• #EMSA signs cooperation agreements with EU Naval Missions to provide enhanced maritime awareness for operations in Somalia and Libya

    EMSA is supporting EU Naval Force operations – #Atalanta and #Irini – following the signature of two cooperation agreements with EU #NAVFOR-Somalia (#Operation_Atalanta) on the one hand and #EUNAVFOR_MED (#Operation_Irini) on the other. Operation Atalanta targets counter piracy and the protection of vulnerable vessels and humanitarian shipments off the coast of Somalia, while operation Irini seeks to enforce the UN arms embargo on Libya and in doing so contribute to the country’s peace process. By cooperating with EMSA in the areas of maritime security and #surveillance, multiple sources of ship specific information and positional data can be combined to enhance maritime awareness for the #EU_Naval_Force in places of particularly high risk and sensitivity. The support provided by EMSA comes in the context of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.

    EUNAVFOR-Somalia Atalanta

    EMSA has been supporting the EU NAVFOR-Somalia Atalanta operation since April 2011 when piracy off the coast of Somalia was at its peak. The various measures taken to suppress piracy have been successful and the mandate of the operation was not only renewed at the beginning of last year but also expanded to include measures against illegal activities at sea, such as implementing the arms embargo on Somalia, monitoring the trafficking of weapons, and countering narcotic drugs. Through the cooperation agreement, EMSA is providing EU NAVFOR with access to an integrated maritime monitoring solution which offers the possibility of consulting vessel position data, central reference databases and earth observation products. This is integrated with EU NAVFOR data – such as vessel risk level based on vulnerability assessments – creating a specifically tailored maritime awareness picture. The new cooperation agreement extends the longstanding collaboration with EU NAVFOR for an indefinite period and is a great example of how EMSA is serving maritime security and law enforcement communities worldwide.

    EUNAVFOR MED Irini

    The EUNAVFOR MED operation Irini began on 31 March 2020 with the core task of implementing the UN arms embargo on Libya using aerial, satellite and maritime assets. It replaces #operation_Sophia but with a new mandate. While EMSA has been providing satellite AIS data to EUNAVFOR MED since 2015, the new cooperation agreement allows for access to EMSA’s #Integrated_Maritime_Services platform and in particular to the Agency’s #Automated_Behaviour_Monitoring (#ABM) capabilities. These services help EUNAVFOR officers to keep a close eye on Libya’s ports as well as to monitor the flow of maritime traffic in the area and target specific vessels for inspection based on suspicious behaviour picked up by the ABM tool. While the agreement is open ended, operation Irini’s mandate is expected to run until 31 March 2023.

    https://www.emsa.europa.eu/newsroom/press-releases/item/4648-emsa-signs-cooperation-agreements-with-eu-naval-missions-to-provide

    #coopération #Somalie #Libye #mer #sécurité #sécurité_maritime #Agence_européenne_pour_la_sécurité_maritime (#AESM) #piraterie #piraterie_maritime #armes #commerce_d'armes #drogues #trafic_maritime

    ping @reka @fil

  • Friends of the Traffickers Italy’s Anti-Mafia Directorate and the “Dirty Campaign” to Criminalize Migration

    Afana Dieudonne often says that he is not a superhero. That’s Dieudonne’s way of saying he’s done things he’s not proud of — just like anyone in his situation would, he says, in order to survive. From his home in Cameroon to Tunisia by air, then by car and foot into the desert, across the border into Libya, and onto a rubber boat in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, Dieudonne has done a lot of surviving.

    In Libya, Dieudonne remembers when the smugglers managing the safe house would ask him for favors. Dieudonne spoke a little English and didn’t want trouble. He said the smugglers were often high and always armed. Sometimes, when asked, Dieudonne would distribute food and water among the other migrants. Other times, he would inform on those who didn’t follow orders. He remembers the traffickers forcing him to inflict violence on his peers. It was either them or him, he reasoned.

    On September 30, 2014, the smugglers pushed Dieudonne and 91 others out to sea aboard a rubber boat. Buzzing through the pitch-black night, the group watched lights on the Libyan coast fade into darkness. After a day at sea, the overcrowded dinghy began taking on water. Its passengers were rescued by an NGO vessel and transferred to an Italian coast guard ship, where officers picked Dieudonne out of a crowd and led him into a room for questioning.

    At first, Dieudonne remembers the questioning to be quick, almost routine. His name, his age, his nationality. And then the questions turned: The officers said they wanted to know how the trafficking worked in Libya so they could arrest the people involved. They wanted to know who had driven the rubber boat and who had held the navigation compass.

    “So I explained everything to them, and I also showed who the ‘captain’ was — captain in quotes, because there is no captain,” said Dieudonne. The real traffickers stay in Libya, he added. “Even those who find themselves to be captains, they don’t do it by choice.”

    For the smugglers, Dieudonne explained, “we are the customers, and we are the goods.”

    For years, efforts by the Italian government and the European Union to address migration in the central Mediterranean have focused on the people in Libya — interchangeably called facilitators, smugglers, traffickers, or militia members, depending on which agency you’re speaking to — whose livelihoods come from helping others cross irregularly into Europe. People pay them a fare to organize a journey so dangerous it has taken tens of thousands of lives.

    The European effort to dismantle these smuggling networks has been driven by an unlikely actor: the Italian anti-mafia and anti-terrorism directorate, a niche police office in Rome that gained respect in the 1990s and early 2000s for dismantling large parts of the Mafia in Sicily and elsewhere in Italy. According to previously unpublished internal documents, the office — called the Direzione nazionale antimafia e antiterrorismo, or DNAA, in Italian — took a front-and-center role in the management of Europe’s southern sea borders, in direct coordination with the EU border agency Frontex and European military missions operating off the Libyan coast.

    In 2013, under the leadership of a longtime anti-mafia prosecutor named Franco Roberti, the directorate pioneered a strategy that was unique — or at least new for the border officers involved. They would start handling irregular migration to Europe like they had handled the mob. The approach would allow Italian and European police, coast guard agencies, and navies, obliged by international law to rescue stranded refugees at sea, to at least get some arrests and convictions along the way.

    The idea was to arrest low-level operators and use coercion and plea deals to get them to flip on their superiors. That way, the reasoning went, police investigators could work their way up the food chain and eventually dismantle the smuggling rings in Libya. With every boat that disembarked in Italy, police would make a handful of arrests. Anybody found to have played an active role during the crossing, from piloting to holding a compass to distributing water or bailing out a leak, could be arrested under a new legal directive written by Roberti’s anti-mafia directorate. Charges ranged from simple smuggling to transnational criminal conspiracy and — if people asphyxiated below deck or drowned when a boat capsized — even murder. Judicial sources estimate the number of people arrested since 2013 to be in the thousands.

    For the police, prosecutors, and politicians involved, the arrests were an important domestic political win. At the time, public opinion in Italy was turning against migration, and the mugshots of alleged smugglers regularly held space on front pages throughout the country.

    But according to the minutes of closed-door conversations among some of the very same actors directing these cases, which were obtained by The Intercept under Italy’s freedom of information law, most anti-mafia prosecutions only focused on low-level boat drivers, often migrants who had themselves paid for the trip across. Few, if any, smuggling bosses were ever convicted. Documents of over a dozen trials reviewed by The Intercept show prosecutions built on hasty investigations and coercive interrogations.

    In the years that followed, the anti-mafia directorate went to great lengths to keep the arrests coming. According to the internal documents, the office coordinated a series of criminal investigations into the civilian rescue NGOs working to save lives in the Mediterranean, accusing them of hampering police work. It also oversaw efforts to create and train a new coast guard in Libya, with full knowledge that some coast guard officers were colluding with the same smuggling networks that Italian and European leaders were supposed to be fighting.

    Since its inception, the anti-mafia directorate has wielded unparalleled investigative tools and served as a bridge between politicians and the courts. The documents reveal in meticulous detail how the agency, alongside Italian and European officials, capitalized on those powers to crack down on alleged smugglers, most of whom they knew to be desperate people fleeing poverty and violence with limited resources to defend themselves in court.

    Tragedy and Opportunity

    The anti-mafia directorate was born in the early 1990s after a decade of escalating Mafia violence. By then, hundreds of prosecutors, politicians, journalists, and police officers had been shot, blown up, or kidnapped, and many more extorted by organized crime families operating in Italy and beyond.

    In Palermo, the Sicilian capital, prosecutor Giovanni Falcone was a rising star in the Italian judiciary. Falcone had won unprecedented success with an approach to organized crime based on tracking financial flows, seizing assets, and centralizing evidence gathered by prosecutor’s offices across the island.

    But as the Mafia expanded its reach into the rest of Europe, Falcone’s work proved insufficient.

    In September 1990, a Mafia commando drove from Germany to Sicily to gun down a 37-year-old judge. Weeks later, at a police checkpoint in Naples, the Sicilian driver of a truck loaded with weapons, explosives, and drugs was found to be a resident of Germany. A month after the arrests, Falcone traveled to Germany to establish an information-sharing mechanism with authorities there. He brought along a younger colleague from Naples, Franco Roberti.

    “We faced a stone wall,” recalled Roberti, still bitter three decades later. He spoke to us outside a cafe in a plum neighborhood in Naples. Seventy-three years old and speaking with the rasp of a lifelong smoker, Roberti described Italy’s Mafia problem in blunt language. He bemoaned a lack of international cooperation that, he said, continues to this day. “They claimed that there was no need to investigate there,” Roberti said, “that it was up to us to investigate Italians in Germany who were occasional mafiosi.”

    As the prosecutors traveled back to Italy empty-handed, Roberti remembers Falcone telling him that they needed “a centralized national organ able to speak directly to foreign judicial authorities and coordinate investigations in Italy.”

    “That is how the idea of the anti-mafia directorate was born,” Roberti said. The two began building what would become Italy’s first national anti-mafia force.

    At the time, there was tough resistance to the project. Critics argued that Falcone and Roberti were creating “super-prosecutors” who would wield outsize powers over the courts, while also being subject to political pressures from the government in Rome. It was, they argued, a marriage of police and the judiciary, political interests and supposedly apolitical courts — convenient for getting Mafia convictions but dangerous for Italian democracy.

    Still, in January 1992, the project was approved in Parliament. But Falcone would never get to lead it: Months later, a bomb set by the Mafia killed him, his wife, and the three agents escorting them. The attack put to rest any remaining criticism of Falcone’s plan.

    The anti-mafia directorate went on to become one of Italy’s most important institutions, the national authority over all matters concerning organized crime and the agency responsible for partially freeing the country from its century-old crucible. In the decades after Falcone’s death, the directorate did what many in Italy thought impossible, dismantling large parts of the five main Italian crime families and almost halving the Mafia-related murder rate.

    And yet, by the time Roberti took control in 2013, it had been years since the last high-profile Mafia prosecution, and the organization’s influence was waning. At the same time, Italy was facing unprecedented numbers of migrants arriving by boat. Roberti had an idea: The anti-mafia directorate would start working on what he saw as a different kind of mafia. The organization set its sights on Libya.

    “We thought we had to do something more coordinated to combat this trafficking,” Roberti remembered, “so I put everyone around a table.”

    “The main objective was to save lives, seize ships, and capture smugglers,” Roberti said. “Which we did.”

    Our Sea

    Dieudonne made it to the Libyan port city of Zuwara in August 2014. One more step across the Mediterranean, and he’d be in Europe. The smugglers he paid to get him across the sea took all of his possessions and put him in an abandoned building that served as a safe house to wait for his turn.

    Dieudonne told his story from a small office in Bari, Italy, where he runs a cooperative that helps recent arrivals access local education. Dieudonne is fiery and charismatic. He is constantly moving: speaking, texting, calling, gesticulating. Every time he makes a point, he raps his knuckles on the table in a one-two pattern. Dieudonne insisted that we publish his real name. Others who made the journey more recently — still pending decisions on their residence permits or refugee status — were less willing to speak openly.

    Dieudonne remembers the safe house in Zuwara as a string of constant violence. The smugglers would come once a day to leave food. Every day, they would ask who hadn’t followed their orders. Those inside the abandoned building knew they were less likely to be discovered by police or rival smugglers, but at the same time, they were not free to leave.

    “They’ve put a guy in the refrigerator in front of all of us, to show how the next one who misbehaves will be treated,” Dieudonne remembered, indignant. He witnessed torture, shootings, rape. “The first time you see it, it hurts you. The second time it hurts you less. The third time,” he said with a shrug, “it becomes normal. Because that’s the only way to survive.”

    “That’s why arresting the person who pilots a boat and treating them like a trafficker makes me laugh,” Dieudonne said. Others who have made the journey to Italy report having been forced to drive at gunpoint. “You only do it to be sure you don’t die there,” he said.

    Two years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s government, much of Libya’s northwest coast had become a staging ground for smugglers who organized sea crossings to Europe in large wooden fishing boats. When those ships — overcrowded, underpowered, and piloted by amateurs — inevitably capsized, the deaths were counted by the hundreds.

    In October 2013, two shipwrecks off the coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa took over 400 lives, sparking public outcry across Europe. In response, the Italian state mobilized two plans, one public and the other private.

    “There was a big shock when the Lampedusa tragedy happened,” remembered Italian Sen. Emma Bonino, then the country’s foreign minister. The prime minister “called an emergency meeting, and we decided to immediately launch this rescue program,” Bonino said. “Someone wanted to call the program ‘safe seas.’ I said no, not safe, because it’s sure we’ll have other tragedies. So let’s call it Mare Nostrum.”

    Mare Nostrum — “our sea” in Latin — was a rescue mission in international waters off the coast of Libya that ran for one year and rescued more than 150,000 people. The operation also brought Italian ships, airplanes, and submarines closer than ever to Libyan shores. Roberti, just two months into his job as head of the anti-mafia directorate, saw an opportunity to extend the country’s judicial reach and inflict a lethal blow to smuggling rings in Libya.

    Five days after the start of Mare Nostrum, Roberti launched the private plan: a series of coordination meetings among the highest echelons of the Italian police, navy, coast guard, and judiciary. Under Roberti, these meetings would run for four years and eventually involve representatives from Frontex, Europol, an EU military operation, and even Libya.

    The minutes of five of these meetings, which were presented by Roberti in a committee of the Italian Parliament and obtained by The Intercept, give an unprecedented behind-the-scenes look at the events on Europe’s southern borders since the Lampedusa shipwrecks.

    In the first meeting, held in October 2013, Roberti told participants that the anti-mafia offices in the Sicilian city of Catania had developed an innovative way to deal with migrant smuggling. By treating Libyan smugglers like they had treated the Italian Mafia, prosecutors could claim jurisdiction over international waters far beyond Italy’s borders. That, Roberti said, meant they could lawfully board and seize vessels on the high seas, conduct investigations there, and use the evidence in court.

    The Italian authorities have long recognized that, per international maritime law, they are obligated to rescue people fleeing Libya on overcrowded boats and transport them to a place of safety. As the number of people attempting the crossing increased, many Italian prosecutors and coast guard officials came to believe that smugglers were relying on these rescues to make their business model work; therefore, the anti-mafia reasoning went, anyone who acted as crew or made a distress call on a boat carrying migrants could be considered complicit in Libyan trafficking and subject to Italian jurisdiction. This new approach drew heavily from legal doctrines developed in the United States during the 1980s aimed at stopping drug smuggling.

    European leaders were scrambling to find a solution to what they saw as a looming migration crisis. Italian officials thought they had the answer and publicly justified their decisions as a way to prevent future drownings.

    But according to the minutes of the 2013 anti-mafia meeting, the new strategy predated the Lampedusa shipwrecks by at least a week. Sicilian prosecutors had already written the plan to crack down on migration across the Mediterranean but lacked both the tools and public will to put it into action. Following the Lampedusa tragedy and the creation of Mare Nostrum, they suddenly had both.

    State of Necessity

    In the international waters off the coast of Libya, Dieudonne and 91 others were rescued by a European NGO called Migrant Offshore Aid Station. They spent two days aboard MOAS’s ship before being transferred to an Italian coast guard ship, Nave Dattilo, to be taken to Europe.

    Aboard the Dattilo, coast guard officers asked Dieudonne why he had left his home in Cameroon. He remembers them showing him a photograph of the rubber boat taken from the air. “They asked me who was driving, the roles and everything,” he remembered. “Then they asked me if I could tell him how the trafficking in Libya works, and then, they said, they would give me residence documents.”

    Dieudonne said that he was reluctant to cooperate at first. He didn’t want to accuse any of his peers, but he was also concerned that he could become a suspect. After all, he had helped the driver at points throughout the voyage.

    “I thought that if I didn’t cooperate, they might hurt me,” Dieudonne said. “Not physically hurt, but they could consider me dishonest, like someone who was part of the trafficking.”

    To this day, Dieudonne says he can’t understand why Italy would punish people for fleeing poverty and political violence in West Africa. He rattled off a list of events from the last year alone: draught, famine, corruption, armed gunmen, attacks on schools. “And you try to convict someone for managing to escape that situation?”

    The coast guard ship disembarked in Vibo Valentia, a city in the Italian region of Calabria. During disembarkation, a local police officer explained to a journalist that they had arrested five people. The journalist asked how the police had identified the accused.

    “A lot has been done by the coast guard, who picked [the migrants] up two days ago and managed to spot [the alleged smugglers],” the officer explained. “Then we have witness statements and videos.”

    Cases like these, where arrests are made on the basis of photo or video evidence and statements by witnesses like Dieudonne, are common, said Gigi Modica, a judge in Sicily who has heard many immigration and asylum cases. “It’s usually the same story. They take three or four people, no more. They ask them two questions: who was driving the boat, and who was holding the compass,” Modica explained. “That’s it — they get the names and don’t care about the rest.”

    Modica was one of the first judges in Italy to acquit people charged for driving rubber boats — known as “scafisti,” or boat drivers, in Italian — on the grounds that they had been forced to do so. These “state of necessity” rulings have since become increasingly common. Modica rattled off a list of irregularities he’s seen in such cases: systemic racism, witness statements that migrants later say they didn’t make, interrogations with no translator or lawyer, and in some cases, people who report being encouraged by police to sign documents renouncing their right to apply for asylum.

    “So often these alleged smugglers — scafisti — are normal people who were compelled to pilot a boat by smugglers in Libya,” Modica said.

    Documents of over a dozen trials reviewed by The Intercept show prosecutions largely built on testimony from migrants who are promised a residence permit in exchange for their collaboration. At sea, witnesses are interviewed by the police hours after their rescue, often still in a state of shock after surviving a shipwreck.

    In many cases, identical statements, typos included, are attributed to several witnesses and copied and pasted across different police reports. Sometimes, these reports have been enough to secure decadeslong sentences. Other times, under cross-examination in court, witnesses have contradicted the statements recorded by police or denied giving any testimony at all.

    As early as 2015, attendees of the anti-mafia meetings were discussing problems with these prosecutions. In a meeting that February, Giovanni Salvi, then the prosecutor of Catania, acknowledged that smugglers often abandoned migrant boats in international waters. Still, Italian police were steaming ahead with the prosecutions of those left on board.

