command-and-control functions, meaning that the (wrongful) conduct of the LYCG shall be considered ‘an integral part of the operations’ aimed at impeding departures across the Central Mediterranean and thus be attributed to Italy.[110] It is the Italian authorities that locate targets, relay maritime coordinates, and equip and mandate the LYCG to proceed to the interdiction of migrant boats.[111] It is Italy that ‘directs’ the operations in a way that ‘does not encompass mere incitement or suggestion but rather connotes actual direction of an operative kind’.[112] Italian intervention is a sine qua non for the ‘pull-backs’ at sea to materialise, which could not be carried out autonomously by the LYCG.[113] Italy exercises ‘such a degree of control […] as to justify treating the [LYCG] as acting on its behalf’.[114]
      Italy’s involvement in Libyan search and rescue (or rather, interdiction) operations, in different ways and throughout time, rather than just an instance of complicity,[115] engaging indirect responsibility, can thus be characterised as a breach entailing direct responsibility, consisting of a ‘composite act’. Article 15 ARSIWA establishes that an international obligation (of non-refoulement, for instance, and of non-arbitrary interference with the right to leave) may indeed be violated via ‘a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as wrongful’. The financing or training of the LYCG alone may be harmless and perfectly licit, but, when taken together and alongside the infiltration of the command-and-control chain of the LYCG by the Italian Navy, the whole, in light of the final outcome of pull-backs, becomes an illicit under international law.
      Italian jurisdiction may indeed be engaged not only in relation to action occurring within its territory and in other areas subject to its ‘effective control’, but, as the Human Rights Committee has stated, also regarding conduct ‘having a direct and reasonably foreseeable impact on the right[s] […] of individuals [abroad]’.[116] The obligation to respect and protect human rights extends beyond territorial domain to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, that is, to ‘all persons over whose enjoyment of the right[s] [concerned] it exercises power’, including ‘persons located outside any territory effectively controlled by the State, whose [rights are] nonetheless impacted by its military and other activities’ – the transfer of money, equipment and enforcement capacity thus acquiring a significance of its own as a possible trigger of independent responsibility for wrongful conduct.[117] Not only the aiding and abetting of human rights violations is of relevance, whatever the form the assistance provided to the LYCG may take (whether commercial, financial, political, or logistical), but also actions (or omissions) that impede the effective enjoyment of human rights – counting the right to leave any country, to seek protection from harm, and to non-refoulement – matter too, from a legal perspective.[118] Following the Legal Service of the European Parliament in the context of its viability analysis of ‘disembarkation platforms’, engagement in any formal or informal arrangement with third countries – including Libya – to finance or contribute to the functioning of externalized structures of migration control ‘have to respect the prescriptions of the relevant provisions of international law’[119] – presumably including those under the ECHR, the ICCPR and general customary norms.[120] Failure to do so flouts the obligations concerned. Direct perpetration of an international wrong is not a pre-requisite for legal responsibility. Indirect contraventions – including via proxy – incur liability as well.[121]
      Distance-creation, through the ‘rulification’ of ‘irresponsibility’ in legal texts or self-seeking effectuations, does not do away with international obligations, nor does it legitimize the suffering it provokes. The EU and its Member States must come to recognise the predictable effect and implications of their externalization agenda. And, alongside the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, acknowledge that, as currently designed, their ‘migration policies can amount to ill-treatment’.[122] Actually, ‘[t]he primary cause for the massive abuse suffered by migrants […] is neither migration itself, nor organised crime […] but the growing tendency of States to base their official migration policies and practices on deterrence, criminalisation and discrimination’.[123] It is this distinct strategy that causes border-induced displacement, breaches human rights obligations and triggers international legal responsibility.[124]
      4. Conclusion: ‘Rulification’ as the co-option of protection

      ‘Rulification’ does not represent a paradigm shift in European politics, but rather an up-scaling of the logic observable also in proposals pursued from the 1980s and onwards and which have led to the integration of the concepts of ‘first country of arrival’, ‘safe third country’ and maritime interdiction within the legal architecture of the common borders and asylum acquis, the primary purpose of which has been the avoidance of asylum seekers on EU territory. It is the abuse and exploitation entrenched within externalization strategies that engenders border-induced displacement in Europe’s border-region. With EU Member States viewing the opening up of legal escape routes as an irrational concession, the side-effects of externalization are exacerbated as the systemic logic of asymmetric, diffused, and denied responsibility for displaced persons is reproduced further and further away from Europe, and closer and closer to the repressive regimes people attempt to escape from.
      The reactionary and regionalist assumptions underpinning externalization arguments and practices tell a securitized tale of displacements constantly generated and managed far removed from European territory and agency. However, distance-creation strategies, whether ethical, spatial, or legal, belong to the category of ‘policies based on deterrence, militarization and extraterritoriality’, denounced by UN Special Rapporteurs and others, ‘which implicitly or explicitly tolerate [and perpetuate] the risk of migrant deaths as part of an effective control of entry’.[125] As the previous sections demonstrate, the structural nature of externalization problematizes traditional assumptions and debates in immigration ethics and politics. It traps migrants in a ‘vicious circle’ of more control, more danger, and more displacement, where they must rely on facilitators to escape life-threatening perils.[126]
      But smuggling and trafficking is the consequence, rather than the cause, of suffering. Suffering is embedded in the externalization system by design through the vehicle of ‘rulification’, which serves to launder the pernicious (and perfectly foreseeable) impact of extra-territorialised/externalised coercion into ‘law-ified’ (and purportedly unintended) side effects. At the same time, the European transfer of equipment and capacity for control outwards also risks undermining processes of accountability and democratic legitimacy in regions bordering Europe. And the ‘rulification’ of border-induced displacement does not make these implications any more palatable. In the words of UN Special Rapporteur Agnès Callamard, it is simply ‘not acceptable’ to deter entry by endangering life.[127] The fallacy of coercion-based protection needs to give way to an ethically grounded and legally sustainable rights-honouring paradigm. This is not to contest the legal existence of borders or their enforcement, but to challenge the legitimacy of mechanisms through which they are presently enacted in a manner incompatible with the most basic requirements of international law.

      http://www.qil-qdi.org/border-induced-displacement-the-ethical-and-legal-implications-of-distance-
      #responsabilité #déni_de_responsabilité #protection

  • Austria Immigration Detention

    Austria has sharply increased the number of people it places in immigration detention after years of declining detainee populations. While it continues the controversial practice of placing immigration detainees in “Police Detention Centres,” the country opened a new dedicated immigration detention centre in 2014, which is partly operated by the multinational security company G4S. The country has also announced plans to significantly boost removals, focusing mainly on people from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

    https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/austria
    #Autriche #détention_administrative #privatisation #G4S #rétention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #statistiques #chiffres

  • À qui profite la gestion des migrations ?