    These prosecutions were so important that in some cases, the Italian coast guard decided to delay rescue when boats were in distress in order to “allow for the arrival of institutional ships that can conduct arrests,” a coast guard commander explained at the meeting.

    When asked about the commander’s comments, the Italian coast guard said that “on no occasion” has the agency ever delayed a rescue operation. Delaying rescue for any reason goes against international and Italian law, and according to various human rights lawyers in Europe, could give rise to criminal liability.

    NGOs in the Crosshairs

    Italy canceled Mare Nostrum after one year, citing budget constraints and a lack of European collaboration. In its wake, the EU set up two new operations, one via Frontex and the other a military effort called Operation Sophia. These operations focused not on humanitarian rescue but on border security and people smuggling from Libya. Beginning in 2015, representatives from Frontex and Operation Sophia were included in the anti-mafia directorate meetings, where Italian prosecutors ensured that both abided by the new investigative strategy.

    Key to these investigations were photos from the rescues, like the aerial image that Dieudonne remembers the Italian coast guard showing him, which gave police another way to identify who piloted the boats and helped navigate.

    In the absence of government rescue ships, a fleet of civilian NGO vessels began taking on a large number of rescues in the international waters off the coast of Libya. These ships, while coordinated by the Italian coast guard rescue center in Rome, made evidence-gathering difficult for prosecutors and judicial police. According to the anti-mafia meeting minutes, some NGOs, including MOAS, routinely gave photos to Italian police and Frontex. Others refused, arguing that providing evidence for investigations into the people they saved would undermine their efficacy and neutrality.

    In the years following Mare Nostrum, the NGO fleet would come to account for more than one-third of all rescues in the central Mediterranean, according to estimates by Operation Sophia. A leaked status report from the operation noted that because NGOs did not collect information from rescued migrants for police, “information essential to enhance the understanding of the smuggling business model is not acquired.”

    In a subsequent anti-mafia meeting, six prosecutors echoed this concern. NGO rescues meant that police couldn’t interview migrants at sea, they said, and cases were getting thrown out for lack of evidence. A coast guard admiral explained the importance of conducting interviews just after a rescue, when “a moment of empathy has been established.”

    “It is not possible to carry out this task if the rescue intervention is carried out by ships of the NGOs,” the admiral told the group.

    The NGOs were causing problems for the DNAA strategy. At the meetings, Italian prosecutors and representatives from the coast guard, navy, and Interior Ministry discussed what they could do to rein in the humanitarian organizations. At the same time, various prosecutors were separately fixing their investigative sights on the NGOs themselves.

    In late 2016, an internal report from Frontex — later published in full by The Intercept — accused an NGO vessel of directly receiving migrants from Libyan smugglers, attributing the information to “Italian authorities.” The claim was contradicted by video evidence and the ship’s crew.

    Months later, Carmelo Zuccaro, the prosecutor of Catania, made public that he was investigating rescue NGOs. “Together with Frontex and the navy, we are trying to monitor all these NGOs that have shown that they have great financial resources,” Zuccaro told an Italian newspaper. The claim went viral in Italian and European media. “Friends of the traffickers” and “migrant taxi service” became common slurs used toward humanitarian NGOs by anti-immigration politicians and the Italian far right.

    Zuccaro would eventually walk back his claims, telling a parliamentary committee that he was working off a hypothesis at the time and had no evidence to back it up.

    In an interview with a German newspaper in February 2017, the director of Frontex, Fabrice Leggeri, refrained from explicitly criticizing the work of rescue NGOs but did say they were hampering police investigations in the Mediterranean. As aid organizations assumed a larger percentage of rescues, Leggeri said, “it is becoming more difficult for the European security authorities to find out more about the smuggling networks through interviews with migrants.”

    “That smear campaign was very, very deep,” remembered Bonino, the former foreign minister. Referring to Marco Minniti, Italy’s interior minister at the time, she added, “I was trying to push Minniti not to be so obsessed with people coming, but to make a policy of integration in Italy. But he only focused on Libya and smuggling and criminalizing NGOs with the help of prosecutors.”

    Bonino explained that the action against NGOs was part of a larger plan to change European policy in the central Mediterranean. The first step was the shift away from humanitarian rescue and toward border security and smuggling. The second step “was blaming the NGOs or arresting them, a sort of dirty campaign against them,” she said. “The results of which after so many years have been no convictions, no penalties, no trials.”

    Finally, the third step was to build a new coast guard in Libya to do what the Europeans couldn’t, per international law: intercept people at sea and bring them back to Libya, the country from which they had just fled.

    At first, leaders at Frontex were cautious. “From Frontex’s point of view, we look at Libya with concern; there is no stable state there,” Leggeri said in the 2017 interview. “We are now helping to train 60 officers for a possible future Libyan coast guard. But this is at best a beginning.”

    Bonino saw this effort differently. “They started providing support for their so-called coast guard,” she said, “which were the same traffickers changing coats.”
    Rescued migrants disembarking from a Libyan coast guard ship in the town of Khoms, a town 120 kilometres (75 miles) east of the capital on October 1, 2019.

    Same Uniforms, Same Ships

    Safe on land in Italy, Dieudonne was never called to testify in court. He hopes that none of his peers ended up in prison but said he would gladly testify against the traffickers if called. Aboard the coast guard ship, he remembers, “I gave the police contact information for the traffickers, I gave them names.”

    The smuggling operations in Libya happened out in the open, but Italian police could only go as far as international waters. Leaked documents from Operation Sophia describe years of efforts by European officials to get Libyan police to arrest smugglers. Behind closed doors, top Italian and EU officials admitted that these same smugglers were intertwined with the new Libyan coast guard that Europe was creating and that working with them would likely go against international law.

    As early as 2015, multiple officials at the anti-mafia meetings noted that some smugglers were uncomfortably close to members of the Libyan government. “Militias use the same uniforms and the same ships as the Libyan coast guard that the Italian navy itself is training,” Rear Adm. Enrico Credendino, then in charge of Operation Sophia, said in 2017. The head of the Libyan coast guard and the Libyan minister of defense, both allies of the Italian government, Credendino added, “have close relationships with some militia bosses.”

    One of the Libyan coast guard officers playing both sides was Abd al-Rahman Milad, also known as Bija. In 2019, the Italian newspaper Avvenire revealed that Bija participated in a May 2017 meeting in Sicily, alongside Italian border police and intelligence officials, that was aimed at stemming migration from Libya. A month later, he was condemned by the U.N. Security Council for his role as a top member of a powerful trafficking militia in the coastal town of Zawiya, and for, as the U.N. put it, “sinking migrant boats using firearms.”

    According to leaked documents from Operation Sophia, coast guard officers under Bija’s command were trained by the EU between 2016 and 2018.

    While the Italian government was prosecuting supposed smugglers in Italy, they were also working with people they knew to be smugglers in Libya. Minniti, Italy’s then-interior minister, justified the deals his government was making in Libya by saying that the prospect of mass migration from Africa made him “fear for the well-being of Italian democracy.”

    In one of the 2017 anti-mafia meetings, a representative of the Interior Ministry, Vittorio Pisani, outlined in clear terms a plan that provided for the direct coordination of the new Libyan coast guard. They would create “an operation room in Libya for the exchange of information with the Interior Ministry,” Pisani explained, “mainly on the position of NGO ships and their rescue operations, in order to employ the Libyan coast guard in its national waters.”

    And with that, the third step of the plan was set in motion. At the end of the meeting, Roberti suggested that the group invite representatives from the Libyan police to their next meeting. In an interview with The Intercept, Roberti confirmed that Libyan representatives attended at least two anti-mafia meetings and that he himself met Bija at a meeting in Libya, one month after the U.N. Security Council report was published. The following year, the Security Council committee on Libya sanctioned Bija, freezing his assets and banning him from international travel.

    “We needed to have the participation of Libyan institutions. But they did nothing, because they were taking money from the traffickers,” Roberti told us from the cafe in Naples. “They themselves were the traffickers.”
    A Place of Safety

    Roberti retired from the anti-mafia directorate in 2017. He said that under his leadership, the organization was able to create a basis for handling migration throughout Europe. Still, Roberti admits that his expansion of the DNAA into migration issues has had mixed results. Like his trip to Germany in the ’90s with Giovanni Falcone, Roberti said the anti-mafia strategy faltered because of a lack of collaboration: with the NGOs, with other European governments, and with Libya.

    “On a European level, the cooperation does not work,” Roberti said. Regarding Libya, he added, “We tried — I believe it was right, the agreements [the government] made. But it turned out to be a failure in the end.”

    The DNAA has since expanded its operations. Between 2017 and 2019, the Italian government passed two bills that put the anti-mafia directorate in charge of virtually all illegal immigration matters. Since 2017, five Sicilian prosecutors, all of whom attended at least one anti-mafia coordination meeting, have initiated 15 separate legal proceedings against humanitarian NGO workers. So far there have been no convictions: Three cases have been thrown out in court, and the rest are ongoing.

    Earlier this month, news broke that Sicilian prosecutors had wiretapped journalists and human rights lawyers as part of one of these investigations, listening in on legally protected conversations with sources and clients. The Italian justice ministry has opened an investigation into the incident, which could amount to criminal behavior, according to Italian legal experts. The prosecutor who approved the wiretaps attended at least one DNAA coordination meeting, where investigations against NGOs were discussed at length.

    As the DNAA has extended its reach, key actors from the anti-mafia coordination meetings have risen through the ranks of Italian and European institutions. One prosecutor, Federico Cafiero de Raho, now runs the anti-mafia directorate. Salvi, the former prosecutor of Catania, is the equivalent of Italy’s attorney general. Pisani, the former Interior Ministry representative, is deputy head of the Italian intelligence services. And Roberti is a member of the European Parliament.

    Cafiero de Raho stands by the investigations and arrests that the anti-mafia directorate has made over the years. He said the coordination meetings were an essential tool for prosecutors and police during difficult times.

    When asked about his specific comments during the meetings — particularly statements that humanitarian NGOs needed to be regulated and multiple admissions that members of the new Libyan coast guard were involved in smuggling activities — Cafiero de Raho said that his remarks should be placed in context, a time when Italy and the EU were working to build a coast guard in a part of Libya that was largely ruled by local militias. He said his ultimate goal was what, in the DNAA coordination meetings, he called the “extrajudicial solution”: attempts to prove the existence of crimes against humanity in Libya so that “the United Nation sends troops to Libya to dismantle migrants camps set up by traffickers … and retake control of that territory.”

    A spokesperson for the EU’s foreign policy arm, which ran Operation Sophia, refused to directly address evidence that leaders of the European military operation knew that parts of the new Libyan coast guard were also involved in smuggling activities, only noting that Bija himself wasn’t trained by the EU. A Frontex spokesperson stated that the agency “was not involved in the selection of officers to be trained.”

    In 2019, the European migration strategy changed again. Now, the vast majority of departures are intercepted by the Libyan coast guard and brought back to Libya. In March of that year, Operation Sophia removed all of its ships from the rescue area and has since focused on using aerial patrols to direct and coordinate the Libyan coast guard. Human rights lawyers in Europe have filed six legal actions against Italy and the EU as a result, calling the practice refoulement by proxy: facilitating the return of migrants to dangerous circumstances in violation of international law.

    Indeed, throughout four years of coordination meetings, Italy and the EU were admitting privately that returning people to Libya would be illegal. “Fundamental human rights violations in Libya make it impossible to push migrants back to the Libyan coast,” Pisani explained in 2015. Two years later, he outlined the beginnings of a plan that would do exactly that.

    The Result of Mere Chance

    Dieudonne knows he was lucky. The line that separates suspect and victim can be entirely up to police officers’ first impressions in the minutes or hours following a rescue. According to police reports used in prosecutions, physical attributes like having “a clearer skin tone” or behavior aboard the ship, including scrutinizing police movements “with strange interest,” were enough to rouse suspicion.

    In a 2019 ruling that acquitted seven alleged smugglers after three years of pretrial detention, judges wrote that “the selection of the suspects on one side, and the witnesses on the other, with the only exception of the driver, has almost been the result of mere chance.”

    Carrying out work for their Libyan captors has cost other migrants in Italy lengthy prison sentences. In September 2019, a 22-year-old Guinean nicknamed Suarez was arrested upon his arrival to Italy. Four witnesses told police he had collaborated with prison guards in Zawiya, at the immigrant detention center managed by the infamous Bija.

    “Suarez was also a prisoner, who then took on a job,” one of the witnesses told the court. Handing out meals or taking care of security is what those who can’t afford to pay their ransom often do in order to get out, explained another. “Unfortunately, you would have to be there to understand the situation,” the first witness said. Suarez was sentenced to 20 years in prison, recently reduced to 12 years on appeal.

    Dieudonne remembered his journey at sea vividly, but with surprising cool. When the boat began taking on water, he tried to help. “One must give help where it is needed.” At his office in Bari, Dieudonne bent over and moved his arms in a low scooping motion, like he was bailing water out of a boat.

    “Should they condemn me too?” he asked. He finds it ironic that it was the Libyans who eventually arrested Bija on human trafficking charges this past October. The Italians and Europeans, he said with a laugh, were too busy working with the corrupt coast guard commander. (In April, Bija was released from prison after a Libyan court absolved him of all charges. He was promoted within the coast guard and put back on the job.)

    Dieudonne thinks often about the people he identified aboard the coast guard ship in the middle of the sea. “I told the police the truth. But if that collaboration ends with the conviction of an innocent person, it’s not good,” he said. “Because I know that person did nothing. On the contrary, he saved our lives by driving that raft.”

    https://theintercept.com/2021/04/30/italy-anti-mafia-migrant-rescue-smuggling

    #Méditerranée #Italie #Libye #ONG #criminalisation_de_la_solidarité #solidarité #secours #mer_Méditerranée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #violence #passeurs #Méditerranée_centrale #anti-mafia #anti-terrorisme #Direzione_nazionale_antimafia_e_antiterrorismo #DNAA #Frontex #Franco_Roberti #justice #politique #Zuwara #torture #viol #Mare_Nostrum #Europol #eaux_internationales #droit_de_la_mer #droit_maritime #juridiction_italienne #arrestations #Gigi_Modica #scafista #scafisti #état_de_nécessité #Giovanni_Salvi #NGO #Operation_Sophia #MOAS #DNA #Carmelo_Zuccaro #Zuccaro #Fabrice_Leggeri #Leggeri #Marco_Minniti #Minniti #campagne #gardes-côtes_libyens #milices #Enrico_Credendino #Abd_al-Rahman_Milad #Bija ##Abdurhaman_al-Milad #Al_Bija #Zawiya #Vittorio_Pisani #Federico_Cafiero_de_Raho #solution_extrajudiciaire #pull-back #refoulement_by_proxy #refoulement #push-back #Suarez

    ping @karine4 @isskein @rhoumour

  • Libye : l’UE lance une #opération_navale pour contrôler l’#embargo sur les #armes, pas pour sauver des migrants

    Prenant la suite de l’opération Sophia, une nouvelle mission navale va être mise en place par l’Union européenne (UE) d’ici le printemps. Des navires vont être déployés pour empêcher les livraisons d’armes à l’est des côtes libyennes. Mais ces navires n’ont pas vocation à intervenir dans le sauvetage de migrants en mer Méditerranée.

    « L’Union européenne va déployer des navires dans la zone à l’est de la Libye pour empêcher le trafic d’armes », a annoncé lundi 17 février le chef de la diplomatie italienne Luigi di Maio. La nouvelle opération aura des moyens aériens et satellitaires ainsi que des navires, précise le correspondant de RFI à Bruxelles, Pierre Bénazet.

    Toutefois, il a ajouté que la mission, loin des routes migratoires actuelles, serait arrêtée si elle « devait provoquer un afflux de bateaux de migrants » dans la zone où elle sera déployée.

    Ce compromis a permis de « lever les réticences » de plusieurs pays européens, a commenté le ministre luxembourgeois des Affaires étrangères Jean Asselborn.

    En effet, lundi matin, Josep Borrell le chef de la diplomatie européenne ne pensait pas arriver à un accord pour que l’opération Sophia soit relancée, « l’unanimité est nécessaire » et « si nous ne l’obtenons pas, nous ne pouvons pas aller de l’avant », regrettait-il.

    L’opération faisait face notamment à un veto de l’Autriche, qui refusait de reprendre les opérations navales, estimant qu’il s’agissait d’"un billet d’entrée en Europe pour des milliers de migrants clandestins." Une position partagée par l’Italie.

    « Ce fut une très longue et très difficile discussion et à la fin, nous avons trouvé une solution médiane », a reconnu Josep Borrell, au sortir d’une réunion à Bruxelles avec les ministres européens des Affaires étrangères. « La zone d’actions pour la nouvelle mission navale ne sera pas celle de Sophia, qui couvrait toutes les côtes de la Libye. Elle sera concentrée à l’Est, là où les passages d’armes se font », a-t-il précisé.

    L’Europe « doit être capable de faire de la politique européenne »

    Décidé en 2015, le mandat de l’opération Sophia a été prolongé jusqu’au 31 mars 2020. La nouvelle opération visant uniquement un meilleur contrôle de l’embargo libyen sur les armes devrait prendre la suite. Son nom de baptême n’est pas encore décidé.

    Les navires européens de Sophia avaient été retirés de la Méditerranée au printemps 2019 à la suite du refus de l’Italie de laisser les migrants sauvés en mer débarquer sur son territoire.

    « Je ne peux pas imaginer qu’un pays comme l’Autriche dise non en fin de compte », a ajouté le ministre des Affaires étrangères du Luxembourg, Jean Asselborn. « Je comprends que l’Europe ne soit parfois pas capable de faire de la politique mondiale, mais elle doit être capable de faire de la politique européenne. »
    https://twitter.com/sunderland_jude/status/1229438296318717958?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E12
    Plusieurs ONG de défense des migrants ont, pour leur part, manifesté leur indignation à l’image de Judith Sunderland, directrice adjointe chez Human Rights Watch pour les divisions Europe et Asie centrale. « L’UE remplace Sophia par une mission navale VRAIMENT loin [des routes migratoires] pour éviter d’avoir à secourir quiconque. Je travaille sur les politiques migratoires européennes depuis des années et pourtant je suis toujours CHOQUÉE par tant d’inhumanité explicite », a-t-elle écrit sur Twitter.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/22832/libye-l-ue-lance-une-operation-navale-pour-controler-l-embargo-sur-les
    #Libye #asile #migrations #réfugiés #sauvetage (non... en fait...) #Méditerranée #Mer_Méditerranée #opération_Sophia

  • Privatised Push-Back of the #Nivin

    In November 2018, five months after Matteo Salvini was made Italy’s Interior Minister, and began to close the country’s ports to rescued migrants, a group of 93 migrants was forcefully returned to Libya after they were ‘rescued’ by the Nivin, a merchant ship flying the Panamanian flag, in violation of their rights, and in breach of international refugee law.

    The migrants’ boat was first sighted in the Libyan Search and Rescue (SAR) Zone by a Spanish surveillance aircraft, part of Operation EUNAVFOR MED – Sophia, the EU’s anti-smuggling mission. The EUNAVFOR MED – Sophia Command passed information to the Italian and Libyan Coast Guards to facilitate the interception and ‘pull-back’ of the vessel to Libya. However, as the Libyan Coast Guard (LYCG) patrol vessels were unable to perform this task, the Italian Coast Guard (ICG) directly contacted the nearby Nivin ‘on behalf of the Libyan Coast Guard’, and tasked it with rescue.

    LYCG later assumed coordination of the operation, communicating from an Italian Navy ship moored in Tripoli, and, after the Nivin performed the rescue, directed it towards Libya.

    While the passengers were initially told they would be brought to Italy, when they realised they were being returned to Libya, they locked themselves in the hold of the ship.

    A standoff ensured in the port of Misrata which lasted ten days, until the captured passengers were violently removed from the vessel by Libyan security forces, detained, and subjected to multiple forms of ill-treatment, including torture.

    This case exemplifies a recurrent practice that we refer to as ‘privatised push-back’. This new strategy has been implemented by Italy, in collaboration with the LYCG, since mid-2018, as a new modality of delegated rescue, intended to enforce border control and contain the movement of migrants from the Global South seeking to reach Europe.

    This report is an investigation into this case and new pattern of practice.

    Using georeferencing and AIS tracking data, Forensic Oceanography reconstructed the trajectories of the migrants’ vessel and the Nivin.

    Tracking data was cross-referenced with the testimonies of passengers, the reports by rescue NGO WatchTheMed‘s ‘Alarm Phone’, a civilian hotline for migrants in need of emergency rescue; a report by the owner of the Nivin, which he shared with a civilian rescue organisation, the testimonies of MSF-France staff in Libya, an interview with a high-ranking LYCG official, official responses, and leaked reports from EUNAVFOR MED.

    Together, these pieces of evidence corroborate one other, and together form and clarify an overall picture: a system of strategic delegation of rescue, operated by a complex of European actors for the purpose of border enforcement.

    When the first–and preferred–modality of this strategic delegation, which operates through LYCG interception and pull-back of the migrants, did not succeed, those actors, including the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Rome, opted for a second modality: privatised push-back, implemented through the LYCG and the merchant ship.

    Despite the impression of coordination between European actors and the LYCG, control and coordination of such operations remains constantly within the firm hands of European—and, in particular, Italian—actors.

    In this case, as well as in others documented in this report, the outcome of the strategy was to deny migrants fleeing Libya the right to leave and request protection in Italy, returning them to a country in which they have faced grave violations. Through this action, Italy has breached its obligation of non-refoulement, one of the cornerstones of international refugee law.

    This report is the basis for a legal submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee by Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) on behalf of an individual who was shot and forcefully removed from the Nivin.

    https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/nivin
    #Méditerranée #rapport #Charles_Heller #asile #frontières #migrations #réfugiés #mer_Méditerranée #push-back #push-backs #refoulement #refoulements #privatisation #Italie #Libye #operation_sophia #EUNAVFOR_Med #gardes-côtes_libyens #sauvetage #Misrata #torture #privatised_push-back #push-back_privatisé #architecture_forensique #externalisation #navires_marchands #Salvini #Matteo_Salvini

    Pour télécharger le rapport :
    https://content.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-18-FO-Nivin-Report.pdf

    –-----

    Sur le cas du Nivin, voir aussi, sur seenthis, ce fil de discussion :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/735627

    • Migrants refoulés en Libye : l’Italie accusée d’embrigader la marine marchande

      En marge du Forum mondial sur les réfugiés, plusieurs ONG ont annoncé mercredi saisir un comité de l’ONU dans l’espoir de faire cesser les refoulements de migrants vers la Libye .

      De son identité il n’a été révélé que ses initiales. SDG a fui la guerre au Soudan du Sud. En novembre 2018, avec une centaine d’autres migrants embarqués sur un canot pour traverser la Méditerranée, il est secouru par un cargo battant pavillon panaméen, le Nivin. Mais l’équipage, suivant ainsi les instructions des autorités italiennes, ramène les naufragés vers la Libye et le port de Misrata. Les migrants refusent de débarquer, affirmant qu’ils préfèrent mourir sur le navire plutôt que de retourner dans les centres de détention libyens.

      Il s’ensuit un bras de fer d’une dizaine de jours. Finalement, les Libyens donnent l’assaut et les migrants sont débarqués de force. SDG est blessé, puis emprisonné et maltraité. Il restera avec une balle en plastique dans la jambe pendant six mois. Le jeune homme est aujourd’hui à Malte, où il a pu déposer une demande d’asile. Il a finalement réussi la traversée, à sa huitième tentative.

      C’est en son nom que plusieurs ONG ont déposé une plainte contre l’Italie mercredi auprès du Comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU. Cet organe, composé de 18 experts, n’émet que des avis consultatifs. « Cela ira plus vite que devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH). Nous visons l’Italie, car le comité de l’ONU ne se prononce que sur les violations commises par des Etats, nous ne pourrions attaquer l’Union européenne », justifie Violeta Moreno-Lax, de l’ONG Global Legal Action. L’Italie, en première ligne face à l’arrivée de boat people, avait déjà été condamnée par la CEDH en 2012 pour le refoulement de migrants en Libye. « Depuis, Rome fait tout pour contourner cet arrêt », dénonce la juriste.

      « Le choix impossible des équipages »

      L’une des tactiques, ont exposé les ONG lors d’une conférence de presse, est d’embrigader la marine marchande pour qu’elle ramène les naufragés en Libye. « La décision de l’ancien ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini de fermer les ports italiens aux navires de sauvetage en juin 2018 a créé une onde de choc en Méditerranée, décrit le chercheur suisse Charles Heller, qui documente la disparition de migrants en mer. Les autres pays européens ont retiré leurs bateaux, parce qu’ils risquaient d’être bloqués faute de ports où débarquer les migrants. Ce sont donc les navires marchands qui sont appelés à remplir le vide. Ces équipages sont face à un choix impossible. Soit ils se conforment aux instructions des autorités maritimes italiennes et violent le droit de la mer, qui oblige les marins à débarquer les naufragés vers un port sûr. Soit ils résistent et s’exposent à des poursuites judiciaires. Dans les faits, beaucoup de navires évitent de porter secours aux embarcations en détresse. »

      Ces derniers mois, Charles Heller a recensé 13 navires marchands qui ont refoulé des migrants en Libye. Parmi ces cas, deux tentatives n’ont pas réussi, les naufragés se rebellant contre un retour en Libye. « Il faut comprendre qu’une fois débarqués en Libye, les migrants sont détenus de façon totalement arbitraire. Les centres sont inadaptés, la nourriture est insuffisante, les maladies comme la tuberculose y font des ravages et les disparitions ne sont pas rares, en particulier les femmes », détaille Julien Raickman, le chef de mission de Médecins sans frontières en Libye.


      https://www.letemps.ch/monde/migrants-refoules-libye-litalie-accusee-dembrigader-marine-marchande

    • Migranti, un report accusa l’Italia: «Respingimento illegale dei 93 salvati dal mercantile Nivin e riportati in Libia con la forza»

      Le prove in un documento della Forensic Oceanography presso la Goldsmith University of London. Nell’ultimo anno, chiamando navi commerciali a soccorrere barche in difficoltà, sarebbero stati 13 i casi analoghi.

      «Qui MRCC Roma. A nome della Guardia costiera libica per la salvezza delle vite in mare vi preghiamo di procedere alla massima velocità per dare assistenza ad una barca in difficoltà con circa 70 persone a bordo. Vi preghiamo di contattare urgentemente la Guardia costiera libica attraverso questo centro di ricerca e soccorso ai seguenti numeri di telefono». Ai quali rispondono sempre gli italiani.

      Un dispaccio del centro di ricerca e soccorso di Roma delle 19.39 del 7 novembre del 2018 dimostra che a coordinare l’operazione di salvataggio di un gruppo di migranti poi riportati in Libia dal mercantile Nivin battente bandiera panamense fu l’Italia. In 93, segnalati prima da un aereo di Eunavformed, poi dal centralino Alarmphone, furono presi a bordo dal Nivin e, con l’inganno, sbarcati con la forza a Misurata dall’esercito libico dopo essere rimasti per dieci giorni asserragliati sul ponte del mercantile. Picchiati, feriti, rinchiusi di nuovo nei centri di detenzione in un paese in guerra.

      Un respingimento di massa illegittimo, contrario al diritto internazionale, che sarebbe stato dunque coordinato dall’Italia secondo una strategia di salvataggio delegato ai privati per applicare il controllo delle frontiere. Un «modello di pratica» che - secondo un rapporto redatto da Charles Heller di Forensic Oceanography, ramo della Forensic Architecture Agency basata alla Goldsmiths University of London - l’Italia e l’Europa avrebbero applicato ben 13 volte nell’ultimo anno, in coincidenza con la politica italiana dei porti chiusi.

      Caso finora unico, alcune delle persone riportate in Libia sono state rintracciate nei centri di detenzione da Msf che ne ha raccolto le testimonianze che - incrociate con i documenti e le risposte alle richieste di informazione date da Eunavformed e dalla stessa Guardia costiera libica - hanno consentito di ricostruire quello che viene definito nello studio «una pratica ricorrente di respingimenti, una nuova modalità di soccorso delegato ai privati» che verrebbe attuato quando le motovedette della guardia costiera libica, come avvenne nel caso del 7 novembre 2018, sono impegnate in altri interventi. «Impegnandosi in questa pratica - è l’accusa del report - l’Italia usa violenza extraterritoriale per contenere i movimenti dei migranti e viola l’obbligo di non respingimento». Per questo il Glan, l’organizzazione di avvocati, accademici e giornalisti investigativi Global Legal Action Network ha presentato una denuncia contro l’Italia al Comitato per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite per conto di uno dei migranti riportati indietro. E’ la prima volta che accade.

      La partenza
      Nella notte tra il 6 e 7 novembre 2018 dalla costa di Zlitan parte un gommone con 93 persone a bordo di sette nazionalità diverse. C’è anche una donna con un bimbo di quattro mesi. Alle 15.25 del 7 novembre la barca viene avvistata in zona Sar libica da un aereo spagnolo dell’operazione Sophia che - secondo quanto riferito da Eunavformed - «dichiara che non c’erano assetti navali nelle vicinanze». Tramite il quartier generale della missione che, in quel momento, era sulla nave San Marco della marina italiana, l’informazione con le coordinate navali della posizione della barca viene passata al centro di ricerca e soccorso di Roma che le trasmette a quello libico. Il commodoro libico Masoud Abdalsamd riferisce che le motovedette libiche sono impegnate in altre attività e il gommone continua la sua navigazione.

      La richiesta di soccorso
      Due ore dopo, alle 17.18, dal gommone un primo contatto con il centralino Alarm Phone che comunica le coordinate al centro di soccorso di Roma e monitora la zona: non ci sono navi vicine e l’unica Ong presente, la Mare Jonio, è a Lampedusa. Roma ( che era già informata) chiama Tripoli, la guardia costiera libica identifica la Nivin, un mercantile già in rotta verso Misurata ma le manca l’attrezzatura per comunicare e dirigere la Nivin e chiede a Roma di farlo «a suo nome». Da quel momento è MRCC a prendere in mano il coordinamento, dà istruzioni al comandante della Nivin e dirige il soccorso.

      L’arrivo dei libici
      Alle 21.34, un dispaccio del centro di ricerca e soccorso dei libici annuncia la presa del coordinamento delloperazione ma la comunicazione parte dallo stesso numero nella disponibilità della Marina italiana sulla nave di stanza a Tripoli. Alle 3.30 la Nivin soccorre i migranti. Saliti a bordo i marinai li tranquillizzano dicendo loro che saranno portati in Italia. Ma quando vedono arrivare una motovedetta libica i migranti capiscono di essere stati ingannati, rifiutano il trasbordo e si barricano sulla tolda della nave. I libici dopo un poò rinunciano e la Nivin prosegue verso Misurata dicendo ai migranti di essere in rotta verso Malta. Un’altra bugia.

      Lo sbarco a Misurata
      I migranti rimangono asserragliati anche quando la nave entra nel porto libico. Ci resteranno dieci giorni chiedendo disperatamente aiuto ai media internazionali con i telefoni cellulari. Il 20 novembre l’intervento di forza dei militari libici armati pone fine alla loro odissea. Alcuni migranti vengono picchiati, feriti, ricondotti nei centri di detenzione dove alcuni di loro vengono intercettati dall’equipe di Medici senza frontiere che raccoglie le loro testimonianze che si incrociano perfettamente con i documenti recuperati.

      Il ruolo dell’Italia
      Ne viene fuori un quadro che combacia perfettamente con quanto già evidenziato da un’inchiesta in via di conclusione della Procura di Agrigento coordinata dal procuratore aggiunto Salvatore Vella. Un quadro in cui l’Italia, nonostante gli accordi con la Libia, prevedono un ruolo di semplice assistenza e supporto tecnico alla Guardia costiera libica, di fatto svolge - tramite la nave della Marina militare di stanza a Tripoli - svolge una funzione di centro di comunicazione e coordinamento «dando un contributo decisivo - si legge nel report - alla capacità di controllo e coordinamento che ha saldamente in mano».
      «Quando i libici non sono in grado di intervenire - è l’accusa di Forensic Oceanography - Roma opta per una seconda modalità, quella del respingimento privato attraverso le mavi mercantili che - secondo un recente report semestrale di Eunavformed - ha prodotto 13 casi nell’ultimo anno con un aumento del 15-20 per cento».

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/12/18/news/migranti_l_italia_dietro_il_respingimento_dei_93_salvati_dal_mercantile_n

  • Des #pêcheurs pris dans un étau

    « La mer c’est la liberté. Aujourd’hui nous sommes emprisonnés à même l’eau » déplore Slah Eddine Mcharek, président de l’Association Le Pêcheur pour le développement et l’environnement[1] à #Zarzis. Leurs projets sont ambitieux : protection des ressources aquatiques, développement d’une pêche durable et responsable et défense de la pêche artisanale. Mais les obstacles sont de taille : pris entre la raréfaction des ressources halieutiques, les menaces à leur sécurité, la réduction de leur zone de pêche et la criminalisation du sauvetage des migrants en mer, les pêcheurs se retrouvent enserrés dans un véritable étau.

    Au-delà de la petite ville de Zarzis et de ses plages où se côtoient hôtels de luxe, corps de naufragés et pêcheurs en lutte, le récit de Slah Eddine rappelle l’importance de la justice migratoire et environnementale.

    La mer, déchetterie nationale

    Depuis quelques années, un phénomène prend de l’ampleur : les rejets de déchets plastiques envahissent les rives et encombrent les zones où travaillent les pêcheurs. Faute d’un système opérationnel de collecte des ordures ménagères et de sensibilisation aux risques liés à la pollution des eaux par le plastique, ces déchets s’entassent dans les canaux de la ville avant de se disperser dans la mer, au point que les pêcheurs réclament l’interdiction des sacs plastiques.

    Aux déchets ménagers s’ajoute le problème des rejets industriels. Slah Eddine déploie une carte du bassin méditerranéen et pointe du doigt le sebkhet el melah (marais salant) des côtes de Zarzis. Le salin appartient à Cotusal, vestige colonial d’une filiale française qui a exploité pendant longtemps les ressources salines de la Tunisie, dans le cadre de concessions avantageuses qui n’ont pas été renégociées depuis l’indépendance[2]. L’exploitation du sel dans cette région, en plus de saliniser les terres agricoles, rejette des produits de traitement du sel dans la mer. Surtout, les eaux zarzisiennes sont polluées par les rejets du Groupe Chimique Tunisien, notamment le phosphogypse, et par les eaux usées non traitées par l’ONAS (Office National de l’Assainissement). Cette dernière ne remplit pas sa mission de traitement des eaux industrielles et ménagères, notamment sur l’île de Djerba. Une partie des eaux est traitée de manière inefficace et insuffisante, l’autre non traitée du tout.

    Un équilibre écologique rompu

    Pour les êtres vivants qui habitent ces eaux, les rejets industriels mêlés aux déchets et eaux usées ne peuvent faire que mauvais mélange. « La mer est devenue des toilettes à ciel ouvert » s’indigne Slah Eddine, pointant cette fois du doigt deux poissons dessinés sur une affiche. L’un est le loup de mer et l’autre la dorade. « Là où les usines rejettent leurs eaux, ces poissons n’y vivent plus » explique-t-il. La contamination de ces eaux rompt un équilibre essentiel à la survie de la faune et la flore maritimes.

    Dans ces eaux, la reproduction marine est difficile sinon impossible, entraînant la disparition de plusieurs espèces de poissons et notamment les espèces cartilagineuses. Les éponges souffrent quant à elles du réchauffement climatique et présentent depuis quelques années des signes de maladies, au désespoir des familles qui vivent de leur commerce. Ainsi, en 2017, suite à la montée des températures (24°C à 67m de profondeur !), de nombreuses éponges sont mortes, par leur fragilité aux changements du milieu ou par une épidémie favorisée par cette augmentation de température[3].

    L’accumulation des pollutions a fini par asphyxier toute forme de vie dans les eaux proches de Djerba et Zarzis et notamment dans le golfe quasi fermé de Boughrara. Les pêcheurs estiment que 90 % des poissons et mollusques auraient disparu en dix ou vingt ans, privant beaucoup de personnes, notamment des jeunes et des femmes, d’un revenu stable. Mais alors que les pêcheurs de Gabès reçoivent des compensations à cause de la pollution et viennent pêcher sur les côtes de Zarzis, les pêcheurs zarzisiens ne reçoivent rien alors qu’ils sont aussi affectés.

    Plus au nord, sur les côtes sfaxiennes, c’est un autre phénomène qui s’est produit deux fois cette année, en juin puis en novembre, notamment à Jbeniana : la mer est devenue rouge, entrainant une forte mortalité de poissons. Le phénomène a été expliqué par la présence de microalgues eutrophisant la mer, c’est-à-dire la privant de son oxygène. Mais la version officielle s’arrête là[4], la prolifération de ces microalgues n’a pas été expliquée. Or, des phénomènes similaires sont connus à d’autres endroits de la planète, notamment dans le golfe du Mexique où la prolifération des algues est due à l’excès d’engrais phosphaté et azoté qui se retrouve dans la mer, ou du rejet d’eaux usées, qui produisent des concentrations trop importantes de matières organiques[5]. Il est donc fort probable que les rejets concentrés en phosphate du Groupe Chimique Tunisien à Gabès et Sfax, d’autres rejets industriels et ménagers et/ou des rejets d’engrais agricoles par les oueds soient à l’origine du phénomène.