    Les migrations font partie de l’histoire de l’humanité mais les frontières n’ont jamais été aussi fermées qu’aujourd’hui. Les conventions issues des politiques migratoires actuelles ont divisé les migrants en différentes catégories (politiques, économiques, climatiques...) en fonction de la supposée légitimité ou non d’avoir accès au droit d’asile ou à séjourner sur un territoire étranger. « Le migrant économique », qui se déplace pour fuir la misère engendrée par les politiques liées au remboursement de la dette, est la catégorie qui bénéficie du moins de droits et son accès aux territoires extérieurs varie en fonction des besoins de main-d’œuvre ou des politiques de fermetures aux frontières.


    http://www.cadtm.org/A-qui-profite-la-gestion-des
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #contrôle_migratoire #business #Frontex #frontières #privatisation #externalisation #détention_administrative #rétention #VFS #visas #TLS_Contact #Sodexo #G4S #Geo #serco #Sodexho_Marriott

  • Trauma, Death and Profits - Youth Prisons in the UK

    In the UK there are three types of youth imprisonment. Secure Children’s Homes are run by local councils for children aged 10 to 14. Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) are for young people aged 15 to 21. Those under 18 are held in separate institutions. Many YOIs are also part of adult prisons. There are 26 prisons in total across England, Wales, and Scotland that hold 18-21 year olds. Young adults (aged 18 – 24) make up 17% of the prison population with more than 14,932 imprisoned.

    https://corporatewatch.org/news/2017/sep/06/trauma-abuse-and-deaths-youth-prisons-uk
    #détention #UK #privatisation #jeunes #Angleterre #abus #Medway #Oakhill #Rainsbrook #G4S #MTCnovo #MTC

  • Vom Profit mit der Not

    Weltweit sind rund 65 Millionen Menschen auf der Flucht. Es gibt so viele Flüchtlingslager wie nie zuvor. Eigentlich als Provisorien gedacht, sind viele Camps heute Dauereinrichtungen. Ein neues Geschäftsfeld ist entstanden, ein Geschäftsfeld, das private Unternehmen für sich zu nutzen wissen.

    https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/dok/video/vom-profit-mit-der-not?id=03b022a4-9627-48d9-90b1-bf04ed1b5069

    #camps_de_réfugiés #asile #migrations #réfugiés #profit #économie #privatisation #marché #business #vidéo #film #documentaire #technologie #ONU #nations_unies #ikea #biométrie #surveillance #HCR #UNHCR #Jordanie #IrisGuard #supermarchés #données #terrorisme #Dadaab #liberté_de_mouvement #liberté_de_circulation #apatridie #Kenya #réfugiés_somaliens #accord_UE-Turquie #Turquie #Poseidon #Frontex #Grèce #Lesbos #Moria #hotspots

    Les conseillers de #IrisGuard :
    #Richard_Dearlove : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dearlove (il a travailler pour les #services_secrets britanniques)
    #Frances_Townsend : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Townsend (conseillère de #Georges_Bush)

    L’entreprise IrisGuard a son siège aux #îles_Caïmans #Cayman_Islands (#paradis_fiscaux)

    #G4S assure la protection des travailleurs humanitaires à Dadaad... L’ONU a dépensé, selon ce documentaire, 23 mio de USD pour la protection de ses employés, le 2ème plus haut poste de dépenses après l’eau potable...

    • Market Forces: the development of the EU security-industrial complex

      While the European Union project has faltered in recent years, afflicted by the fall-out of the economic crisis, the rise of anti-EU parties and the Brexit vote, there is one area where it has not only continued apace but made significant advances: Europe’s security policies have not only gained political support from across its Member States but growing budgets and resources too.

      Transnational corporations are winning millions of euros of public research funds to develop ever more intrusive surveillance and snooping technologies, a new report by Statewatch and the Transnational Institute reveals today.

      The report, Market Forces, shows how the EU’s €1.7 billion ‘Secure societies’ research programme has been shaped by the “homeland security” industry and in the process is constructing an ever more militarised and security-focused Europe.

      The research programme, in place since 2007, has sought to combat a panoply of “threats” ranging from terrorism and organised criminality to irregular migration and petty crime through the development of new “homeland security” technologies such as automated behaviour analysis tools, enhanced video and data surveillance, and biometric identification systems.

      Key beneficiaries of this research funding have been companies: #Thales (€33.1m), #Selex (€23.2m), #Airbus (€17.8m), #Atos (€14.1m) and #Indra (€12.3m are the five biggest corporate recipients. Major applied research institutes have also received massive amounts of funding, the top five being: #Fraunhofer_Institute (€65.7 million); #TNO (€33.5 million); #Swedish_Defence_Research_Institute (€33.4 million); #Commissariat_à_l'énergie_atomique_et_aux_énergies_alternatives (€22.1 million); #Austrian_Intstitute_of_Technology (€16 million).

      Many of these organisations and their lobbies have played a significant role in designing the research programme through their participation in high-level public-private forums, European Commission advisory groups and through lobbying undertaken by industry groups such as the European Organisation for Security (#EOS).

      The report also examines EU’s €3.8 billion #Internal_Security_Fund, which provides funding to Member States to acquire new tools and technologies: border control #drones and surveillance systems, #IMSI catchers for spying on mobile phones, tools for monitoring the web and ‘pre-crime’ predictive policing systems are currently on the agenda.

      It is foreseen that the fund will eventually pay for technologies developed through the security research programme, creating a closed loop of supply and demand between private companies and state authorities.

      Despite the ongoing economic crisis, EU funding for new security tools and technologies has grown from under €4 billion to almost €8 billion in the 2014-20 period (compared to 2007-13) and the report warns that there is a risk of further empowering illiberal tendencies in EU governments that have taken unprecedented steps in recent years towards normalising emergency powers and undermining human rights protection in the name of fighting terrorism and providing “security”.

      Market Forces argues that upcoming negotiations on the next round of funding programmes (2021-27) provide a significant opportunity to reform the rationale and reasoning behind the EU’s development of new security technologies and its funding of tools and equipment for national authorities.


      http://statewatch.org/marketforces

      Lien vers le #rapport:
      http://statewatch.org/analyses/marketforces.pdf

    • #Burundi refugees refuse ’biometric’ registration in #DRC

      More than 2 000 Burundian refugees living in a transit camp in Democratic Republic of Congo are resisting plans to register them on a biometric database, claiming it would violate their religion.