    Le coût de Daesh

    Alors que certaines espèces disparaissent, d’autres se multiplient en trop grand nombre. Le crabe bleu, surnommé « Daesh » par les pêcheurs de la région du fait de son potentiel invasif et destructeur, en est le meilleur exemple. Cette espèce, apparue fin 2014 dans le golfe de Gabès[6], a rapidement proliféré au large des côtes, se nourrissant des poissons qui jusque-là constituaient le gagne-pain des pêcheurs du coin. « Daesh détruit tout : les dorades, les crevettes, les seiches …. Tous les bons poissons ! » s’exclame-t-il. La voracité du crabe bleu a aggravé les problèmes économiques de bien des pêcheurs. Si la chair de cette espèce invasive fait le bonheur de certains palais et qu’un marché à l’export est en plein développement en direction de l’Asie et du Golfe, les habitants de Zarzis qui vivent de la pêche artisanale, eux, ne s’y retrouvent pas. « Un kilo de loup ou de dorade se vend 40 dinars. Un kilo de crabe bleu, c’est seulement 2 dinars ! » affirme un pêcheur de l’association.

    Le calcul est vite fait, d’autant plus que les crabes bleus font assumer aux pêcheurs un coût du renouvellement du matériel beaucoup plus important, leurs pinces ayant tendance à cisailler les filets. « Avant l’arrivée de Daesh, nous changions les filets environ deux fois par an, maintenant c’est quatre à cinq fois par ans ! » se désole l’un d’entre eux.

    Bloqués dans un Sahara marin

    Comme le martèlent les pêcheurs, « la zone de pêche de Zarzis est devenue un Sahara, un véritable désert ». Suite au partage international de la Méditerranée, les pêcheurs zarzisiens sont cantonnés dans des eaux côtières, qui se vident de poisson suite aux désastres écologiques et à la surpêche.

    « Avant 2005 et le dialogue 5+5[7] on pouvait accéder à des zones de pêche intéressantes, mais depuis les autres pays ont agrandi leur territoire marin ». En effet, c’est en 2005 que la Libye met en place sa zone de pêche exclusive, interdisant ainsi l’accès aux pêcheurs tunisiens. La Tunisie met elle aussi en place sa zone économique exclusive[8], mais, à la différence de la zone libyenne[9], elle autorise des navires étrangers à y pêcher. Les chalutiers égyptiens sont particulièrement présents, et s’ajoutent aux chalutiers tunisiens (de Sfax notamment) qui ne peuvent plus pêcher dans les eaux poissonneuses libyennes. Il arrive même que ces chalutiers pénètrent dans les eaux territoriales, en toute impunité. En plus des désastres écologiques, les eaux du sud tunisien se vident ainsi de leurs poissons à cause de la surpêche.

    Limites des différentes zones maritimes tunisiennes[10] :

    Or, les frontières officielles ne semblent pas délimiter la zone où les pêcheurs tunisiens peuvent réellement travailler, cette dernière étant manifestement beaucoup plus restreinte et empiétée par la zone libyenne. Sur la carte maritime qu’il a déployée devant lui, Slah Eddine matérialise la zone où les pêcheurs de Zarzis peuvent pêcher de manière effective et montre en resserrant ses doigts l’évolution de la zone de pêche libyenne au détriment de la zone tunisienne. Mais alors, pourquoi ce déplacement de frontière maritime n’apparaît dans aucun texte ou accord international[11] ? Y a-t-il des accords cachés ? Les garde-côtes libyens s’arrogent-ils le droit de pénétrer les eaux tunisiennes ? Ou les pêcheurs tunisiens auraient-ils intégré l’obligation de ne pas pénétrer une zone tampon pour ne pas craindre pour leur sécurité ?

    Les pêcheurs sous les feux des groupes armés libyens

    Au-delà des problèmes économiques auxquels ils doivent faire face, les pêcheurs de Zarzis sont confrontés à de graves problèmes de sécurité dans les eaux où ils naviguent. Alors que les bateaux de pêche libyens ne se gênent pas, selon Slah Eddine, pour venir exploiter les eaux tunisiennes, il n’existe aucune tolérance pour les pêcheurs tunisiens qui s’aventurent en dehors de leur zone. Ces dernières années, le pêcheur ne compte plus les cas d’agressions, de saisies de bateaux, de menaces et prises d’otages, par les groupes armés, et parmi eux les gardes côtes officiels libyens, équipés par les programmes européens de lutte contre la migration non réglementaire.

    En 2012, un pêcheur tunisien mourrait ainsi sous les balles tirées d’une vedette côtière libyenne tandis que les 18 autres membres de l’équipage étaient faits prisonniers à Tripoli[12]. En 2015, quatre bateaux de pêche tunisiens qui avaient pénétré les eaux libyennes étaient également pris en otage par des groupes armés libyens et acheminés au port d’El Zaouira[13]. Les attaques ont eu lieu jusque dans les eaux tunisiennes, comme en février 2016 lorsque treize chalutiers tunisiens avec soixante-dix marins à bord ont été arraisonnés et emmenés dans le même port, la partie libyenne exigeant alors une rançon contre leur libération[14]. L’année suivante, en 2017, des pêcheurs libyens de Zaouira menaçaient de kidnapper tous les marins tunisiens qu’ils rencontreraient en mer en représailles au contrôle d’un chalutier libyen dans le port de Sfax par la garde maritime tunisienne. Depuis, les prises d’otage se multiplient. Enième épisode d’une saga sans fin, la dernière attaque libyenne date de septembre dernier.

    L’insécurité ne touche pas que les pêcheurs de Zarzis, mais tous les pêcheurs tunisiens qui naviguent à proximité des zones frontalières : au Sud-Est, ce sont les feux des groupes libyens qui les menacent ; au Nord-Ouest, ceux de la garde côtière algérienne. Le 31 janvier de cette année, un pêcheur originaire de Tabarka et âgé de 33 ans a été tué par les autorités algériennes alors que son bateau avait pénétré les eaux territoriales de l’Algérie[15]. « Le danger est partout ! », « on se fait tirer dessus ! », s’exclament les pêcheurs de l’Association. Entre deuil et colère, ils dénoncent l’absence de réponse ferme des autorités tunisiennes contre ces agressions et se font difficilement à l’idée qu’à chaque départ en mer leur vie puisse être menacée.

    Les autres damnés de la mer

    Comme tout marin, les pêcheurs de Zarzis doivent porter assistance aux bateaux en détresse qu’ils croisent sur leur chemin. Et des bateaux en détresse, ce n’est pas ce qui manque au large de Zarzis. Le hasard a fait que leur zone de pêche se trouve sur la route des migrants qui fuient la Libye sur des embarcations de fortune et les accidents sont fréquents dans ces eaux dangereuses. Porter secours aux survivants, prendre contact avec le Centre de Coordination des Sauvetages en Mer, ramener les corps de ceux pour lesquels ils arrivent trop tard afin de leur offrir une sépulture digne, c’est aussi cela, le quotidien des pêcheurs de Zarzis. L’effroi et la colère de l’impuissance lorsque des cadavres se prennent dans les filets pêche, l’inquiétude et le soulagement lorsque le pire est évité et que tout le monde arrive à bon port.

    Sauver des vies lorsqu’il est encore temps, c’est avant tout un devoir d’humanité pour ces hommes et ces femmes de la mer. La question ne se pose même pas, malgré les heures de travail et l’argent perdus. Pour être plus efficaces dans leurs gestes et secourir le plus grand nombre, plus d’une centaine de pêcheurs de Zarzis ont suivi en 2015 une formation de 6 jours sur le secours en mer organisée par Médecins sans frontières[16]. Alors que les politiques européennes de criminalisation des ONG menant des opérations de recherche et de secours en mer ont laissé un grand vide en Méditerranée, les pêcheurs tunisiens se retrouvent en première ligne pour les opérations de sauvetage. Aussi, quand ils partent en mer, prévoient-ils toujours de l’eau et de la nourriture en plus, des fois qu’un bateau à la dérive croise leur chemin.

    Des sauveurs que l’Europe veut faire passer pour des criminels

    Au-delà d’un devoir d’humanité, porter secours aux embarcations en détresse est une obligation inscrite dans le droit international maritime et en particulier dans la Convention internationale sur la Sauvegarde de la vie humaine en mer (SOLAS), qui s’applique à tous les navires. Le texte prévoit l’obligation pour tous les Etats de coordonner leurs secours et de coopérer pour acheminer les personnes dans un lieu sûr[17], où la vie des survivants n’est plus menacée et où l’on peut subvenir à leurs besoins fondamentaux.

    Aussi, lorsque l’équipage de Chameseddine Bourrasine croise lors l’été 2018 une embarcation avec 14 migrants à la dérive, c’est sans hésitation qu’il décide de leur porter secours. Mais alors que les rescapés menacent de se suicider s’ils sont ramenés en Tunisie et qu’il ne saurait être question de les livrer aux garde-côtes de Libye où c’est l’enfer des geôles qui les attend, le capitaine décide d’appeler la garde côtière du pays sûr le plus proche, à savoir l’Italie. Après plusieurs tentatives de contact restées sans réponse, il décide alors de remorquer le bateau vers l’Italie pour débarquer les migrants dans un lieu où ils seront en sécurité[18]. Accusé avec son équipage de s’être rendu coupable d’aide à l’immigration dite « clandestine », ce sauvetage coûtera aux 7 marins-pêcheurs 22 jours d’incarcération en Sicile.

    Si le procès s’est résolu par un non-lieu, les pêcheurs de Zarzis restent dans le collimateur des autorités italiennes. « Nous les pêcheurs tunisiens, l’Italie voudrait nous contrôler et encore limiter la zone dans laquelle nous pouvons pêcher » se désole Slah Eddine, « les Italiens nous surveillent ! ». Il évoque aussi la surveillance d’EUNAVFOR Med, également appelée Sophia, opération militaire lancée par l’Union européenne en 2015 en Méditerranée pour, selon les mots de la Commission « démanteler le modèle économique des passeurs et des trafiquants d’êtres humains »[19]. Si l’opération militaire les surveille de près lorsqu’il s’agit du secours en mer, lorsqu’il est question d’attaques par des milices libyennes, Sophia détourne le regard et abandonne les pêcheurs tunisiens à leur sort.

    Les harraga de demain ? [20]

    « On ne peut plus, ce n’est plus possible, il n’y a plus rien », répètent les pêcheurs, acquiesçant les paroles par lesquelles Slah Eddine vient de présenter leur situation. Entre les eaux polluées, les problèmes économiques, le fléau de Daesh, les poissons qui ne se reproduisent plus, les éponges malades, les attaques libyennes, les pressions italiennes et européennes, être un pêcheur en Tunisie, « ce n’est plus une vie ». Leurs fils à eux sont partis pour la plupart, en Europe, après avoir « brûlé » la mer. Ils savent que dans cette région qui vit surtout de la pêche, il n’y a pas d’avenir pour eux.

    Et puis il y a ceux qui, privés de toute autre source de revenus, sont contraints à se reconvertir dans des activités de passeurs. Nés dans des familles où la pêche se transmet de père en fils, ils connaissent la mer, ses vents, tempêtes, marées et courants. Ils savent où se procurer des bateaux. Lorsque ces loups de mer sont à la barre, le voyage est plus sûr pour celles et ceux risquent la traversée vers l’Europe à bord d’un rafiot. Alors que les harragas tunisiens sont de plus en plus systématiquement déportés lorsqu’ils sont arrêtés par les autorités italiennes[21], certains passeurs ont troqué leur clientèle tunisienne pour une clientèle subsaharienne, de plus en plus nombreuse à mesure que leur situation en Libye se dégrade. Faute de voies régulières pour les migrants, la demande de passage vers l’Europe augmente. Et faute de ressources alternatives pour les pêcheurs, l’offre se développe.

    Or ce n’est ni la « main invisible » ni une quelconque fatalité qui poussent ces pêcheurs au départ ou à la diversification de leurs activités, mais le mélange entre le modèle de développement polluant et incontrôlé, l’inaction des autorités tunisiennes en matière de protection de l’environnement, et le cynisme des politiques migratoires sécuritaires et meurtrières de l’Union européenne.

    https://ftdes.net/des-pecheurs-pris-dans-un-etau
    #environnement #sauvetage #Méditerranée #pêche #développement #émigration #Cotusal #pollution #plastique #colonialisme #sel #salines #phosphogypse #Groupe_Chimique_Tunisien #eaux_usées #reproduction_marine #poissons #éponges #Djerba #mollusques #Gabès #Jbeniana #microalgues #phosphate #crabe_bleu #Libye #différend_territorial #zone_économique_exclusive #surpêche #asile #migrations #réfugiés #criminalisation #Chameseddine_Bourrasine #EUNAVFOR_Med #Operation_Sophia #harraga

    #ressources_pédagogiques #dynamiques_des_suds

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

    • Le business meurtrier des frontières

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sur le blog :

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

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

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

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

    • How Private Security Firms Profit Off the Refugee Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Financing the industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Key findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Air Surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sensors and cameras

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

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

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

      Surveillance centres

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

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

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

      Artificial intelligence

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

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

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

  • A #Split, l’Europe tente de former les #gardes-côtes_libyens

    La mission militaire européenne #Sophia a accepté, pour la première fois et dans des conditions strictes, d’ouvrir à un journaliste l’une des formations qu’elle dispense depuis 2016.

    « Vous ne pourrez pas rester au-delà d’une matinée » ; « Tout sujet politique doit être évité » ; « Vous ne pourrez pas interviewer les élèves »… Après plusieurs demandes, la mission militaire européenne Sophia a accepté, pour la première fois et dans des conditions strictes, d’ouvrir à un journaliste l’une des formations qu’elle dispense depuis 2016 à des gardes-côtes et d’autres membres de la #marine_libyenne.

    En ce mois de septembre, sur la base navale de Split (#Croatie), onze militaires libyens participent à un cours avancé de #plongée_sous-marine, dispensé par d’anciens membres des forces spéciales croates. Dans une salle de classe, on les retrouve en tenue, chemises bleues, pantalons marine, mocassins noirs et casquettes neuves sur lesquelles a été brodé au fil jaune, en anglais, « #Libyan_Navy ». Ils s’appellent Saïd, Aymen, Tabal… La plupart sont sous-officiers et ont entre 20 et 35 ans. Au tableau, un instructeur, traduit en arabe par un interprète, déroule le programme de la journée.

    Volet controversé de l’aide apportée par l’Union européenne (UE) à la Libye pour lutter contre l’immigration clandestine, le soutien aux gardes-côtes a accompagné le désengagement des secours venus des Etats membres en Méditerranée centrale et le transfert à la Libye de la coordination des sauvetages au large de ses côtes, autrefois assumée par l’Italie. L’opération Sophia avait été lancée en 2015 après une série de naufrages afin de « démanteler les modèles économiques des passeurs ». A la demande de Rome, elle a, par la suite, été privée de ses navires pour se concentrer sur la surveillance aérienne.


    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/09/24/a-split-l-europe-tente-de-former-les-gardes-cotes-libyens_6012777_3210.html
    #formation #Frontex #asile #migrations #réfugiés #contrôles_frontaliers #opération_Sophia #operation_Sophia

    –---

    Ajouté à la métaiste sur les formations des gardes-côtes lybiens sur le territoire européen :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/938454

    ping @karine4

  • #Méditerranée centrale : les #garde-côtes libyens assurent la moitié des sauvetages - B2 Bruxelles2
    http://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/09/23/le-dernier-bilan-en-mediterranee-de-loperation-sophia

    Selon les dernières données de l’#opération_Sophia, 10.137 personnes ont été secourues au total lors de 153 opérations de #sauvetage menées par différents navires en Méditerranée centrale au large des côtes libyennes, en quasiment un an (entre le 1er septembre 2018 et le 2 août 2019). Un chiffre en baisse drastique par rapport à 2018. Il y avait eu 41.961 personnes récupérées lors de 543 opérations de secours, durant la même période en 2018, soit quatre fois plus.

    […] Les opérations de sauvetage et les interceptions durant ces onze derniers mois ont été en grande partie assurées par la marine et les garde-côtes libyens qui ont assuré presque la moitié des sauvetages : 72 opérations (sur 153).

    […] Les navires italiens (des garde-côtes, de la marine et de la Guardia di Finanza, des Carabinieri) assurant avec les forces armées maltaises (respectivement 21 et 18 opérations) un quart des sauvetages. Tandis que le dernier quart des sauvetages se répartit entre les navires des #ONG (17 opérations), des navires marchands (13 opérations) et des navires de pêche (3 opérations), ainsi que les forces tunisiennes (9 opérations).

    #[…] Au cours du premier semestre 2019, 333 décès sur l’itinéraire central ont été enregistrés pour 2130 arrivées. Soit un taux de mortalité de un sur six, contre un sur 14 personnes en 2018 (1132 décès pour 15.537 arrivées) et un pour 38 en 2017 (2851 décès pour 108.255 arrivées)

    #sauvetage_en_mer #migrants #migrations #morts

  • Militarisation des frontières en #Mer_Egée

    En Mer Egée c’est exactement la même stratégie qui se met en place, et notamment à #Samos, où une #zeppelin (#zeppelin_de_surveillance) de #Frontex surveillera le détroit entre l’île et la côte turque, afin de signaler tout départ de bateaux. L’objectif est d’arrêter « à temps » les embarcations des réfugiés en les signalant aux garde-corps turques. Comme l’a dit le vice-ministre de l’immigration Koumoutsakos « on saura l’heure de départ de l’embarcation, on va en informer les turques, on s’approcher du bateau... »
    S’approcher pourquoi faire, sinon, pour le repousser vers la côte turque ?
    Le fonctionnement de la montgolfière sera confié aux garde-cotes et à la police grecque, l’opération restant sous le contrôle de Frontex.

    –-> reçu via la mailing-list de Migreurop, le 30.07.2017

    #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Turquie #Grèce #migrations #réfugiés #asile #police #gardes-côtes #surveillance

    –-----------

    Commentaire de Martin Clavey sur twitter :

    Cynisme absolu : Frontex utilise des drones pour surveiller les migrants en méditerranée ce qui permet à l’Union européenne de ne pas utiliser de bateau de surveillance et donc ne pas être soumis au #droit_maritime et à avoir à les sauver

    https://twitter.com/mart1oeil/status/1158396604648493058

    • Σε δοκιμαστική λειτουργία το αερόσταστο της FRONTEX

      Σε δοκιμαστική λειτουργία τίθεται από σήμερα για 28 ημέρες το αερόστατο της FRONTEX στη Σάμο, μήκους 35 μέτρων, προσδεμένο στο έδαφος, εξοπλισμένο με ραντάρ, θερμική κάμερα και σύστημα αυτόματης αναγνώρισης, το οποίο θα επιτηρεί αδιάλειπτα και σε πραγματικό χρόνο το θαλάσσιο πεδίο.