      They belong to an obscure Catholic sect that follows a female prophet called #Zebiya and claim to have fled their homeland due to religious persecution.

      https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/burundi-refugees-refuse-biometric-registration-in-drc-20171207
      #résistance #Congo #camps_de_réfugiés #persécution_religieuse

  • Theresa May mieux que Sarkozy Le Grand Soir - Bernard GENSANE - 5 Juin 2017
    https://www.legrandsoir.info/theresa-may-mieux-que-sarkozy.html

    On se souvient que Sarkozy avait supprimé près de 13 000 postes dans les forces de police et de gendarmerie. Cameron, suivi par Theresa May, ont fait mieux : une suppression de 15% des forces de l’ordre. Le gouvernement a imposé une réduction de budget de 20 % aux forces de police. La police des West Midlands a supprimé 2 764 postes de 2013 à 2015. Dans tout le pays, ce devrait être le cas pour 34 000 postes, au cours du même laps de temps.


    Derrière ces chiffres impressionnants, il y a des réalités humaines. Imaginons une telle suppression dans une chaîne de supermarchés, dans les écoles primaires d’un département français, dans une maternité du Morbihan. Comment les personnels susceptibles d’être victimes d’une telle mesure vont-ils vivre cela, vont-ils réagir à une telle menace ? Comment chaque individu ne va pas regarder son voisin du coin de l’œil et le considérer, soit comme un danger personnel, soit comme un parasite à éliminer ?

    Par delà les coupes claires, Les conservateurs britanniques ont lancé un vaste programme de privatisation de la police. Cela a débuté en 2013, avec un transfert au secteur privé et à ses actionnaires de près de 4 milliards d’euros. Pour justifier d’une manière libérale ce « faire mieux avec moins », le porte-parole de l’association des chefs de la police du grand Manchester (une ville qui a beaucoup souffert récemment, n’est-ce pas ?) expliquait – ce qui est une vaste blague – qu’il y a deux types de missions policières et que l’une peut être confiée à des entreprises privées : « cette offre permettra de fournir du personnel qui pourra mener des tâches de routine et répétitives à un coût réduit, et fournira l’accès temporaire à du personnel qualifié – comme des équipes d’enquête sur les meurtres. Celles-ci pourront être employées pour des événements qui sont rares, mais pour lesquels toutes les forces doivent garder en permanence un groupe de personnel très coûteux. Il sera alors possible de dépenser plus pour les services qui requièrent, en raison de leur complexité, de leur impact sur la sécurité publique ou de leur rôle central, d’être menés entièrement par des officiers assermentés ».

    Mais le privé ne va pas se contenter du suivi des chiens écrasés, actionnaires obligent. La société privée G4S, qui a raflé la mise, a ses exigences. Deux mots sur cette entreprise. Elle emploie 620 000 personnes dans 120 pays de notre joli monde. Elle est, par exemple, implantée au Luxembourg depuis 1971. Cette seule filiale a un chiffre d’affaires de 60 millions d’euros. Il faut dire que ce riant pays compte plus de banques que de voleurs à la tire ! GS4 fut choisie comme prestataire officiel pour les Jeux Olympiques de Londres. Elle « reconnut ne pas pouvoir honorer son contrat du fait d’une pénurie de main-d’œuvre. » Le 2 avril 2013, de vilains garçons attaquent le siège de l’entreprise à l’explosif et tirent sur des policiers avant de s’enfuir.

    Le 12 juin 2016, une boîte de nuit d’Orlando, fréquentée par des homosexuels, fait l’objet d’une fusillade de masse. 49 personnes sont tuées. L’auteur du massacre est un employé de GS4 d’origine afghane ayant échoué aux examens d’entrée dans la police et, par ailleurs, violemment anti-homosexuel.

    Deux régions du Royaume-Uni, le West-Midlands et le comté du Surrey, ont confié à GS4 des missions délicates : suivi d’individus à haut risque, détention de suspects potentiellement dangereux. Sans pouvoir d’arrestation, cela dit. Ce pouvoir reste la prérogative de la vraie police qui est plus autonome que la police française, par exemple. Les directeurs de police britannique se disent indépendants de tout contrôle politique. Ils ne sont pas, comme en France, sous la coupe des autorités judiciaires pendant le déroulement de leurs enquêtes. Ils détiennent un pouvoir d’inculpation.

    Après les trois dernières tueries de masse, on comprend que Theresa May ait reconnu, mais un peu tard, qu’il fallait repenser entièrement les missions de la police et sa place dans la société.

    Trois PS qui n’ont rien à voir, mais qui ont à voir tout de même. Suite à la tuerie du Pont de Londres, Theresa May a remis en question le modèle communautariste qui donne, par exemple, pleins pouvoirs à des tribunaux islamiques pour régler des problèmes de justice civile (ce qu’elle a personnellement toujours accepté). Ce modèle communautariste fonctionne depuis la deuxième moitié des années soixante. Il a donc déjà concerné trois générations. Si Theresa May parvient à renverser la vapeur, je lui tire mon chapeau.

    Emmanuel Macron qui, décidément, n’éprouve guère d’empathie pour les petites gens qui souffrent, a supprimé le secrétariat d’État aux victimes du terrorisme mis en place par Hollande.

    Les caméras de surveillance ne servent qu’à retrouver plus rapidement les criminels et autres auteurs de délit. Elles ne les empêchent pas d’agir. Y compris à Londres, l’une des villes les plus maillées au monde. Dans chaque station du métro de Lyon, un panneau nous informe charitablement que les caméras nous « protègent ». Mensonge ! Elles permettent seulement de repérer les délinquants une fois que le mal a été fait.

    Publié aussi sur : https://blogs.mediapart.fr/bernard-gensane/blog/050617/theresa-may-mieux-que-sarkozy
    #Theresa_May #Manchester #Police #Angleterre #budget #atentas #conservateurs #privatisation #G4S #Victimes_du_terrorisme #caméras_de_surveillance

    Bernard GENSANE Theresa May mieux que Sarkozy

  • #G4S : quand l’entreprise privée veille sur votre sécurité
    http://multinationales.org/G4S-quand-l-entreprise-privee-veille-sur-votre-securite

    Le contexte sécuritaire qui est celui de l’Europe aujourd’hui ne fait pas que des malheureux, notamment du côté des firmes qui se sont spécialisées dans la sécurité et la surveillance. Parmi celles-ci, la britannique G4S, à laquelle de nombreux gouvernements sous-traitent leurs basses œuvres, depuis la gestion des prisons jusqu’à la déportation des #migrants. Le nouveau monde « trumpien » dans lequel nous vivons va-t-elle lui permettre de retrouver la santé financière, alors qu’elle avait été éclaboussée (...)

    Actualités

    / #Belgique, #Royaume-Uni, G4S, #privatisation, migrants, #droits_humains

    « https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/AT-Press-Release-FRE.pdf »
    « https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/30/g4s-sued-by-ex-flight-attendant-who-witnessed-jimmy-mubengas-death »
    « https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/07/amnesty-security-treatment-deportees-overhaul »
    « https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/manus-security-firm-g4s-responsible-for-february-violence-says-law-cent »
    « http://www.latribune.fr/economie/international/tuerie-d-orlando-nouveau-scandale-pour-la-compagnie-de-securite-g4s-578655 »
    « https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/19/g4s-must-pay-for-cost-of-birmingham-prison-riot-says-liz-truss »
    « http://www.la-croix.com/Journal/Les-prisons-britanniques-bord-rupture-2017-02-20-1100826220 »
    « http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-35290582 »
    « http://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt/idFRL6E8JS5GZ20120828 »
    « https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/south-african-prisoners-sue-g4s-over-torture-claims »
    « https://www.publiceye.ch/fr/actualites/news/nominations_aux_public_eye_awards_2013 »
    « http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/18/end-private-prisons »
    « https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/23/g4s-prisons-contracts-hmp-birmingham »
    « http://www.g4s.com/en/Media%20Centre/News/2011/03/31/HMP%20Birmingham%20and%20Featherstone%202 »
    « http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20252359 »
    « https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/torture_in_the_uk_-_french.pdf »
    « https://bdsmovement.net/stop-g4s »

  • Who Is Responsible for Harm in Immigration Detention? Models of Accountability for Private Corporations

    This paper argues that private corporations can and should be held responsible for structural injustices that take place in immigration detention regimes in which they operate. It draws on literature from business ethics to evaluate various ethical arguments for assessing corporate responsibility, emphasising models that may lead to the prevention of harm and suffering. In particular, the paper employs a social connection model of ethics as well as evidence of detention practices in Europe, the United States, and Australia to address a number of inter-related questions: How is immigration detention harmful? Who is responsible for this harm? How can responsible institutions reduce harm? The paper concludes by arguing that in addition to corporations and states, citizens and non-citizens have obligations to share in efforts to reduce the harm of immigration-related detention.

    https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/who-is-responsible-for-harm-in-immigration-detention-models-
    #privatisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #détention_administrative #rétention #G4S #business #économie

  • Le « business de la peur » s’envole depuis les attentats de Bruxelles
    http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/le-business-de-la-peur-s-envole-depuis-les-attentats-de-bruxelles-58c055d2cd

    Les missions de Securitas et G4S vont se diversifier, ce qui ne plaît pas à tout le monde. On le surnomme parfois le « business de la peur ». G4S, Securitas ou Seris Security : depuis la menace terroriste et les attentats de Bruxelles en mars de l’année dernière, les sociétés privées de gardiennage en Belgique connaissent une croissance spectaculaire. A l’heure actuelle, près de 16 000 personnes travaillent pour ce secteur dans notre pays et ce chiffre est en perpétuelle (...)

    #Securitas #G4S #drone #anti-terrorisme #sécuritaire #surveillance

  • [#Suisse] Quand l’accueil des personnes en exil devient un bizness

    Ce texte fait suite à une première analyse publiée sur renversé de l’évolution de l’accueil des requérantEs d’asile en Suisse, « Vers un accueil carcéral des réfugiéEs » . Il traite du mécanisme de la privatisation et de la marchandisation de l’enfermement des personnes en exil et tente de mettre un peu plus en lumière la logique capitaliste sous-jacente à celle-ci. Pour rappel, la Suisse met en place une nouvelle politique en matière de gestion de la migration, qui porte notamment sur la privatisation des institutions suisses de l’Europe forteresse. L’idée n’est pas ici de défendre un étatisme carcéral des questions migratoires mais de mettre en lumière les logiques actuelles qui président à la gestion de ces questions dans la Suisse d’aujourd’hui.

    ORS c’est quoi ?
    A l’origine, il s’agit d’une agence d’intérim lausannoise créée en 1977 nommée ORS Services SA. En 1992, la société devient ORS Service AG et déménage à Zurich. En 2005, le fondateur de l’entreprise la revend à #Argos_Soditic qui la revend à #Invision en 2009, qui finalement la revend à #Equistone en 2013. Equistone Partners Europe est un fond d’investissement international avec des antennes dans 4 pays européens. ORS déclare un chiffre d’affaires de 65 millions de francs suisses pour 2014, essentiellement en provenance de fonds publics. Selon plusieurs médias, celui-ci atteint 85 millions en 2015 mais son bénéfice n’a jamais été divulgué. Alors quand Claude Gumy, directeur opérationnel à Fribourg dit dans le journal Le Temps « Notre but n’est pas de gagner de l’argent pour le compte d’investisseurs. Nous nous occupons avant tout d’êtres humains », de qui se moque-t-il ? Pour faire des économies l’État suisse délègue la gestion de « l’accueil » a des investisseurs qui après avoir spéculé sur les marchandises et dépouillé les pays pauvres spéculent sur les flux migratoires qu’ils ont ainsi engendrés. Leur entreprise est d’ailleurs réputée pour sa collaboration inconditionnelle avec les services étatique et la police dont les pratiques répressives ne font aucun doute.

    https://renverse.co/Suisse-Quand-l-accueil-des-personnes-en-exil-devient-un-bizness-982
    #business #accueil #asile #migrations #réfugiés #hébergement #logement #ORS #privatisation #G4S

    • ORS : Bras droit armé de la confédération suisse pour mener la répression sur les personnes en exil

      Plusieurs articles parus récemment dans la presse mainstream faisaient état de « vives critiques » envers la société privée ORS engagée par la Confédération. Active dans le business de l’incarcération des migrantEs, cette entreprise basée à Zurich ne cesse d’être dénoncé par de nombreuses organisation et individus pour ses pratiques répressives, et ce depuis plusieurs années.

      https://renverse.co/ORS-bras-droit-arme-de-la-confederation-suisse-pour-mener-la-repression-sur

    • Traduction en italien:
      Quando l’accoglienza delle persone in esilio diventa un business

      Questo articolo tratta del meccanismo della privatizzazione e della mercificazione dell’incarcerazione delle persone in esilio e tenta di mettere un po’ meglio in luce la logica capitalista soggiacente a questi fenomeni. Ricordiamo che la svizzera mette in atto una nuova politica nel campo della gestione della migrazione, che concerne tra l’altro la privatizzazione delle istituzioni svizzere della fortezza Europa. L’idea di questo testo non è di difendere una gestione statale carceraria delle questioni migratorie, ma di mettere in luce le logiche attuali della gestione di queste questioni nella svizzera di oggi.

      https://frecciaspezzata.noblogs.org/post/2017/03/19/quando-laccoglienza-delle-persone-in-esilio-diventa-un-busi

    • Privatisation | Les enjeux autour de la délégation de l’asile. Qui profite de qui ?