      Σύμφωνα με ανακοίνωση του Λιμενικού, στόχος είναι η αστυνόμευση του θαλάσσιου πεδίου και η καταπολέμηση του διασυνοριακού εγκλήματος. Δημιουργείται ωστόσο το ερώτημα αν οι πληροφορίες που θα συλλέγει το αερόστατο θα χρησιμοποιούνται για την αναχαίτιση ή την αποτροπή των πλεούμενων των προσφύγων που ξεκινούν από τα τουρκικά παράλια για να ζητήσουν διεθνή προστασία στην Ευρώπη.

      « Πρώτα απ’ όλα ξέρεις τι ώρα φεύγει από τους διακινητές το σκάφος, ενημερώνεις την τουρκική πλευρά, πηγαίνεις εσύ κοντά, δηλαδή είναι ένα σύνολο ενεργειών » σημείωνε την περασμένη εβδομάδα σε συνέντευξή του στον ΑΝΤ1 ο αναπληρωτής υπουργός Μεταναστευτικής Πολιτικής Γιώργος Κουμουτσάκος, μιλώντας για τα αποτελέσματα που αναμένεται να έχει το αερόστατο στην ενίσχυση της επιτήρησης των συνόρων.

      Το Λιμενικό είναι η πρώτη ακτοφυλακή κράτους-μέλους της Ε.Ε. που χρησιμοποιεί αερόστατο για την επιτήρηση της θάλασσας, δέκα μήνες μετά την πρώτη παρόμοια πανευρωπαϊκή χρήση μη επανδρωμένου αεροσκάφους μεσαίου ύψους μακράς εμβέλειας.

      « Αυτό καταδεικνύει την ισχυρή και ξεκάθαρη βούληση του Λ.Σ.-ΕΛ.ΑΚΤ. να καταβάλει κάθε δυνατή προσπάθεια, χρησιμοποιώντας τη διαθέσιμη τεχνολογία αιχμής, για την αποτελεσματική φύλαξη των εξωτερικών θαλάσσιων συνόρων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενωσης, την πάταξη κάθε μορφής εγκληματικότητας καθώς και την προστασία της ανθρώπινης ζωής στη θάλασσα », σημειώνει το Λιμενικό.

      Η λειτουργία του αερόστατου εντάσσεται στην επιχείρηση « Ποσειδών » που συντονίζουν το Λιμενικό και η ΕΛ.ΑΣ. υπό την επιτήρηση της FRONTEX.

      Παράλληλα, στο νησί θα τεθεί σε λειτουργία φορτηγό εξοπλισμένο με παρόμοια συστήματα, προκειμένου να μπορούν να συγκριθούν τα αποτελέσματα και η λειτουργία του επίγειου και του εναέριου συστήματος.

      https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/koinonia/205553_se-dokimastiki-leitoyrgia-aerostasto-tis-frontex

    • Zeppelin over the island of Samos to monitor migrants trafficking

      Greek authorities and the Frontex will release a huge surveillance Zeppelin above the island of Samos to monitor migrants who illegally try to reach Greece and Europe. The installation of the ominous balloon will be certainly a grotesque attraction for the tourists who visit the island in the East Aegean Sea.

      Deputy Minister of Migration Policy Giorgos Koumoutsakos told private ANT1 TV that the Zeppelin will go in operation next week.

      “In Samos, at some point, I think it’s a matter of days or a week, a Zeppelin balloon will be installed in cooperation with FRONTEX, which will take a picture of a huge area. What does that mean? First of all, you know what time the ship moves away from the traffickers, inform the Turkish side, you go near, that is a set of actions,” Koumoutsakos said.

      The Zeppelin will be monitored by the GNR radar unit of the Frontext located at the port of Karlovasi, samiakienimerosi notes adding “It will give a picture of movements between the Turkish coast to Samos for the more effective guarding of our maritime borders.”

      The Deputy Minister did not elaborate on what exactly can the Greek Port Authority do when it comes “near” to the refugee and migrants boats.

      According to daily efimerida ton syntakton, the Norwegian NGO, Aegean Boat Report, revealed a video shot on July 17. The video shows how a Greek Coast Guard vessel approaches a boat with 34 people on board and leaves them at the open sea to be “collected” by Turkish authorities, while the passengers, among them 14 children, desperately are shouting “Not to Turkey!”

      It is not clear, whether the Greek Coast Guard vessel is in international waters as such vessels do not enter Turkish territorial waters. According to international law, the passengers ought to be rescued. The Greek Coast Guard has so far not taken position on the issue, saying it will need to evaluate the video first, efsyn notes.

      “There is no push backs. Everything will be done in accordance with the international law. Greece will do nothing beyond the international law,” Koumoutsakos stressed.

      PS I suppose, tourists will be cheered to have their vacation activities monitored by a plastic Big Brother. Not?

      https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2019/07/26/zeppelin-samos-migrants-refugees

    • Once migrants on Mediterranean were saved by naval patrols. Now they have to watch as #drones fly over
      https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8a92adecf247b04c801a67a612766ee753738437/0_109_4332_2599/master/4332.jpg?width=605&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=c0051d5e4fff6aff063c70

      Amid the panicked shouting from the water and the smell of petrol from the sinking dinghy, the noise of an approaching engine briefly raises hope. Dozens of people fighting for their lives in the Mediterranean use their remaining energy to wave frantically for help. Nearly 2,000 miles away in the Polish capital, Warsaw, a drone operator watches their final moments via a live transmission. There is no ship to answer the SOS, just an unmanned aerial vehicle operated by the European border and coast guard agency, Frontex.

      This is not a scene from some nightmarish future on Europe’s maritime borders but a present-day probability. Frontex, which is based in Warsaw, is part of a £95m investment by the EU in unmanned aerial vehicles, the Observer has learned.

      This spending has come as the EU pulls back its naval missions in the Mediterranean and harasses almost all search-and-rescue charity boats out of the water. Frontex’s surveillance drones are flying over waters off Libya where not a single rescue has been carried out by the main EU naval mission since last August, in what is the deadliest stretch of water in the world.

      The replacement of naval vessels, which can conduct rescues, with drones, which cannot, is being condemned as a cynical abrogation of any European role in saving lives.

      “There is no obligation for drones to be equipped with life-saving appliances and to conduct rescue operations,” said a German Green party MEP, Erik Marquardt. “You need ships for that, and ships are exactly what there is a lack of at the moment.” This year the death rate for people attempting the Mediterranean crossing has risen from a historical average of 2% to as high as 14% last month. In total, 567 of the estimated 8,362 people who have attempted it so far this year have died.

      Gabriele Iacovino, director of one of Italy’s leading thinktanks, the Centre for International Studies, said the move into drones was “a way to spend money without having the responsibility to save lives”. Aerial surveillance without ships in the water amounted to a “naval mission without a naval force”, and was about avoiding embarrassing political rows in Europe over what to do with rescued migrants.

      Since March the EU’s main naval mission in the area, Operation Sophia, has withdrawn its ships from waters where the majority of migrant boats have sunk. While Sophia was not primarily a search-and-rescue mission, it was obliged under international and EU law to assist vessels in distress. The switch to drones is part of an apparent effort to monitor the Mediterranean without being pulled into rescue missions that deliver migrants to European shores.

      Marta Foresti, director of the Human Mobility Initiative at the Overseas Development Institute, an influential UK thinktank, said Europe had replaced migration policy with panic, with potentially lethal consequences. “We panicked in 2015 and that panic has turned into security budgets,” she said. “Frontex’s budget has doubled with very little oversight or design. It’s a knee-jerk reaction.”

      The strategy has seen Frontex, based in Warsaw, and its sister agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency, based in Lisbon, invest in pilotless aerial vehicles. The Observer has found three contracts – two under EMSA and one under Frontex – totalling £95m for drones that can supply intelligence to Frontex.

      The models include the Hermes, made by Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest privately owned arms manufacturer, and the Heron, produced by Israel Aerospace Industries, a state-owned company. Both models were developed for use in combat missions in the occupied Palestinian territory of Gaza. Frontex said its drone suppliers met all “EU procurement rules and guidelines”.

      There is mounting concern both over how Frontex is spending EU taxpayers’ money and how it can be held accountable. The migration panic roiling Europe’s politics has been a boon for a once unfashionable EU outpost that coordinated national coastal and border guards. Ten years ago Frontex’s budget was £79m. In the latest budget cycle it has been awarded £10.4bn.

      Demand from member states for its services have largely been driven by its role in coordinating and carrying out deportations. The expansion of the deportation machine has caused concern among institutions tasked with monitoring the forced returns missions: a group of national ombudsmen, independent watchdogs appointed in all EU member states to safeguard human rights, has announced plans to begin its own independent monitoring group. The move follows frustration with the way their reports on past missions have been handled by Frontex.

      Andreas Pottakis, Greece’s ombudsman, is among those calling for an end to the agency policing itself: “Internal monitoring of Frontex by Frontex cannot substitute for the need for external monitoring by independent bodies. This is the only way the demand for transparency can be met and that the EU administration can effectively be held into account.”
      Acting to extradite helpless civilians to the hands of Libyan militias may amount to criminal liability

      The Frontex Consultative Forum, a body offering strategic advice to Frontex’s management board on how the agency can improve respect for fundamental rights, has also severely criticised it for a sloppy approach to accountability. An online archive of all Frontex operations, which was used by independent researchers, was recently removed.

      The switch to drones in the Mediterranean has also led to Frontex being accused of feeding intelligence on the position of migrant boats to Libya’s coast guards so they can intercept and return them to Libya. Although it receives EU funds, the Libyan coast guard remains a loosely defined outfit that often overlaps with smuggling gangs and detention centre owners.

      “The Libyan coast guard never patrols the sea,” said Tamino Böhm of the German rescue charity Sea-Watch. “They never leave port unless there is a boat to head to for a pullback. This means the information they have comes from the surveillance flights of Italy, Frontex and the EU.”

      A Frontex spokesperson said that incidents related to boats in distress were passed to the “responsible rescue coordination centre and to the neighbouring ones for situational awareness and potential coordination”. Thus the maritime rescue coordination centre in Rome has begun to share information with its Libyan counterpart in Tripoli, under the instructions of Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini.

      The EU is already accused of crimes against humanity in a submission before the International Criminal Court for “orchestrating a policy of forced transfer to concentration camp-like detention facilities [in Libya] where atrocious crimes are committed”.

      The case, brought by lawyers based in Paris, seeks to demonstrate that many of the people intercepted have faced human rights abuses ranging from slavery to torture and murder after being returned to Libya.

      Omer Shatz, an Israeli who teaches at Sciences Po university in Paris, and one of the two lawyers who brought the ICC case, said Frontex drone operators could be criminally liable for aiding pullbacks. “A drone operator that is aware of a migrant boat in distress is obliged to secure fundamental rights to life, body integrity, liberty and dignity. This means she has to take actions intended to search, rescue and disembark those rescued at safe port. Acting to extradite helpless vulnerable civilians to the hands of Libyan militias may amount to criminal liability.”

      Under international law, migrants rescued at sea by European vessels cannot be returned to Libya, where conflict and human rights abuses mean the UN has stated there is no safe port. Under the UN convention on the law of the sea (Unclos) all ships are obliged to report an encounter with a vessel in distress and offer assistance. This is partly why EU naval missions that were not mandated to conduct rescue missions found themselves pitched into them regardless.

      Drones, however, operate in a legal grey zone not covered by Unclos. The situation for private contractors to EU agencies, as in some of the current drone operations, is even less clear.

      Frontex told the Observer that all drone operators, staff or private contractors are subject to EU laws that mandate the protection of human life. The agency said it was unable to share a copy of the mission instructions given to drone operators that would tell them what to do in the event of encountering a boat in distress, asking the Observer to submit a freedom of information request. The agency said drones had encountered boats in distress on only four occasions – all in June this year – in the central Mediterranean, and that none had led to a “serious incident report” – Frontex jargon for a red flag. When EU naval vessels were deployed in similar areas in previous years, multiple serious incidents were reported every month, according to documents seen by the Observer.

      https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/04/drones-replace-patrol-ships-mediterranean-fears-more-migrant-deaths

      #Méditerranée #mer_Méditerranée #Libye

    • L’uso dei droni per guardare i migranti che affogano mette a nudo tutta la disumanità delle pratiche di controllo sui confini

      In troppi crediamo al mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la realtà macchiata di sangue.

      “Se avessi ignorato quelle grida di aiuto, non avrei mai più trovato il coraggio di affrontare il mare”.

      Con queste parole il pescatore siciliano Carlo Giarratano ha commentato la sua decisione di sfidare il “decreto sicurezza” del Governo italiano, che prevede sanzioni o l’arresto nei confronti di chiunque trasporti in Italia migranti soccorsi in mare.

      La sua storia è un esempio della preoccupante tensione che si è creata ai confini della “Fortezza Europa” in materia di leggi e regolamenti. Secondo il diritto internazionale, il capitano di un’imbarcazione in mare è tenuto a fornire assistenza alle persone in difficoltà, “a prescindere dalla nazionalità o dalla cittadinanza delle persone stesse”. Al contempo, molti paesi europei, e la stessa UE, stanno cercando di limitare questo principio e queste attività, malgrado il tragico bilancio di morti nel Mediterraneo, in continua crescita.

      L’Agenzia di Confine e Guardia Costiera Europea, Frontex, sembra aver escogitato una soluzione ingegnosa: i droni. L’obbligo legale di aiutare un’imbarcazione in difficoltà non si applica a un veicolo aereo senza pilota (UAV, unmanned aerial vehicle). Si può aggirare la questione, politicamente calda, su chi sia responsabile di accogliere i migranti soccorsi, se questi semplicemente non vengono proprio soccorsi. Questo principio fa parte di una consolidata tendenza a mettere in atto politiche finalizzate a impedire che i migranti attraversino il Mediterraneo. Visto l’obbligo di soccorrere le persone che ci chiedono aiuto, la soluzione sembra essere questa: fare in modo di non sentire le loro richieste.

      Jean-Claude Juncker sostiene che le politiche europee di presidio ai confini sono concepite per “stroncare il business dei trafficanti”, perché nella moralità egocentrica che ispira la politica di frontiera europea, se non ci fossero trafficanti non ci sarebbero migranti.

      Ma non ci sono trafficanti che si fabbricano migranti in officina. Se le rotte ufficiali sono bloccate, le persone vanno a cercare quelle non ufficiali. Rendere la migrazione più difficile, ha fatto aumentare la richiesta di trafficanti e scafisti, certamente non l’ha fermata. Invece che stroncare il loro business, queste politiche lo hanno creato.

      Secondo la logica della foglia di fico, l’UE sostiene di non limitarsi a lasciare affogare i migranti, ma di fornire supporto alla guardia costiera libica perché intercetti le imbarcazioni che tentano la traversata e riporti le persone nei campi di detenzione in Libia.

      Ma il rapporto del Global Detention Project, a proposito delle condizioni in questi campi, riferisce: “I detenuti sono spesso sottoposti a gravi abusi e violenze, compresi stupri e torture, estorsioni, lavori forzati, schiavitù, condizioni di vita insopportabili, esecuzioni sommarie.” Human Rights Watch, in un rapporto intitolato Senza via di fuga dall’Inferno, descrive situazioni di sovraffollamento e malnutrizione e riporta testimonianze di bambini picchiati dalle guardie.

      L’Irish Times ha riportato accuse secondo cui le milizie associate con il GNA (Governo Libico di Alleanza Nazionale, riconosciuto dall’ONU), starebbero immagazzinando munizioni in questi campi e userebbero i rifugiati come “scudi umani”. Sembra quasi inevitabile, quindi, la notizia che il 3 luglio almeno 53 rifugiati sono stati uccisi durante un attacco dei ribelli appartenenti all’Esercito Nazionale Libico, nel campo di detenzione di Tajura, vicino a Tripoli.

      Secondo una testimonianza riportata dall’Associated Press, a Tajura i migranti erano costretti a pulire le armi delle milizie fedeli al GNA, armi che erano immagazzinate nel campo. Secondo i racconti di testimoni oculari dell’attacco, riportati dalle forze ONU, le guardie del campo avrebbero aperto il fuoco su chi tentava di scappare.

      Nel mondo occidentale, quando parliamo di immigrazione, tendiamo a focalizzarci sul cosiddetto “impatto sulle comunità” causato dai flussi di nuovi arrivati che si muovono da un posto all’altro.

      Nelle nostre discussioni, ci chiediamo se i migranti portino un guadagno per l’economia oppure intacchino risorse già scarse. Raramente ci fermiamo a guardare nella sua cruda e tecnica realtà la concreta applicazione del controllo alle frontiere, quando si traduce davvero in fucili e filo spinato.

      Ci ripetiamo che i costi vanno tutti in un’unica direzione: secondo la nostra narrazione preferita, i controlli di confine sono tutti gratis, è lasciare entrare i migranti la cosa che costa. Ma i costi da pagare ci sono sempre: non solo il tributo di morti che continua a crescere o i budget multimilionari e sempre in aumento delle nostre agenzie di frontiera, ma anche i costi morali e sociali che finiamo con l’estorcere a noi stessi.

      L’ossessione per la sicurezza dei confini deve fare i conti con alcune delle più antiche e radicate convinzioni etiche proprie delle società occidentali. Prendersi cura del più debole, fare agli altri quello che vogliamo sia fatto a noi, aiutare chi possiamo. Molti uomini e donne che lavorano in mare, quando soccorrono dei naufraghi non sono spinti solo da una legge che li obbliga a prestare aiuto, ma anche da un imperativo morale più essenziale. “Lo facciamo perché siamo gente di mare”, ha detto Giarratano al Guardian, “in mare, se ci sono persone in pericolo, le salviamo”.

      Ma i nostri governi hanno deciso che questo non vale per gli europei. Come se fosse una perversa sfida lanciata a istinti morali vecchi di migliaia di anni, nell’Europa moderna un marinaio che salva un migrante mentre sta per affogare, deve essere punito.

      Infrangere queste reti di reciproche responsabilità fra gli esseri umani, ha dei costi: divisioni e tensioni sociali. Ed è un amaro paradosso, perché proprio argomenti di questo genere sono in testa alle nostre preoccupazioni percepite quando si parla di migrazioni. E mentre l’UE fa di tutto per respingere un fronte del confine verso i deserti del Nord Africa, cercando di tenere i corpi dei rifugiati abbastanza lontani da non farceli vedere da vicino, intanto l’altro fronte continua a spingere verso di noi. L’Europa diventa un “ambiente ostile” e quindi noi diventiamo un popolo ostile.

      Ci auto-ingaggiamo come guardie di confine al nostro interno. Padroni di casa, infermiere, insegnanti, manager – ogni relazione sociale deve essere controllata. Il nostro regime di “frontiera quotidiana” crea “comunità sospette” all’interno della nostra società: sono persone sospette per il solo fatto di esistere e, nei loro confronti, si possono chiamare le forze dell’ordine in ogni momento, “giusto per dare un’occhiata”.