      En Suisse, depuis plusieurs années, de nombreuses tâches liées à l’hébergement et à la prise en charge des personnes issues du domaine de l’asile sont privatisées. Ces processus de délégation de tâches publiques à des acteurs privés ne sont pas neutres et affectent la mise en œuvre de la politique d’asile. Avec des conséquences non négligeables, tant en matière de gestion du domaine de l’asile et du travail quotidien dans les centres d’accueil que du rôle de l’État et de sa responsabilité.

      https://asile.ch/2018/06/22/privatisation-les-enjeux-autour-de-la-delegation-de-lasile-qui-profite-de-qui
      #profit #flexibilité #rentabilité

    • L’accueil des migrants pointé du doigt

      Solidarités et Droit de rester dénoncent les pratiques d’ORS, entreprise qui s’occupe des requérants.

      « J’aime la Suisse. Mais ORS n’en donne pas une bonne image », déplore un jeune Erythréen vivant à Fribourg. Cette entreprise privée gérant la prise en charge des requérants d’asile dans le canton de Fribourg, sur mandat des pouvoirs publics, est la cible d’un rapport établi par le parti anticapitaliste Solidarités et le collectif citoyen Droit de rester. Ce document a été réalisé sur la base des témoignages d’une trentaine de personnes ayant été en contact direct avec ORS, que cela soit des migrants ou des bénévoles, et concerne principalement l’année 2017.

      « Depuis deux ans, notre collectif propose une permanence. Une fois par mois, les gens peuvent venir nous voir avec leurs questions concernant les permis de séjour ou encore l’accès aux soins. Nous les conseillons et les mettons éventuellement en lien avec, par exemple, des avocats ou des thérapeutes. Au fil du temps, beaucoup de ces personnes nous ont relaté des problèmes concernant ORS qui nous semblaient proprement scandaleux. Voilà pourquoi nous avons réalisé ce ­rapport », explique Sophie Guignard, membre de Droit de ­rester.
      De lourdes accusations

      Le document de trente pages porte de lourdes accusations, qu’ORS nie formellement (voir ci-dessous). « Certaines pratiques et règlements que subissent les requérants d’asile peuvent être assimilés à des mauvais traitements », écrivent ses auteurs. Ils pointent notamment du doigt le manque de place et d’intimité dans les foyers d’accueil : il n’y aurait parfois qu’une seule toilette pour plus d’une vingtaine de personnes, le papier toilette serait rationné et les cuisines délabrées. « Il fait actuellement très froid. Mais il n’y a pas d’eau chaude dans les douches », rapporte un requérant débouté, en Suisse depuis plusieurs années. A noter que la mise à disposition des infrastructures dépend de l’Etat de Fribourg, et non directement d’ORS.

      Pour maintenir l’ordre, des veilleurs menaceraient les migrants de recourir à la violence, voire passeraient à l’acte. Les débordements – retards, consommation d’alcool dans les chambres, musique trop forte – seraient punis de peines pécuniaires ou de transfert sans préavis vers un autre foyer, parfois vers un foyer se trouvant dans une autre région linguistique. Le rapport précise : « Un certain nombre de pratiques ne favorisent pas l’intégration des requérants, les empêchant d’apprendre la langue de l’endroit où ils vivent et de garder le contact avec les personnes rencontrées. »

      Autre accusation formulée : des cas de harcèlement. Représentante du collectif Droit de rester, Sandra Modica raconte : « Une femme que j’accompagnais m’a téléphoné en pleurs. Elle m’a expliqué que, depuis un certain temps, un surveillant tentait de l’embrasser ou de lui toucher les seins. Elle était psychologiquement trop fragile pour déposer une plainte. J’ai dénoncé le cas auprès d’ORS. Mais je n’ai jamais reçu de réponse. » En outre, certains requérants d’asile se plaignent d’une mauvaise information sur l’accès aux soins.
      Discussion demandée

      Enfin, de manière générale, Solidarités et Droit de rester rapportent une mauvaise communication et la présence chez ORS de beaucoup de personnel non formé. Leur revendication principale : pouvoir discuter avec le Conseil d’Etat, à qui le rapport a été envoyé en fin de semaine passée. « Nous ne visons pas des personnes mais un système. Nous sommes persuadés que celui-ci peut être amélioré », souligne Sophie Guignard.

      Le rapport précise d’ailleurs : « Nous avons pris connaissance d’améliorations entre la récolte des témoignages et la situation actuelle, ce que nous saluons. » Parmi ces améliorations, le programme Envole-moi, présenté en début d’année et qui a pour but d’encadrer les mineurs non accompagnés et les jeunes adultes.

      https://lecourrier.ch/2018/12/13/laccueil-des-migrants-pointe-du-doigt

    • 14 décembre 2019

      Le Collectif Droit de rester et le parti Solidarités publient un rapport sur les pratiques de l’ORS, entreprise responsable de la prise en charge des requérants d’asile dans le canton de #Fribourg. Basé sur une trentaine de témoignages, le #rapport met en lumière plusieurs problèmes systémiques, tels que le manque de place et d’intimité, l’absence d’eau chaude, le rationnement de papier toilette, des cas de harcèlement restés sans réponse. La principale demande est d’avoir une discussion avec le Conseil d’État à ce sujet. ORS nie formellement toutes ces accusations.

      https://asile.ch/2019/03/12/chronique-suisse-du-13-decembre-2018-au-25-janvier-2019

    • Gestion de l’asile | ORS Fribourg : Quand l’État fait la sourde oreille. Business is Business ?

      « J’ai eu une opération au ventre, j’étais complètement endormie. Quand je me suis réveil- lée, j’ai dû repartir au foyer. L’hôpital leur avait envoyé directement l’ordonnance pour les antidouleurs, puisque je n’avais pas encore de carte d’assurance maladie. Mais c’était le week-end et il n’y avait pas d’éducateur/trice au foyer. Je n’ai pas pu aller chercher mes médicaments et j’ai eu mal pendant trois jours ». D., logée dans un foyer pour requérant.e.s d’asile mineur.e.s.

      Les limites que nous fixons sont ignorées ou transgressées.
À la maison, dans l’espace public, pendant notre formation ou notre activité professionnelle, nous subissons ces violences sexuelles ou sexistes parce que nous sommes des femmes.
Et la société ne prend souvent pas au sérieux ces violences et les minimise. > www.14juin.ch

      Ce genre de témoignages, les bénévoles du collectif Droit de rester en ont entendu souvent. Manque d’accès aux soins, scolarisation lacunaire mineur-e-s logé-e-s avec des adultes, violence verbale, parfois physique, harcèlement sexuel, eau froide dans les douches en plein hiver sont régulièrement rapportés à propos des conditions de vie au sein des structures ORS de Fribourg. La société anonyme, mandatée par le canton pour héberger, encadrer et intégrer les personnes en procédure d’asile, est une multinationale à but lucratif. Son objectif est de dégager du bénéfice. Un paradoxe puisque ce sont des forfaits publics qui financent des prestations à vocation sociale et par définition non lucrative. L’absence de transparence financière, y compris à l’égard du Conseil d’État, pose à la fois un problème éthique, mais aussi de gouvernance et de responsabilité de l’État. En jeu : le respect des droits et libertés fondamentales de per- sonnes en situation de détresse.

      Pour faire la lumière sur les agissements d’ORS, le mouvement solidaritéS et le collectif Droit de rester ont rédigé un rapport d’une trentaine de pages. Il recense les témoignages de quelques dizaines de personnes : usagèr.e.s d’ORS, bénévoles et travailleurs/euse sociaux/ales. Le groupe s’est confronté à la réticence de certain.e.s témoins potentiels. ORS interdit à ses employé.e.s de parler de l’entreprise à des personnes externes, sous peine de sanctions, même après la fin du contrat.

      Le rapport a été envoyé au Conseil d’État, ainsi qu’à la presse1, avec plusieurs revendications : outre les problèmes soulevés ci-dessus, nous souhaitions une rencontre avec le gouvernement fribourgeois, la non- diffusion du rapport (pour assurer la protection des sources) et enfin une publication des bénéfices d’ORS.

      En février 2019, le collectif a reçu une réponse du Conseil d’État : cinq pages enrobées de chiffres et statistiques, contournant soigneusement les questions soulevées par le rapport, mettant en doute les éléments apportés par les militant.e.s. La mise en œuvre du mandat accordé à l’entreprise ORS ? Elle « répond aux attentes des autorités fédérales et cantonales ». Les accusations de violence ? Le « Conseil d’État a demandé à l’entreprise un rapport sur les éléments relevés » et il « invite les personnes ayant connaissance de violences à les dénoncer systématiquement et sans délai à la direction d’ORS, à la police cantonale et/ou à la DSAS [affaires sociales], afin que des mesures adéquates puissent être prises le cas échéant. » La réponse du gouvernement fribourgeois se concluait par un très laconique refus de rencontre, que l’exécutif « n’estime pas pertinente ».

      Si la réaction du Conseil d’État n’est pas surprenante, celle de la population a été plus encourageante. De nombreuses personnes ont contacté SolidaritéS et Droit de rester pour partager leur indignation et quelques témoignages sur des dysfonctionnements qu’elles avaient elles-mêmes constatés. Le collectif n’entend pas en rester là, et continuera de se battre pour un accueil humain et digne des personnes exilées, ainsi que plus de transparence et de responsabilité de la part des autorités…

      HARCÈLEMENT : MESURES PROACTIVES NÉCESSAIRES

      Nous nous sommes vus confier plusieurs situations de harcèlement sexuel, commis soit par les veilleurs, soit par les responsables de foyers. Ainsi, les femmes d’un foyer nous ont confié craindre un veilleur, qui ne respecte pas leur intimité : par exemple, il ne frappe pas avant d’entrer dans leur chambre, ou parfois il ouvre leur porte fermée à l’aide de son passe. Une femme devant nettoyer la cuisine lui a demandé des gants, il lui a alors donné des préservatifs à la place et l’a suivie dans la cuisine, malgré son refus. La situation ne serait pas allée plus loin selon cette femme. Ce veilleur travaille depuis un an, et malgré les plaintes faites par les femmes à leurs assistantes sociales, rien n’a changé, et ces femmes craignent pour leur sécurité lorsque c’est cet homme qui veille. D’autres femmes, dans d’autres foyers, ont été victimes de harcèlement sexuel commis par d’autres veilleurs. Ces derniers ont profité du silence de ces femmes, silence dû à leur sentiment de honte et à la peur des conséquences d’une dénonciation sur leur procédure d’asile. Ces situations ont toutefois été finalement dénoncées par une personne. La Direction ne lui a jamais répondu. Récemment, un responsable de foyer a également harcelé une femme accueillie, se permettant de lui écrire des messages très explicites sur téléphone portable, l’invitant par exemple à venir visiter sa chambre, et commentant régulièrement son physique « attractif », et l’effet qu’elle avait sur lui.

      > Extrait du Rapport sur les conditions d’accueil des requérants d’asile du canton de Fribourg, réalisé par Droit de rester Fribourg & Solidarités Fribourg en novembre 2018, dont nous avons pu avoir une copie.

      https://asile.ch/2019/06/11/gestion-de-lasile-ors-fribourg-quand-letat-fait-la-sourde-oreille-business-is-
      #harcèlement

    • Millionen-Gewinn im Flüchtlings-Business : Asylfirma ORS legt erstmals Zahlen offen

      Jahrelang hat sich die Flüchtlingsbetreuungsfirma ORS gegen Transparenz gewehrt. Jetzt gibt sie erstmals Geschäftszahlen preis.

      Wie viel Geld die ORS Service AG verdient, beschäftigt seit Jahren Medien, das Parlament, den Bundesrat: Die Firma betreibt primär für die öffentliche Hand über 100 Asylunterkünfte mit fast 90’000 Schlafplätzen. Obwohl das Geld zu grossen Teilen vom Staat stammt, veröffentlichte ORS nie Gewinnzahlen. Die Firma gehört einer Beteiligungsgesellschaft in London. Die Schlagzeilen waren entsprechend: Von «verstecktem Profit auf dem Buckel von Flüchtlingen» oder «Profiteuren des Elends» war die Rede.

      Nun hat die ORS ihre Zahlen veröffentlicht: Die Firma machte letztes Jahr einen operativen Gewinn von 1,3 Millionen Franken. Der Umsatz betrug 157,8 Millionen. Die Zahlen beziehen sich auf die Schweiz, Deutschland und Österreich. Sie stammen aus dem Geschäftsbericht, der kürzlich erstmals auf der ORS-Website aufgeschaltet wurde.

      Die Publikation ist im Vergleich zu üblichen Geschäftsberichten dürftig. Das 48-seitige Dokument nennt lediglich auf zwölf Zeilen Finanzzahlen. Diese zeigen: In der Schweiz machte ORS letztes Jahr 99,8 Millionen Franken Umsatz. Die Gemeindemandate sind mit Abstand am wichtigsten. Sie sind für 40 Millionen Franken des Umsatzes verantwortlich. Kollektivunterkünfte für 29,8 Millionen. Die Aufträge durch das Staatssekretariat für Migration – unter anderem das Betreiben von Bundes-Asylzentren – machen 19,4 Millionen Franken aus.
      Umsatzrückgang führt zu Entlassungen

      Der Gewinn von 1,3 Millionen Franken ist überraschend tief. Die NZZ berichtete für 2016 über einem Gewinn von mindestens drei Millionen. Der Umsatz in der Schweiz sank von 125 Millionen Franken per 2016 (laut früheren Berichten) auf nun 99,8 Millionen. Der Grund für den Rückgang um 20 Prozent: Die Zahl der Asylgesuche sank zwischen 2015 und 2018 um zwei Drittel auf 15 000. Ein ORS-Sprecher sagt: «Während 2015 schnell und professionell Unterkünfte in Betrieb genommen werden mussten, stehen wir heute vor der Herausforderung, Kapazitäten nach unten anzupassen.»