      Il confine non è solo un sistema per tenere gli estranei fuori dalla nostra società, ma per marchiare per sempre le persone come estranee, anche all’interno e per legittimare ufficialmente il pregiudizio, per garantire che “l’integrazione” – il Sacro Graal della narrazione progressista sull’immigrazione – resti illusoria e irrealizzabile, uno scherzo crudele giocato sulla pelle di persone destinate a rimanere etichettate come straniere e sospette. La nostra società nel suo insieme si mette al servizio di questo insaziabile confine, fino a definire la sua vera e propria identità nella capacità di respingere le persone.

      Malgrado arrivino continuamente immagini e notizie di tragedie e di morti, i media evitano di collegarle con le campagne di opinione che amplificano le cosiddette “legittime preoccupazioni” della gente e le trasformano in un inattaccabile “comune buon senso”.

      I compromessi che reggono le politiche di controllo dei confini non vengono messi in luce. Questo ci permette di guardare da un’altra parte, non perché siamo crudeli ma perché non possiamo sopportare di vedere quello che stiamo facendo. Ci sono persone e gruppi che, come denuncia Adam Serwer in un articolo su The Atlantic, sono proprio “Focalizzati sulla Crudeltà”. E anche se noi non siamo così, viviamo comunque nel loro stesso mondo, un mondo in cui degli esseri umani annegano e noi li guardiamo dall’alto dei nostri droni senza pilota, mentre lo stato punisce chi cerca di salvarli.

      In troppi crediamo nel mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la tragica e insanguinata realtà del concreto controllo quotidiano sui confini. E comunque, se fosse possibile, non avremmo ormai risolto questa contraddizione? Il fatto che non lo abbiamo fatto dovrebbe portarci a pensare che non ne siamo capaci e che ci si prospetta una cruda e desolante scelta morale per il futuro.

      D’ora in poi, il numero dei migranti non può che aumentare. I cambiamenti climatici saranno determinanti. La scelta di non respingerli non sarà certamente gratis: non c’è modo di condividere le nostre risorse con altri senza sostenere dei costi. Ma se non lo facciamo, scegliamo consapevolmente i naufragi, gli annegamenti, i campi di detenzione, scegliamo di destinare queste persone ad una vita da schiavi in zone di guerra. Scegliamo l’ambiente ostile. Scegliamo di “difendere il nostro stile di vita” semplicemente accettando di vivere a fianco di una popolazione sempre in aumento fatta di rifugiati senza patria, ammassati in baracche di lamiera e depositi soffocanti, sfiniti fino alla disperazione.

      Ma c’è un costo che, alla fine, giudicheremo troppo alto da pagare? Per il momento, sembra di no: ma, … cosa siamo diventati?

      https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/luso-dei-droni-per-guardare-i-migranti-che-affogano-m

    • Et aussi... l’utilisation de moins en moins de #bateaux et de plus en plus de #avions a le même effet...

      Sophia : The EU naval mission without any ships

      Launched in 2015 to combat human smuggling in the Mediterranean, the operation has been all but dismantled, symbolizing European division on immigration policy.


      The Italian air base of Sigonella extends its wire fencing across the green and yellow fields of Sicily, 25 kilometers inland from the island’s coastline. Only the enormous cone of Mount Etna, visible in the distance, stands out over this flat land. Posters depicting a sniper taking aim indicate that this is a restricted-access military zone with armed surveillance.

      Inside, there is an enormous city with deserted avenues, runways and hangars. This is the departure point for aircraft patrolling the Central Mediterranean as part of EU Naval Force Mediterranean Operation Sophia, Europe’s military response to the human smuggling rings, launched in 2015. But since March of this year, the planes have been a reflection of a mutilated mission: Sophia is now a naval operation without any ships.

      The Spanish detachment in #Sigonella has just rotated some of its personnel. A group of newly arrived soldiers are being trained in a small room inside one of the makeshift containers where the group of 39 military members work. The aircraft that they use is standing just a few meters away, on a sun-drenched esplanade that smells of fuel. The plane has been designed for round-the-clock maritime surveillance, and it has a spherical infrared camera fitted on its nose that allows it to locate and identify seagoing vessels, as well as to detect illegal trafficking of people, arms and oil.

      If the EU had systematically shown more solidarity with Italy [...] Italian voters would not have made a dramatic swing to the far right

      Juan Fernando López Aguilar, EU Civil Liberties Committee

      This aircraft was also made to assist in sea rescues. But this activity is no longer taking place, now that there are no ships in the mission. Six aircraft are all that remain of Operation Sophia, which has been all but dismantled. Nobody would venture to say whether its mandate will be extended beyond the current deadline of September 30.

      The planes at Sigonella continue to patrol the Central Mediterranean and collect information to meet the ambitious if vague goal that triggered the mission back at the height of the refugee crisis: “To disrupt the business of human and weapons smuggling.” The operation’s most controversial task is still being carried out as well: training Libya’s Coast Guard so they will do the job of intercepting vessels filled with people fleeing Libyan war and chaos, and return them to the point of departure. Even official sources of Europe’s diplomatic service admitted, in a written reply, that the temporary suspension of naval assets “is not optimal,” and that the mission’s ability to fulfill its mandate “is more limited.”

      In these four years, the mission has had some tangible achievements: the arrest of 151 individuals suspected of human trafficking and smuggling, and the destruction of 551 boats used by criminal networks. Operation Sophia has also inspected three ships and seized banned goods; it has made radio contact with 2,462 vessels to check their identity, and made 161 friendly approaches. For European diplomats, the mission has been mainly useful in “significantly reducing smugglers’ ability to operate in high seas” and has generally contributed to “improving maritime safety and stability in the Central Mediterranean.”

      Sophia’s main mission was never to rescue people at sea, yet in these last years it has saved 45,000 lives, following the maritime obligation to aid people in distress. The reason why it has been stripped of its ships – a move that has been strongly criticized by non-profit groups – can be found 800 kilometers north of Sicily, in Rome, and also in the offices of European politicians. Last summer, Italy’s far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini began to apply a closed-port policy for ships carrying rescued migrants unless a previous relocation agreement existed with other countries. Salvini first targeted the non-profit groups performing sea rescues, and then he warned his European colleagues that Italy, which is leading the EU mission, would refuse to take in all the rescued migrants without first seeing a change in EU policy. A year later, no European deal has emerged, and every time a rescue is made, the issue of who takes in the migrants is negotiated on an ad hoc basis.

      Operation Sophia has saved 45,000 lives

      Although arrivals through this route have plummeted, Salvini insists that “Italy is not willing to accept all the migrants who arrive in Europe.” Political division among member states has had an effect on the European military mission. “Sophia has not been conducting rescues since August 2018,” says Matteo Villa, a migration expert at Italy’s Institute for International Policy Studies (ISPI). “Nobody in the EU wanted to see a mission ship with migrants on board being refused port entry, so the ‘solution’ was to suspend Sophia’s naval tasks.”

      The decision to maintain the operation without any ships was made at the last minute in March, in a move that prevented the dismantling of the mission just ahead of the European elections. “Operation Sophia has helped save lives, although that was not its main objective. It was a mistake for [the EU] to leave it with nothing but airplanes, without the ships that were able to save lives,” says Matteo de Bellis, a migration and refugee expert at Amnesty International. “What they are doing now, training the Libyans, only serves to empower the forces that intercept refugees and migrants and return them to Libya, where they face arbitrary detention in centers where there is torture, exploitation and rape.”

      Ever since the great maritime rescue operation developed by Italy in 2013, the Mare Nostrum, which saved 150,000 people, its European successors have been less ambitious in scope and their goals more focused on security and border patrolling. This is the case with Sophia, which by training the Libyan Coast Guard is contributing to the increasingly clear strategy of outsourcing EU migratory control, even to a country mired in chaos and war. “If Europe reduces search-and-rescue operations and encourages Libya to conduct them in its place, then it is being an accomplice to the violations taking place in Libya,” says Catherine Wollard, secretary general of the non-profit network integrated in the European Council of Refugees and Exiles (ECRE).

      Training the Libyans only serves to empower the forces that intercept refugees and migrants and return them to Libya, where they face torture, exploitation and rape

      Matteo de Bellis, Amnesty International

      The vision offered by official European sources regarding the training of the Libyan Coast Guard, and about Operation Sophia in general, is very different when it comes to reducing mortality on the Mediterranean’s most deadly migration route. “Operation Sophia was launched to fight criminal human smuggling networks that put lives at risk in the Central Mediterranean,” they say in a written response. European officials are aware of what is going on in Libya, but their response to the accusations of abuse perpetrated by the Libyan Coast Guard and the situation of migrants confined in detention centers in terrible conditions, is the following: “Everything that happens in Libyan territorial waters is Libya’s responsibility, not Europe’s, yet we are not looking the other way. […] Through Operation Sophia we have saved lives, fought traffickers and trained the Libyan Coast Guard […]. We are performing this last task because substantial loss of life at sea is taking place within Libyan territorial waters. That is why it is very important for Libya’s Coast Guard and Navy to know how to assist distressed migrants in line with international law and humanitarian standards. Also, because the contribution of Libya’s Coast Guard in the fight against traffickers operating in their waters is indispensable.”

      Criticism of Operation Sophia is also coming from the European Parliament, which funded the trip that made this feature story possible. Juan Fernando López Aguilar, president of the parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, attacks the decision to strip Sophia of its naval resources. The Socialist Party (PSOE) politician says that this decision was made “in the absolute absence of a global approach to the migration phenomenon that would include cooperative coordination of all the resources at member states’ disposal, such as development aid in Africa, cooperation with origin and transit countries, hirings in countries of origin and the creation of legal ways to access the EU. Now that would dismantle [the mafias’] business model,” he says.

      López Aguilar says that the EU is aware of Italy’s weariness of the situation, considering that “for years it dealt with a migratory pressure that exceeded its response capacity.” Between 2014 and 2017, around 624,000 people landed on Italy’s coasts. “If they EU had systematically shown more solidarity with Italy, if relocation programs for people in hotspots had been observed, very likely Italian voters would not have made a dramatic swing giving victory to the far right, nor would we have reached a point where a xenophobic closed-port narrative is claimed to represent the salvation of Italian interests.”

      Miguel Urbán, a European Member of Parliament for the Spanish leftist party Unidas Podemos, is highly critical of the way the EU has been managing immigration. He talks about a “militarization of the Mediterranean” and describes European policy as bowing to “the far right’s strategy.” He blames Italy’s attitude for turning Sophia into “an operation in the Mediterranean without a naval fleet. What the Italian government gets out of this is to rid itself of its humanitarian responsibility to disembark migrants on its coasts.”

      For now, no progress has been made on the underlying political problem of disembarkation and, by extension, on the long-delayed reform of the Dublin Regulation to balance out frontline states’ responsibility in taking in refugees with solidarity from other countries. Sophia will continue to hobble along until September after being all but given up for dead in March. After that, everything is still up in the air.

      https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/08/29/inenglish/1567088519_215547.html
      #Sophie #Opération_Sophia #Sicile

    • L’uso dei droni per guardare i migranti che affogano mette a nudo tutta la disumanità delle pratiche di controllo sui confini

      In troppi crediamo al mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la realtà macchiata di sangue.

      “Se avessi ignorato quelle grida di aiuto, non avrei mai più trovato il coraggio di affrontare il mare”.

      Con queste parole il pescatore siciliano Carlo Giarratano ha commentato la sua decisione di sfidare il “decreto sicurezza” del Governo italiano, che prevede sanzioni o l’arresto nei confronti di chiunque trasporti in Italia migranti soccorsi in mare.

      La sua storia è un esempio della preoccupante tensione che si è creata ai confini della “Fortezza Europa” in materia di leggi e regolamenti. Secondo il diritto internazionale, il capitano di un’imbarcazione in mare è tenuto a fornire assistenza alle persone in difficoltà, “a prescindere dalla nazionalità o dalla cittadinanza delle persone stesse”. Al contempo, molti paesi europei, e la stessa UE, stanno cercando di limitare questo principio e queste attività, malgrado il tragico bilancio di morti nel Mediterraneo, in continua crescita.

      L’Agenzia di Confine e Guardia Costiera Europea, Frontex, sembra aver escogitato una soluzione ingegnosa: i droni. L’obbligo legale di aiutare un’imbarcazione in difficoltà non si applica a un veicolo aereo senza pilota (UAV, unmanned aerial vehicle). Si può aggirare la questione, politicamente calda, su chi sia responsabile di accogliere i migranti soccorsi, se questi semplicemente non vengono proprio soccorsi. Questo principio fa parte di una consolidata tendenza a mettere in atto politiche finalizzate a impedire che i migranti attraversino il Mediterraneo. Visto l’obbligo di soccorrere le persone che ci chiedono aiuto, la soluzione sembra essere questa: fare in modo di non sentire le loro richieste.

      Jean-Claude Juncker sostiene che le politiche europee di presidio ai confini sono concepite per “stroncare il business dei trafficanti”, perché nella moralità egocentrica che ispira la politica di frontiera europea, se non ci fossero trafficanti non ci sarebbero migranti.

      Ma non ci sono trafficanti che si fabbricano migranti in officina. Se le rotte ufficiali sono bloccate, le persone vanno a cercare quelle non ufficiali. Rendere la migrazione più difficile, ha fatto aumentare la richiesta di trafficanti e scafisti, certamente non l’ha fermata. Invece che stroncare il loro business, queste politiche lo hanno creato.

      Secondo la logica della foglia di fico, l’UE sostiene di non limitarsi a lasciare affogare i migranti, ma di fornire supporto alla guardia costiera libica perché intercetti le imbarcazioni che tentano la traversata e riporti le persone nei campi di detenzione in Libia.

      Ma il rapporto del Global Detention Project, a proposito delle condizioni in questi campi, riferisce: “I detenuti sono spesso sottoposti a gravi abusi e violenze, compresi stupri e torture, estorsioni, lavori forzati, schiavitù, condizioni di vita insopportabili, esecuzioni sommarie.” Human Rights Watch, in un rapporto intitolato Senza via di fuga dall’Inferno, descrive situazioni di sovraffollamento e malnutrizione e riporta testimonianze di bambini picchiati dalle guardie.

      L’Irish Times ha riportato accuse secondo cui le milizie associate con il GNA (Governo Libico di Alleanza Nazionale, riconosciuto dall’ONU), starebbero immagazzinando munizioni in questi campi e userebbero i rifugiati come “scudi umani”. Sembra quasi inevitabile, quindi, la notizia che il 3 luglio almeno 53 rifugiati sono stati uccisi durante un attacco dei ribelli appartenenti all’Esercito Nazionale Libico, nel campo di detenzione di Tajura, vicino a Tripoli.

      Secondo una testimonianza riportata dall’Associated Press, a Tajura i migranti erano costretti a pulire le armi delle milizie fedeli al GNA, armi che erano immagazzinate nel campo. Secondo i racconti di testimoni oculari dell’attacco, riportati dalle forze ONU, le guardie del campo avrebbero aperto il fuoco su chi tentava di scappare.

      Nel mondo occidentale, quando parliamo di immigrazione, tendiamo a focalizzarci sul cosiddetto “impatto sulle comunità” causato dai flussi di nuovi arrivati che si muovono da un posto all’altro.

      Nelle nostre discussioni, ci chiediamo se i migranti portino un guadagno per l’economia oppure intacchino risorse già scarse. Raramente ci fermiamo a guardare nella sua cruda e tecnica realtà la concreta applicazione del controllo alle frontiere, quando si traduce davvero in fucili e filo spinato.

      Ci ripetiamo che i costi vanno tutti in un’unica direzione: secondo la nostra narrazione preferita, i controlli di confine sono tutti gratis, è lasciare entrare i migranti la cosa che costa. Ma i costi da pagare ci sono sempre: non solo il tributo di morti che continua a crescere o i budget multimilionari e sempre in aumento delle nostre agenzie di frontiera, ma anche i costi morali e sociali che finiamo con l’estorcere a noi stessi.

      L’ossessione per la sicurezza dei confini deve fare i conti con alcune delle più antiche e radicate convinzioni etiche proprie delle società occidentali. Prendersi cura del più debole, fare agli altri quello che vogliamo sia fatto a noi, aiutare chi possiamo. Molti uomini e donne che lavorano in mare, quando soccorrono dei naufraghi non sono spinti solo da una legge che li obbliga a prestare aiuto, ma anche da un imperativo morale più essenziale. “Lo facciamo perché siamo gente di mare”, ha detto Giarratano al Guardian, “in mare, se ci sono persone in pericolo, le salviamo”.

      Ma i nostri governi hanno deciso che questo non vale per gli europei. Come se fosse una perversa sfida lanciata a istinti morali vecchi di migliaia di anni, nell’Europa moderna un marinaio che salva un migrante mentre sta per affogare, deve essere punito.

      Infrangere queste reti di reciproche responsabilità fra gli esseri umani, ha dei costi: divisioni e tensioni sociali. Ed è un amaro paradosso, perché proprio argomenti di questo genere sono in testa alle nostre preoccupazioni percepite quando si parla di migrazioni. E mentre l’UE fa di tutto per respingere un fronte del confine verso i deserti del Nord Africa, cercando di tenere i corpi dei rifugiati abbastanza lontani da non farceli vedere da vicino, intanto l’altro fronte continua a spingere verso di noi. L’Europa diventa un “ambiente ostile” e quindi noi diventiamo un popolo ostile.

      Ci auto-ingaggiamo come guardie di confine al nostro interno. Padroni di casa, infermiere, insegnanti, manager – ogni relazione sociale deve essere controllata. Il nostro regime di “frontiera quotidiana” crea “comunità sospette” all’interno della nostra società: sono persone sospette per il solo fatto di esistere e, nei loro confronti, si possono chiamare le forze dell’ordine in ogni momento, “giusto per dare un’occhiata”.

      Il confine non è solo un sistema per tenere gli estranei fuori dalla nostra società, ma per marchiare per sempre le persone come estranee, anche all’interno e per legittimare ufficialmente il pregiudizio, per garantire che “l’integrazione” – il Sacro Graal della narrazione progressista sull’immigrazione – resti illusoria e irrealizzabile, uno scherzo crudele giocato sulla pelle di persone destinate a rimanere etichettate come straniere e sospette. La nostra società nel suo insieme si mette al servizio di questo insaziabile confine, fino a definire la sua vera e propria identità nella capacità di respingere le persone.

      Malgrado arrivino continuamente immagini e notizie di tragedie e di morti, i media evitano di collegarle con le campagne di opinione che amplificano le cosiddette “legittime preoccupazioni” della gente e le trasformano in un inattaccabile “comune buon senso”.

      I compromessi che reggono le politiche di controllo dei confini non vengono messi in luce. Questo ci permette di guardare da un’altra parte, non perché siamo crudeli ma perché non possiamo sopportare di vedere quello che stiamo facendo. Ci sono persone e gruppi che, come denuncia Adam Serwer in un articolo su The Atlantic, sono proprio “Focalizzati sulla Crudeltà”. E anche se noi non siamo così, viviamo comunque nel loro stesso mondo, un mondo in cui degli esseri umani annegano e noi li guardiamo dall’alto dei nostri droni senza pilota, mentre lo stato punisce chi cerca di salvarli.

      In troppi crediamo nel mito di una frontiera dal volto umano, solo perché ci spaventa guardare in faccia la tragica e insanguinata realtà del concreto controllo quotidiano sui confini. E comunque, se fosse possibile, non avremmo ormai risolto questa contraddizione? Il fatto che non lo abbiamo fatto dovrebbe portarci a pensare che non ne siamo capaci e che ci si prospetta una cruda e desolante scelta morale per il futuro.

      D’ora in poi, il numero dei migranti non può che aumentare. I cambiamenti climatici saranno determinanti. La scelta di non respingerli non sarà certamente gratis: non c’è modo di condividere le nostre risorse con altri senza sostenere dei costi. Ma se non lo facciamo, scegliamo consapevolmente i naufragi, gli annegamenti, i campi di detenzione, scegliamo di destinare queste persone ad una vita da schiavi in zone di guerra. Scegliamo l’ambiente ostile. Scegliamo di “difendere il nostro stile di vita” semplicemente accettando di vivere a fianco di una popolazione sempre in aumento fatta di rifugiati senza patria, ammassati in baracche di lamiera e depositi soffocanti, sfiniti fino alla disperazione.

      Ma c’è un costo che, alla fine, giudicheremo troppo alto da pagare? Per il momento, sembra di no: ma, … cosa siamo diventati?

      https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/luso-dei-droni-per-guardare-i-migranti-che-affogano-m

    • Grèce : le gouvernement durcit nettement sa position et implique l’armée à la gestion de flux migratoire en Mer Egée

      Après deux conférences intergouvernementales ce we., le gouvernement Mitsotakis a décidé la participation active de l’Armée et des Forces Navales dans des opérations de dissuasion en Mer Egée. En même temps il a décidé de poursuivre les opérations de ’désengorgement’ des îlses, de renfoncer les forces de garde-côte en effectifs et en navires, et de pousser plus loin la coopération avec Frontex et les forces de l’Otan qui opèrent déjà dans la région.

      Le durcissement net de la politique gouvernementale se traduit aussi par le retour en force d’un discours ouvertement xénophobe. Le vice-président du gouvernement grec, Adonis Géorgiadis, connu pour ses positions à l’’extrême-droite de l’échiquier politique, a déclaré que parmi les nouveaux arrivants, il y aurait très peu de réfugiés, la plupart seraient des ‘clandestins’ et il n’a pas manqué de qualifier les flux d’ ‘invasion’.

      source – en grec - Efimerida tôn Syntaktôn : https://www.efsyn.gr/politiki/kybernisi/211786_kybernisi-sklirainei-ti-stasi-tis-sto-prosfygiko

      Il va de soi que cette militarisation de la gestion migratoire laisse craindre le pire dans la mesure où le but évident de l’implication de l’armée ne saurait être que la systématisation des opérations de push-back en pleine mer, ce qui est non seulement illégal mais ouvertement criminel.

      Reçu de Vicky Skoumbi via la mailing-list Migreurop, 23.09.2019

  • EU to end ship patrols in scaled down Operation Sophia

    The European Union will cease the maritime patrols that have rescued thousands of migrants making the perilous Mediterranean Sea crossing from North Africa to Europe, but it will extend air missions, two diplomats said on Tuesday (26 March).

    A new agreement on the EU’s Operation Sophia was hammered out after Italy, where anti-migrant sentiment is rising, said it would no longer receive those rescued at sea.

    Operation Sophia’s mandate was due to expire on Sunday but should now continue for another six months with the same aim of deterring people smugglers in the Mediterranean. But it will no longer deploy ships, instead relying on air patrols and closer coordination with Libya, the diplomats said.

    “It is awkward, but this was the only way forward given Italy’s position, because nobody wanted the Sophia mission completely shut down,” one EU diplomat said.

    A second diplomat confirmed a deal had been reached and said it must be endorsed by all EU governments on Wednesday.

    The tentative deal, however, could weaken Operation Sophia’s role in saving lives in the sea where nearly 2,300 people perished last year, according to United Nations figures.

    From the more than one million refugees and migrants who made it to the bloc during a 2015 crisis, sea arrivals dropped to 141,500 people in 2018, according to the United Nations.

    Still, Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, has said his country would no longer be the main point of disembarkation for people trying to cross the Mediterranean by boat and rescued by Sophia’s patrol ships.

    Rome called for other countries to open up their ports instead, but no other EU states came forward. Diplomats said countries including Spain, France and Germany signalled they were not willing to host more rescued people – most of whom are fleeing wars and poverty in Africa and the Middle East.

    However, EU governments did want the mission to continue because they felt it had been effective in dissuading smugglers.

    The compromise discussion in Brussels did not discuss military aspects of the role of air patrols. But the new arrangement will involve more training of the coast guard in Libya, where lawlessness has allowed smugglers to openly operate sending people to Europe by sea.

    But it would be in line with the EU’s policy of turning increasingly restrictive on Mediterranean immigration since the surge in 2015 and discouraging people from risking their lives in the sea in trying to cross to Europe where governments do not want them.

    The bloc has already curbed operations of EU aid groups in the part of the Mediterranean in question and moved its own ships further north where fewer rescues take place.

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/eu-to-end-ship-patrols-in-scaled-down-operation-sophia
    #opération_sophia #méditerranée #asile #réfugiés #sauvetage #missions_aériennes #migrations #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #mer_Méditerranée #sauvetages

    • Commissioner calls for more rescue capacity in the Mediterranean

      I take note of the decision taken by the EU’s Political and Security Committee with regards to Operation Sophia. I regret that this will lead to even fewer naval assets in the Mediterranean, which could assist the rescue of persons in distress at sea. Lives are continuing to be lost in the Mediterranean. This should remind states of the urgency to adopt a different approach, one that should ensure a sufficiently resourced and fully operational system for saving human lives at sea and to safeguard rescued migrants’ dignity.

      Whilst coastal states have the responsibility to ensure effective coordination of search and rescue operations, protecting lives in the Mediterranean requires concerted efforts of other states as well, to begin with the provision of naval assets specifically dedicated to search and rescue activities, deployed in those areas where they can make an effective contribution to saving human lives. Furthermore, I reiterate my call to all states to refrain from hindering and criminalising the work of NGOs who are trying to fill the ever-increasing gap in rescue capacity. States should rather support and co-operate with them, including by ensuring that they can use ports for their life-saving activities.

      Finally, the decision to continue only with aerial surveillance and training of the Libyan Coast Guard further increases the risks that EU member states, directly or indirectly, contribute to the return of migrants and asylum seekers to Libya, where it is well-documented, in particular recently by the United Nations, that they face serious human rights violations. So far, calls to ensure more transparency and accountability in this area, including by publishing human rights risk assessments and setting up independent monitoring mechanisms, have not been heeded. The onus is now on EU member states to show urgently that the support to the Libyan Coast Guard is not contributing to human rights violations, and to suspend this support if they cannot do so.

      https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/commissioner-calls-for-more-rescue-capacity-in-the-mediterranean
      #droits_humains #gardes-côtes_libyens #Libye

    • EU to end ship patrols in scaled down migrant rescue operation: diplomats

      The European Union will cease the maritime patrols that have rescued thousands of migrants making the perilous Mediterranean Sea crossing from North Africa to Europe, but it will extend air missions, two diplomats said on Tuesday.
      A new agreement on the EU’s Operation Sophia was hammered out after Italy, where anti-migrant sentiment is rising, said it would no longer receive those rescued at sea.

      Operation Sophia’s mandate was due to expire on Sunday but should now continue for another six months with the same aim of detering people smugglers in the Mediterranean. But it will no longer deploy ships, instead relying on air patrols and closer coordination with Libya, the diplomats said.

      “It is awkward, but this was the only way forward given Italy’s position, because nobody wanted the Sophia mission completely shut down,” one EU diplomat said.

      A second diplomat confirmed a deal had been reached and said it must be endorsed by all EU governments on Wednesday.

      The tentative deal, however, could weaken Operation Sophia’s role in saving lives in the sea where nearly 2,300 people perished last year, according to United Nations figures.

      From the more than one million refugees and migrants who made it to the bloc during a 2015 crisis, sea arrivals dropped to 141,500 people in 2018, according to the United Nations.

      Still, Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, has said his country would no longer be the main point of disembarkation for people trying to cross the Mediterranean by boat and rescued by Sophia’s patrol ships.

      Rome called for other countries to open up their ports instead, but no other EU states came forward. Diplomats said countries including Spain, France and Germany signaled they were not willing to host more rescued people - most of whom are fleeing wars and poverty in Africa and the Middle East.

      However, EU governments did want the mission to continue because they felt it had been effective in dissuading smugglers.

      The compromise discussion in Brussels did not discuss military aspects of the role of air patrols. But the new arrangement will involve more training of the coast guard in Libya, where lawlessness has allowed smugglers to openly operate sending people to Europe by sea.

      But it would be in line with the EU’s policy of turning increasingly restrictive on Mediterranean immigration since the surge in 2015 and discouraging people from risking their lives in the sea in trying to cross to Europe where governments do not want them.

      The bloc has already curbed operations of EU aid groups in the part of the Mediterranean in question and moved its own ships further north where fewer rescues take place.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sophia/eu-weighs-up-awkward-migration-compromise-on-mediterranean-mission-idUSKCN1

    • En Méditerranée, l’UE retire ses navires militaires qui ont sauvé 45.000 migrants

      Les États membres de l’Union européenne ont décidé, mercredi 27 mars, de retirer leurs navires militaires engagés en Méditerranée dans le cadre de l’opération militaire dite « Sophia », au moins temporairement. Depuis 2015, ces bateaux ont pourtant permis de sauver 45 000 migrants environ.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/280319/en-mediterranee-l-ue-retire-ses-navires-militaires-qui-ont-sauve-45000-mig

    • #EUNAVFOR_MED Operation Sophia : mandate extended until 30 September 2019

      The Council today extended the mandate of EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia until 30 September 2019.

      The Operation Commander has been instructed to suspend temporarily the deployment of the Operation’s naval assets for the duration of this extension for operational reasons. EU member states will continue to work in the appropriate fora on a solution on disembarkation as part of the follow-up to the June 2018 European Council conclusions.

      The Operation will continue to implement its mandate accordingly, strengthening surveillance by air assets as well as reinforcing support to the Libyan Coastguard and Navy in law enforcement tasks at sea through enhanced monitoring, including ashore, and continuation of training.

      The operation’s core mandate is to contribute to the EU’s work to disrupt the business model of migrant smugglers and human traffickers in the Southern Central Mediterranean. The operation has also supporting tasks. It trains the Libyan Coastguard and Navy and monitors the long-term efficiency of the training and it contributes to the implementation of the UN arms embargo on the high seas off the coast of Libya. In addition, the operation also conducts surveillance activities and gathers information on illegal trafficking of oil exports from Libya, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. As such, the operation contributes to EU efforts for the return of stability and security in Libya and to maritime security in the Central Mediterranean region.

      EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia was launched on 22 June 2015. It is part of the EU’s comprehensive approach to migration. The Operation Commander is Rear Admiral Credendino, from Italy. The headquarters of the operation are located in Rome.

      Today’s decision was adopted by the Council by written procedure.

      https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/29/eunavfor-med-operation-sophia-mandate-extended-until-30-september-2

  • Drone Surveillance Operations in the Mediterranean: The Central Role of the Portuguese Economy and State in EU Border Control

    Much has been written in the past years about the dystopic vision of EU borders increasingly equipped with drone surveillance (see here: http://www.europeanpublicaffairs.eu/high-tech-fortress-europe-frontex-and-the-dronization-of-borde, here: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-next-phase-of-european-border-and.html, here: https://www.heise.de/tp/features/EU-startet-Langstreckendrohnen-zur-Grenzueberwachung-4038306.html and here: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2018/11/role-technology). Yet, when the first joint drone surveillance operation of #Frontex, the #European_Maritime_Safety_Agency (#EMSA) and Portuguese authorities was launched on 25 September 2018, there was a lack of response both from the media and concerned activists or researchers. Yet, the EMSA offered details about the operation on its website, and Frontex as well. In addition, Frontex mentioned in its press statement parallel operations undertaken in Italy and Greece in the same period.

    These operations were a crucial step for the setup of the joint European information system for border surveillance, #EUROSUR. The drone surveillance program in the context of Frontex operations is a major step in the operational setup of the EUROSUR program that aims to integrate databases and national coordination centres of 24 European countries. EUROSUR was officially introduced with a policy paper in 2008, and the system itself was launched on 1 December 2013 as a mechanism of information exchange among EU member states. But it is not yet fully operational, and drone surveillance is commonly seen as a central component for full operationability. Thus, the cooperation between the EMSA, Frontex and the Portuguese state in the recent operation is a crucial milestone to achieve the aim of EUROSUR to create a unified European border surveillance system.

    This is why the operation launched in Portugal in September 2018 is of higher significance to the ones in Italy and Greece since it includes not only national authorities but also the EMSA, located in Lisbon, as a new key actor for border surveillance. EMSA was founded in 2002 as a response to various shipping disasters that lead to environmental pollution and originally focuses on monitoring the movement of ships, with a focus on the safety of shipping operations, environmental safety at sea and the trading of illegal goods via maritime transport.

    In 2016 the EMSA was allocated 76 million Euros in a bid for the production of drones for the surveillance of the Mediterranenan in the context of Frontex missions. EMSA`s bid foresaw that drones would be hired by EMSA itself. EMSA would run the operation of drones and share real-time data with Frontex. The largest part of this bid, 66 million Euros, went to the Portuguese company #Tekever, while smaller portions went to the Italian defence company #Leonardo and to the Portuguese air force that will operate drones produced by the Portuguese company #UA_Vision. At the same time, the successful bid of Tekever and the integration of Portuguese authorities in surveillance operations catapults Portugal onto the map of the defence and surveillance industry that profits immensely from the recent technological craze around border surveillance (see here, here and here).

    Lisbon-based Tekever set up a factory for the production of drones in the Portuguese mainland in #Ponte_de_Sor, an emerging new hub for the aerospace industry. Together with French #Collecte_Localisation_Service, which specialises in maritime surveillance, Tekever founded the consortium #REACT in order to produce those specific drones. Under the Portuguese operation, ground control, i.e. the technical coordination of the flight of the drones, was located in Portugal under the authority of the Portuguese air force, while the operation was coordinated remotely by Frontex experts and Portuguese authorities in the #Frontex_Situational_Centre in Poland where data were shared in real-time with EMSA. This first operation is a crucial step, testing the technical and administrative cooperation between EMSA and Frontex, and the functionality of the drones that were specifically produced for this purpose. These drones are lighter than the ones used in Greece and Italy, and they are equipped with special cameras and #radars that can detect ship movements and receive emergency calls from the sea. This allows to run data collected by the drones through an algorithm that is programmed to distinguish so-called ´#migrant_vessels´ from other ships and boats.

    The Portuguese government has set up a number of initiatives to foster this industry. For example, a national strategy called #Space_2030 (#Estratégia_Portugal_Espaço_2030) was launched in 2018, and the newly founded #Portuguese_Space_Agency (#Agência_Espacial_Portuguesa) will begin to work in the first months of 2019. The fact that border surveillance is one of the larger European programs boosting the defence and surveillance industry financially has not generated any controversy in Portugal; neither the fact that a center-left government, supported by two radical left parties is propping up surveillance, aerospace and defence industries. The colonial continuities of this industrial strategy are all too visible since narratives like ‘from the discovery of the sea to the technology of space’ are used not only by industry actors, but also, for example, by the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce in the UK on its website. In this way, social and political #domination of non-European territories and the control of the movement of racialized bodies are reduced to the fact of technological capability – in the colonial period the navigation of the seas with optical instruments, astronomic knowledge and ships, and today the electronic monitoring of movements on the sea with drones and integrated computer systems. The Portuguese aerospace industry is therefore presented as a cultural heritage that continues earlier technological achievements that became instruments to set up a global empire.

    The lack of any mention about the start of the drone surveillance programme does not only demonstrate that border surveillance goes largely unquestioned in Europe, but also that the sums spent for surveillance and defence by EU agencies create incentives to engage more in the defence and surveillance industry. This goes all the more for countries that have been hit hard by austerity and deindustrialisation, such as Portugal. The recent increase of 9.3 billion Euros for the period 2021 to 2027 for border surveillance funding in the EU with the creation of the #Integrated_Border_Management_Fund focused on border protection, is a telling example of the focus of current EU industrial policies. For the same period, the European Commission has earmarked 2.2 billion Euro for Frontex in order to acquire, operate and maintain surveillance assets like drones, cameras, fences, and the like. In this situation, the political consensus among EU governments to restrict migration reinforces the economic interests of the defence industry and vice versa, and the interest of national governments to attract #high-tech investment adds to this. Those lock-in effects could probably only be dismantled through a public debate about the selective nature of the entrepreneurial state whose funding has decisive influence on which industries prosper.

    While the Portuguese government does not currently have a single helicopter operating in order to control and fight forest fires that have caused more than 100 deaths in the past two years, much EU and national public funding goes into technology aimed at the control of racialized bodies and the observation of earth from space. At the same time, there is considerable concern among experts that surveillance technology used for military means and border security will be rolled out over the entire population in the future for general policing purposes. For this reason, it remains important to keep an eye on which technologies are receiving large public funds and what are its possible uses.


    https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2019/02/drone
    #drones #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #technologie #complexe_militaro-industriel #technologie_de_la_surveillance #externalisation #business #algorithme #colonialisme #néo-colonialisme #impérialisme #héritage_culturel #austérité #désindustrialisation

    ping @daphne @marty @albertocampiphoto @fil

    • Des drones en renfort dans l’#opération_Sophia

      Pour renforcer la surveillance aérienne, après le départ des navires, l’opération Sophia déployée en Méditerranée (alias #EUNAVFOR_Med) va bénéficier d’un renfort d’au moins un drone #Predator de l’aeronautica militare.

      L’#Italie a indiqué sa disponibilité à fournir un drone à l’opération Sophia, selon nos informations confirmées à bonne source. Ce pourrait être un #MQ-9A Predator B, la version la plus avancée et la plus récente du drone, d’une longueur de 10,80 m avec une envergure de plus de 20 mètres, qui peut voler à 445 km / heure. De façon alternative, selon les moyens disponibles, un MQ-1C Predator A, plus modeste (longueur de 8,20 m et envergure de 14,80 m), pouvant voler à 160 km/heure, pourrait aussi être déployé.

      http://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/04/09/des-drones-en-renfort-dans-loperation-sophia
      #operation_Sophia

  • Europe’s deadly migration strategy. Officials knew EU military operation made Mediterranean crossing more dangerous.