      Das hatte vor allem Auswirkungen auf die Mitarbeiter. Ende 2017 waren bei ORS Schweiz 1000 Personen angestellt. Heute sind es nur noch 700. Dieses Jahr wurden 20 Kündigungen ausgesprochen.

      ORS geriet nicht nur wegen Entlassungen in die Schlagzeilen. Die Betreuung der Flüchtlinge wurde oft kritisiert. Im Februar 2016 etwa berichtete die «Basler Zeitung» über Protokolle, gemäss denen die ORS in einer Bundes-Unterkunft in Aesch BL nicht genügend Nahrung für Babys zur Verfügung gestellt habe. Die Vorwürfe wurden bestritten. In weiteren Fällen gab es heftige Kritik an Zuständen in den ORS-Unterkünften, die die Firma allesamt energisch zurückwies.

      Angesprochen auf den rückläufigen Umsatz verweist der ORS-Sprecher darauf, dass die Firma trotz der rückläufigen Asylzahlen neue Mandate gewinnen konnte. Etwa im Kanton Bern, wo die ORS Teile eines 50-Millionen-Franken-Auftrags erhielt. Dieses Jahr laufen auch Mandate aus, weil Gemeinden andere Anbieter gewählt haben. Doch auch ORS wollte teils nicht mehr: «Aus unternehmerischer Verantwortung heraus hat die ORS von sich aus Gemeindemandate gekündigt, die sich stark defizitär entwickelt haben», sagt der Sprecher.

      Richtig kritisch ist die Lage in Österreich. Dorthin expandierte ORS im Jahr 2012 und zog einen dicken Auftrag an Land. ORS betreute alle Asylsuchende, die in Obhut der Regierung standen. Doch als die rechtsnationale FPÖ den Innenminister stellte, ging sie gegen die «Asylindustrie» vor. Ab 1. Juli 2020 betreibt der Staat die Unterkünfte selber. ORS machte in Österreich letztes Jahr 51,2 Millionen Franken Umsatz. Laut dem Sprecher besteht dieser Betrag zu grossen Teilen aus dem Bundesauftrag. In Deutschland beschäftigt ORS mittlerweile 200 Mitarbeiter und machte 2018 einen Umsatz von 6,7 Millionen Franken. Die Firma hat in den letzten Monaten Mandate in mehreren Bundesländern gewonnen. ORS ist kürzlich auch nach Italien expandiert.

      Sie ist nicht die einzige Anbieterin, die sich an die neuen Realitäten im Flüchtlingsbusiness anpassen muss. Die Asyl-Organisation-Zürich (AOZ) ist die grösste Konkurrentin. Sie gehört der Stadt Zürich und ist nicht gewinnorientiert. Bei der AOZ resultierte letztes Jahr ein Verlust von 1,7 Millionen Franken, 2016 war es noch ein Plus von rund einer halben Million. Der wichtigste Faktor dafür sei ein sehr starker Rückgang der Asylgesuchszahlen, insbesondere bei unbegleiteten Minderjährigen, sagt eine Sprecherin.

      https://static.az-cdn.ch/__ip/xq9gGCotWvI4Vtl_v7SSybLchqc/9cc2e9d62dfcdc9d38239014031c0b48d9d32a02/remote.adjust.rotate=0&remote.size.w=1280&remote.size.h=853&local.crop
      https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/wirtschaft/millionen-gewinn-im-fluechtlings-business-asylfirma-ors-legt-erstmal

  • Asylum accommodation is a disgrace

    The Home Affairs Committee says the current contract system for asylum accommodation isn’t working and major reforms are needed. The Committee brands the state of some asylum accommodation provided by Government contractors a “disgrace” and says it is “shameful” that very vulnerable people have been placed in these conditions.

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/asylum-accommodation-report-published-16-17
    #hébergement #logement #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre

    • The shame of asylum housing of child refugees in the UK

      The early months of the lives of hundreds of babies, toddlers and young child refugees have been blighted by life in privatised accommodation provided by #G4S, #Serco and #Clearsprings[1] and funded by taxpayers, since 2012. Now the government has extended their contracts for another two years.

      http://www.irr.org.uk/news/the-shame-of-asylum-housing-of-child-refugees-in-the-uk/?platform=hootsuite
      #enfants #enfance #mineurs #privatisation

    • Abusive practices in UK detention centres – G4S and Home Office under fire

      The critique of the UK detention system is hardening as a result of problematic incidents during the first week of September. The death of a former detainee in a hospital, after an apparently failed suicide attempt in Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) is being investigated and a report released the same week provides evidence of alarming abusive conduct by detention officers in Brook House IRC.


      https://www.ecre.org/abusive-practices-in-uk-detention-centres-g4s-and-home-office-under-fire

    • What I saw when I went undercover

      #Callum_Tulley was so shocked by the chaos, violence and abuse he saw as a detainee custody officer in an immigration removal centre, he decided to become a whistleblower.

      Putting on hidden cameras for a BBC Panorama investigation, the 21-year-old exposes a toxic, brutal and failing environment, where self-harm and drug abuse are commonplace.

      Ten staff and former staff have been suspended as a result of his allegations.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/g4s_brook_house_immigration_removal_centre_undercover

      #lanceur_d'alerte

    • A life costs £10,000: how G4S’ Brook House detention contract works

      In 2017, security company G4S was in the headlines again after the Panorama TV programme exposed new revelations of brutality in Brook House, one of two immigration detention centres the company runs for the Home Office. Two years later, the National Audit Office has published a report on G4S’ contract to run the centre.

      The report doesn’t contain many surprises for anyone familiar with the grim reality of life inside privately-run detention centres. But it makes public for the first time some information on just how companies like G4S rack up substantial detention profits.

      For example, it reveals G4S is fined just £10,000 when someone kills themselves in its “care”. And it confirms the money G4S makes from detaining migrants. It has made comfortably over £2 million a year for most of its time running Brook House, with a profit margin typically between 18 to 20%. Or more than 200 times the cost of a detainee’s life.

      But the report also shows that the company has made even more money in other detention centres. And these windfall profit rates look set to go even higher under the goverment’s plans for the new Brook House contract, which is due to start in May 2020.

      Here we summarise some key points from the report. The NAO report itself is quite clearly written and worth reading for the full detail.

      See also: our G4S Company Profile; Chapter 7 of The UK Border Regime for much more on the detention system. And for another example of lax state oversight of privately-run prisons, read our report last year on Carillion staff working without mandatory suicide prevention training.
      Brook House contract basics

      Brook House is one of two migrant detention centres run by G4S inside the perimeter of Gatwick airport – the other is Tinsley House. It has places for up to 508 detainees, all male.i It is the UK’s most secure detention centre, run to the same security standards as a Category B prison.

      Brook House opened in 2009, and its management was contracted out to G4S from the start. G4S’ contract was initially set for nine years. However, after the Panorama scandal broke in 2017, the government announced it was cancelling the process to re-tender the contract. Instead, it extended G4S’ current deal for another two years.

      The Home Office has since said that the current contract is “not fit for purpose”, and it is designing a new type of contract for the centre in future. The new deal is supposed to start in May 2020 and last until 2028. It is currently out for tender, and companies have until October 2019 to put in their bids.

      How the contract works

      The NAO report explains how G4S gets paid. G4S receives around £13 million per year for running Brook House. The payments involve:

      a basic monthly fee – a bit over £1 million per month;
      minus a deduction for under-occupation;
      minus deductions for “performance failures”.

      G4S has overall responsibility for managing, maintaining, and repairing the centre, but can sub-contract parts of the job. For example, catering and cleaning services are sub-contracted to Aramark.

      The contract sets minimum staffing levels. Brook House has four wings: each is supposed to have at least one manager and three guards (“detainee custody officers”) on duty at all times.
      Minimal deductions

      In reality, G4S gets almost all the maximum fee. On average, under-performance deductions have only been about 1.5% of the fee per month. The biggest penalties – £30,000 if someone escapes, or £10,000 if someone dies following “self-harm” – are still tiny amounts relative to G4S’ fees. Also, the Home Office has actually let G4S off almost half of all possible deductions, allowing it to claim “mitigating circumstances”.
      The price list: 30 performance measures

      The contract sets out 30 performance issues which can lead to a deduction. The NAO report lists all of these. The two biggest deductions are for:

      escapes: £10,000 to £30,000
      “self-harm resulting in death”: £10,000

      The other deductions are all in the order of a few hundred pounds per day. The most serious is understaffing, which can be charged at between £134 and £1,790. Other failures such as insufficient cleaning, not reporting problems to the Home Office, health and safety breaches, or inadequate cell standards, may cost anywhere between £18 and £857 a day.
      What’s not included

      The list of performance measures says something about the Home Office’s priorities. For example, an escape is worth up to £30,000, but “self harm resulting in death” only £10,000.

      But maybe even more revealing is what isn’t included in the list. Deaths only cost G4S if they are judged to result from “self harm”. There is no mention at all of deaths from abuse or neglect. Or of non-fatal assaults and abuse. If a detainee manages to bring a “serious substantiated complaint” of assault or racial abuse, G4S can lose just £537 – less than 2% of its daily fee.

      The NAO report raises this issue in relation to the Panorama scandal. It says clearly:

      Inappropriate use of force or verbal abuse of detainees are not counted as a performance failure under the contract.

      The Home Office and G4S counted 84 incidents in the Panorama footage. But it found that “most of these were either already reported or were not required to be reported under the contract”. Only eight incidents were judged to need new contract deductions. G4S’ penalty for these incidents of abuse came to a grand total of £2,768 – about a quarter of one per cent of its monthly fee.

      Brook House makes a tidy profit

      Brook House and other detention centres make their corporate managers a lot of money. In a July 2018 report, we concluded that profit levels of 20% and up are standard across the industry.

      Our analysis looked in detail at the accounts for Dungavel detention centre, as well as information available on G4S centres. The NAO report largely confirms this picture – although it seems that G4S’ profits on Brook House have gone down recently as it has brought in extra staff after the Panorama scandal. According to the report:

      G4S told us it made an annual gross profit on the contract of 18% to 20% until 2016, falling to 10% in 2017 and 14% in 2018.

      Between 2012 and 2018, G4S’ total gross profit from Brook House was £14.3 million – according to G4S’ own figures, which the NAO hasn’t audited itself. Between 2009 and 2016, the annual profit was between £2.1 and and £2.4 million. This only dropped in 2017 and 2018 when the company brought in extra managers and staff in response to its Panorama exposure.

      To clarify, “gross profit” means the money G4S makes from the Brook House contract itself. That is: the fees it gets from the Home Office (its revenue), minus the specific costs of running the centre – e.g., paying for guards, centre managers and maintenance staff, or for detainees’ food or cleaning products.

      This is not the final profit G4S books as a company in its accounts. Before that figure, it will also have to account for company-wide “administrative” costs such as running its head office and lobbying for new contracts.

      However, even looking at those final or “net” profits, the NAO report confirms that detention is a very profitable business. According to the report, “G4S’s net profit on the contract over 2012 to 2018, following the deduction of a share of regional and group overheads, was 6% to 15%.” That compares to an overall average net profit of 6% on G4S’ whole security division.

      In short: G4S makes substantially more money from government contracts to lock up migrants than it does on its other main business lines like providing security guards for banks. (See our previous analysis of this in our G4S company profile.)
      .. but other G4S detention centres make even more

      And yet Brook House is actually the least profitable of G4S’ detention centres. The company makes even higher profits on running Tinsley House. And it made more still on Cedars, the now closed family detention centre it ran together with Barnardo’s.

      According to the NAO report: “at Tinsley House immigration removal centre, G4S’s gross profit ranged between 26% and 43% in the period 2012 to 2016, and net profit between 19% and 28%.” Brook House is less profitable than Tinsley House because it has higher security costs, and also because the higher paid senior managers for the two centres are based there.

      As for Cedars, locking up families with children provided G4S with an incredible cash cow. The NAO report informs us that:

      Profits on the Cedars pre-departure accommodation, which closed in 2016 due to low use, ranged from 21% to 60% gross or 15% to 55% net between 2012 and 2016.

      G4S gets to keep any extra money it makes?

      One point that’s a bit technical but potentially important. According to the NAO report, there is no requirement for G4S to share any “extra” profit it makes from unexpected savings.

      This seems at odds with other information we have previously seen on detention centre contracts, and indeed on government outsourcing contracts in general. They often contain a clause stating that the company has to give back some of its extra gain if it makes over a certain figure.

      But, according to the NAO report, the Home Office didn’t bother to include any such clause in the Brook House deal:ii

      The Home Office is not entitled to a share of G4S’s profits under the contract. If G4S is able to substantially reduce its operating costs through new technologies or other investment then the Home Office and G4S agree how to share the savings, and G4S’s monthly fee is reduced accordingly. This has happened once with investment in a key vending technology. But this savings mechanism is unrelated to how much profit G4S makes.

      The new contract looks set to be even more profitable

      As mentioned, the Home Office has admitted that the Brook House contract is “not fit for purpose”. But what can we expect from the new deal it is currently tendering?

      Unfortunately, the NAO report doesn’t tell us anything on that. It suggests that the Home Office may include some performance measure related to “inappropriate use of force” in the new contract – but no detail is given.

      As for money-making, the tender announcement for the new contract gives a value of £260 million over ten years – or around £26 million per year. This will cov