    Since its creation in 2015, Europe’s military operation in the Mediterranean — named “#Operation_Sophia” — has saved some 49,000 people from the sea. But that was never really the main objective.

    The goal of the operation — which at its peak involved over a dozen sea and air assets from 27 EU countries, including ships, airplanes, drones and submarines — was to disrupt people-smuggling networks off the coast of Libya and, by extension, stem the tide of people crossing the sea to Europe.

    European leaders have hailed the operation as a successful joint effort to address the migration crisis that rocked the bloc starting in 2015, when a spike in arrivals overwhelmed border countries like Greece and Italy and sparked a political fight over who would be responsible for the new arrivals.

    But a collection of leaked documents from the European External Action Service, the bloc’s foreign policy arm, obtained by POLITICO (https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OperationSophia.pdf), paint a different picture.

    In internal memos, the operation’s leaders admit Sophia’s success has been limited by its own mandate — it can only operate in international waters, not in Libyan waters or on land, where smuggling networks operate — and it is underfunded, understaffed and underequipped.

    “Sophia is a military operation with a very political agenda" — Barbara Spinelli, Italian MEP

    The confidential reports also show the EU is aware that a number of its policies have made the sea crossing more dangerous for migrants, and that it nonetheless chose to continue to pursue those strategies. Officials acknowledge internally that some members of the Libyan coast guard that the EU funds, equips and trains are collaborating with smuggling networks.

    For the operation’s critics, the EU’s willingness to turn a blind eye to these shortcomings — as well as serious human rights abuses by the Libyan coast guard and in the country’s migrant detention centers — are symptomatic of what critics call the bloc’s incoherent approach to managing migration and its desire to outsource the problem to non-EU countries.

    “Sophia is a military operation with a very political agenda,” said Barbara Spinelli, an Italian MEP and member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in the European Parliament. “It has become an instrument of refoulement, legitimizing militias with criminal records, dressed up as coast guards.”

    Now the operation, which is managed by Italy and has been dogged by political disagreements since it began, is coming under increasing pressure as the deadline for its renewal approaches in March.

    Italy’s deputy prime minister, far-right leader Matteo Salvini, has said the operation should only be extended if there are new provisions to resettle rescued people across the bloc. Last month, Germany announced it would be discontinuing its participation in the program, claiming that Italy’s refusal to allow rescued migrants to disembark is undermining the mission.

    Named after a baby girl born on an EU rescue ship, Sophia is the uneasy compromise to resolve a deep split across the bloc: between those who pushed for proactive search-and-rescue efforts to save more lives and those who favored pulling resources from the sea to make the crossing more dangerous.

    The naval operation sits uncomfortably between the two, rescuing migrants in distress at sea, but insisting its primary focus is to fight smugglers off the coast of Libya. The two activities are frequently in conflict.

    The operation has cycled through a number of strategies since its launch: a campaign to destroy boats used by smugglers; law-enforcement interviews with those rescued at sea; extensive aerial surveillance; and training and funding a newly consolidated Libyan coast guard.

    But the success of these approaches is highly disputed, and in some cases they have put migrants’ lives at greater risk.

    The EU’s policy of destroying the wooden boats used by smugglers to avoid them being reused, for example, has indeed disrupted the Libyan smuggling business, but at a substantial human cost.

    As Libyan smugglers lost their wooden boats, many started to rely more heavily on smaller, cheaper rubber boats. The boats, which smugglers often overfill to maximize profit, are not as safe as the wooden vessels and less likely to reach European shores. Instead, Libyan smugglers started to abandon migrants in international waters, leaving them to be pulled out of peril by European rescue ships.

    Sophia officials tracked the situation and were aware of the increased risk to migrants as a result of the policy. “Smugglers can no longer recover smuggling vessels on the high seas, effectively rendering them a less economic option for the smuggling business and thereby hampering it,” they wrote in a 2016 status report seen by POLITICO.

    The report acknowledged however that the policy has pushed migrants into using rubber boats, putting them in greater danger. “Effectively, with the limited supply and the degree of overloading, the migrant vessels are [distress] cases from the moment they launch,” it said.

    These overfilled rubber boats, which officials described as shipwrecks waiting to happen, also present a problem for the EU operation.

    International maritime law compels vessels to respond to people in distress at sea and bring the rescued to a nearby safe port. And because European courts have held that Libya has no safe port, that means bringing migrants found at sea to Europe — in most cases, Italy.

    This has exacerbated political tensions in the country, where far-right leader Salvini has responded to the influx of new arrivals by closing ports to NGO and humanitarian ships carrying migrants and threatening to bar Sophia vessels from docking.

    Meanwhile, Sophia officials have complained that rescuing people from leaking, unseaworthy boats detracted from the operation’s ability to pursue its primary target: Libyan smugglers.

    In a leaked status report from 2017, Sophia officials made a highly unusual suggestion: that the operation be granted permission to suspend its rescue responsibilities in order to focus on its anti-smuggling operations.

    “Consideration should be given to an option that would allow the operation to be authorized for being temporarily exempt from search and rescue when actively conducting anti-smuggling operations against jackals in international waters,” the report read.

    The EU has also wilfully ignored inconvenient aspects of its policies when it comes to its collaboration with Libya’s municipal coast guard.

    The intention of the strategy — launched one year into the Sophia operation — was to equip Libyan authorities to intercept migrant boats setting off from the Libyan coast and bring people back to shore. This saved Europe from sending its own ships close to coast, and meant that people could be brought back to Libya, rather than to Europe, as required by international maritime law — or more specifically, Italy.

    Here too, the EU was aware it was pursuing a problematic strategy, as the Libyan coast guard has a well-documented relationship with Libyan smugglers.

    A leaked report from Frontex, the EU’s coast guard, noted in 2016: “As mentioned in previous reports, some members of Libya’s local authorities are involved in smuggling activities.” The report cited interviews with recently rescued people who said they were smuggled by Libyans in uniform. It also noted that similar conclusions were reported multiple times by the Italian coast guard and Operation Sophia.

    “Many of [the coast guard officers] were militia people — many of them fought with militias during the civil war" — Rabih Boualleg, Operation Sophia translator

    In Sophia’s leaked status report from 2017, operation leaders noted that “migrant smuggling and human trafficking networks remain well ingrained” throughout the region and that smugglers routinely “pay off authorities” for passage to international waters.

    “Many of [the coast guard officers] were militia people — many of them fought with militias during the civil war,” said Rabih Boualleg, who worked as a translator for Operation Sophia in late 2016 on board a Dutch ship involved in training the coast guard from Tripoli.

    “They were telling me that many of them hadn’t gotten their government salaries in eight months. They told me, jokingly, that they were ‘forced’ to take money from smugglers sometimes.”

    The coast guards talked openly about accepting money from smuggling networks in exchange for escorting rubber boats to international waters instead of turning them back toward the shore, Boualleg said.

    “If the [on-duty] coast guard came,” Boualleg added, “they would just say they were fishermen following the rubber boats, that’s all.”

    Frontex’s 2016 report documents similar cases. Two officials with close knowledge of Sophia’s training of the Libyan coast guard also confirmed that members of the coast guard are involved in smuggling networks. A spokesperson for the Libyan coast guard did not return repeated requests for comment.

    EU governments have, for the most part, simply looked the other way.

    And that’s unlikely to change, said a senior European official with close knowledge of Operation Sophia who spoke on condition of anonymity. For the first time since the start of the operation, Libyan authorities are returning more people to Libya than are arriving in Italy.

    “If Italy decides — since it is the country in command of Operation Sophia — to stop it, it is up to Italy to make this decision" — Dimitris Avramopoulos, immigration commissioner

    “Europe doesn’t want to upset this balance,” the official said. “Any criticism of the coast guards could lead to resentment, to relaxing.”

    Two years into the training program, leaked reports also show the Libyan coast guard was unable to manage search-and-rescue activities on its own. Sophia monitors their operations with GoPro cameras and through surveillance using ships, airplanes, drones and submarines.

    The operation is limited by its mandate, but it has made progress in difficult circumstances, an EEAS spokesperson said. Operation Sophia officials did not respond to multiple interview requests and declined to answer questions via email.

    “The provision of training the Libyan coast guard and navy, as well as continued engagement with them have proven to be the most effecting complementary tool to disrupt the activities of those involved in trafficking,” the EEAS spokesperson said in an email.

    The spokesperson maintained that Libyan coast guards who are trained by Operation Sophia undergo a “thorough vetting procedure." The spokesperson also stated that, while Operation Sophia does advise and monitor the Libyan coast guard, the operation is not involved “in the decision-making in relation to operations.”

    *

    With the March deadline for the operation’s renewal fast approaching, pressure is mounting to find a way to reform Sophia or disband it altogether.

    When Salvini closed Italy’s ports to NGO and humanitarian ships last July, the country’s foreign minister turned to the EU to negotiate a solution that would ensure migrants rescued as part of Operation Sophia would be resettled among other countries. At the time, Italy said it expected results “within weeks.” Six months later, neither side has found a way through the impasse.

    “The fate of this operation is not determined yet,” European Commissioner for Immigration Dimitris Avramopoulos told reporters last month, adding that discussions about allowing migrants to disembark in non-Italian ports are still underway among member countries.

    “If Italy decides — since it is the country in command of Operation Sophia — to stop it, it is up to Italy to make this decision.”

    The political fight over the future of the operation has been made more acute by an increase in criticism from human rights organizations. Reports of violence, torture and extortion in Libyan detention centers have put the naval operation and EEAS on the defensive.

    A Human Rights Watch report published in January found that Europe’s support for the Libyan coast guard has contributed to cases of arbitrary detention, and that people intercepted by Libyan authorities “face inhuman and degrading conditions and the risk of torture, sexual violence, extortion, and forced labor.” Amnesty International has also condemned the conditions under which migrants are being held, and in an open letter published earlier this month, 50 major aid organizations warned that “EU leaders have allowed themselves to become complicit in the tragedy unfolding before their eyes.”

    These human rights violations have been well documented. In 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Office said it considered “migrants to be at high risk of suffering serious human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, in Libya and thus urges States not to return, or facilitate the return of, persons to Libya.”

    Last June, the U.N. sanctioned six men for smuggling and human rights violations, including the head of the coast guard in Zawiya, a city west of Tripoli. A number of officials under his command, a leaked EEAS report found, were trained by Operation Sophia.

    An EEAS spokesperson would not comment on the case of the Zawiya coast guards trained by Operation Sophia or how the officers were vetted. The spokesperson said that none of the coast guards “trained by Operation Sophia” are on the U.N. sanctions list.

    The deteriorating human rights situation has prompted a growing chorus of critics to argue the EU’s arrangement with Libya is unsustainable.

    “What does the EU do in Libya? They throw money at projects, but they don’t have a very tangible operation on the ground" — Tarek Megerisi, Libyan expert

    “Returning anyone to Libya is against international law,” said Salah Margani, a former justice minister in Libya’s post-civil war government. “Libya is not a safe place. They will be subject to murder. They will be subjected to torture.”

    “This is documented,” Margani added. “And [Europe] knows it.”

    Sophia is also indicative of a larger, ineffective European policy toward Libya, said Tarek Megerisi, a Libya specialist at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

    “What does the EU do in Libya? They throw money at projects, but they don’t have a very tangible operation on the ground. They really struggle to convert what they spend into political currency — Operation Sophia is all they’ve got,” he said.

    The project, he added, is less a practical attempt to stop smuggling or save migrants than a political effort to paper over differences within the EU when it comes to migration policy.

    With Sophia, he said, Europe is “being as vague as possible so countries like Italy and Hungary can say this is our tool for stopping migration, and countries like Germany and Sweden can say we’re saving lives.”

    “With this operation, there’s something for everyone,” he said.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-deadly-migration-strategy-leaked-documents

    Commentaire ECRE :

    Leaked documents obtained by @POLITICOEurope show that the #EU knew its military operation “Sophia” in the Mediterranean made sea crossing more dangerous.

    https://twitter.com/ecre/status/1101074946057482240

    #responsabilité #Méditerranée #mourir_en_mer #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mer_Méditerranée #Frontex #EU #UE
    #leaks #sauvetage #externalisation #frontières

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

    Mise en exergue de quelques passages de l’article qui me paraissent particulièrement intéressants :

    The confidential reports also show the EU is aware that a number of its policies have made the sea crossing more dangerous for migrants, and that it nonetheless chose to continue to pursue those strategies. Officials acknowledge internally that some members of the Libyan coast guard that the EU funds, equips and trains are collaborating with smuggling networks.

    Named after a baby girl born on an EU rescue ship, Sophia is the uneasy compromise to resolve a deep split across the bloc: between those who pushed for proactive search-and-rescue efforts to save more lives and those who favored pulling resources from the sea to make the crossing more dangerous.
    The naval operation sits uncomfortably between the two, rescuing migrants in distress at sea, but insisting its primary focus is to fight smugglers off the coast of Libya. The two activities are frequently in conflict.

    The report acknowledged however that the policy has pushed migrants into using rubber boats, putting them in greater danger. “Effectively, with the limited supply and the degree of overloading, the migrant vessels are [distress] cases from the moment they launch,” it said.

    In a leaked status report from 2017 (https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ENFM-2017-2.pdf), Sophia officials made a highly unusual suggestion: that the operation be granted permission to suspend its rescue responsibilities in order to focus on its anti-smuggling operations.

    “Consideration should be given to an option that would allow the operation to be authorized for being temporarily exempt from search and rescue when actively conducting anti-smuggling operations against jackals in international waters,” the report read.

    A leaked report from #Frontex (https://theintercept.com/2017/04/02/new-evidence-undermines-eu-report-tying-refugee-rescue-group-to-smuggl), the EU’s coast guard, noted in 2016: “As mentioned in previous reports, some members of Libya’s local authorities are involved in smuggling activities.” The report cited interviews with recently rescued people who said they were smuggled by Libyans in uniform. It also noted that similar conclusions were reported multiple times by the Italian coast guard and Operation Sophia.

    In Sophia’s leaked status report from 2017, operation leaders noted that “migrant smuggling and human trafficking networks remain well ingrained” throughout the region and that smugglers routinely “pay off authorities” for passage to international waters. “Many of [the coast guard officers] were militia people — many of them fought with militias during the civil war,” said Rabih Boualleg, who worked as a translator for Operation Sophia in late 2016 on board a Dutch ship involved in training the coast guard from Tripoli. The coast guards talked openly about accepting money from smuggling networks in exchange for escorting rubber boats to international waters instead of turning them back toward the shore, Boualleg said.

    Frontex’s 2016 report documents similar cases. Two officials with close knowledge of Sophia’s training of the Libyan coast guard also confirmed that members of the coast guard are involved in smuggling networks. A spokesperson for the Libyan coast guard did not return repeated requests for comment.

    Two years into the training program, leaked reports (https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ENFM-Monitoring-of-Libyan-Coast-Guard-and-Navy-Report-October-2017-January-2018.pdf) also show the Libyan coast guard was unable to manage search-and-rescue activities on its own. Sophia monitors their operations with GoPro cameras and through surveillance using ships, airplanes, drones and submarines.

    A Human Rights Watch report (https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/01/21/no-escape-hell/eu-policies-contribute-abuse-migrants-libya) published in January found that Europe’s support for the Libyan coast guard has contributed to cases of arbitrary detention, and that people intercepted by Libyan authorities “face inhuman and degrading conditions and the risk of torture, sexual violence, extortion, and forced labor.” Amnesty International has also condemned (https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/LY/DetainedAndDehumanised_en.pdf) the conditions under which migrants are being held, and in an open letter published earlier this month, 50 major aid organizations warned that “EU leaders have allowed themselves to become complicit in the tragedy unfolding before their eyes.”

    “Returning anyone to Libya is against international law,” said Salah Margani, a former justice minister in Libya’s post-civil war government. “Libya is not a safe place. They will be subject to murder. They will be subjected to torture.”

    “This is documented,” Margani added. “And [Europe] knows it.”
    Sophia is also indicative of a larger, ineffective European policy toward Libya, said Tarek Megerisi, a Libya specialist at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
    “What does the EU do in Libya? They throw money at projects, but they don’t have a very tangible operation on the ground. They really struggle to convert what they spend into political currency — Operation Sophia is all they’ve got,” he said.

    With Sophia, he said, Europe is “being as vague as possible so countries like Italy and Hungary can say this is our tool for stopping migration, and countries like Germany and Sweden can say we’re saving lives.”
    “With this operation, there’s something for everyone,” he said.

    #flou

  • Germany pulls out of Mediterranean migrant mission Sophia

    Germany is suspending participation in Operation Sophia, the EU naval mission targeting human trafficking in the Mediterranean. The decision reportedly relates to Italy’s reluctance to allow rescued people to disembark.
    Germany will not be sending any more ships to take part in the anti-people smuggling operation Sophia in the Mediterranean Sea, according to a senior military officer.

    The decision means frigate Augsburg, currently stationed off the coast of Libya, will not be replaced early next month, Bundeswehr Inspector General Eberhard Zorn told members of the defense and foreign affairs committees in the German parliament.

    The 10 German soldiers currently working at the operation’s headquarters will, however, remain until at least the end of March.

    The European Union launched Operation Sophia in 2015 to capture smugglers and shut down human trafficking operations across the Mediterranean, as well as enforce a weapons embargo on Libya. Sophia currently deploys three ships, three airplanes, and two helicopters, which are permitted to use lethal force if necessary, though its mandate also includes training the North African country’s coast guard. The EU formally extended Operation Sophia by three months at the end of December.

    The Bundeswehr reported that, since its start, the naval operation had led to the arrest of more than 140 suspected human traffickers and destroyed more than 400 smuggling boats.

    But Operation Sophia’s efforts have largely focused on rescuing thousands of refugees from unseaworthy vessels attempting to get to Europe. According to the Bundeswehr, Operation Sophia has rescued some 49,000 people from the sea, while German soldiers had been involved in the rescue of 22,534 people.

    European impasse

    The operation has caused some friction within the EU, particularly with Italy, where the headquarters are located, and whose Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has threatened to close ports to the mission.

    Salvini, chairman of the far-right Lega Nord party, demanded on Wednesday that the mission had to change, arguing that the only reason it existed was that all the rescued refugees were brought to Italy. “If someone wants to withdraw from it, then that’s certainly no problem for us,” he told the Rai1 radio station, but in future he said the mission should only be extended if those rescued were distributed fairly across Europe. This is opposed by other EU member states, particularly Poland and Hungary.

    Italy’s position drew a prickly response from German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who accused Sophia’s Italian commanders of sabotaging the mission by sending the German ship to distant corners of the Mediterranean where there were “no smuggling routes whatsoever” and “no refugee routes.”

    “For us it’s important that it be politically clarified in Brussels what the mission’s task is,” von der Leyen told reporters at the Davos forum in Switzerland.

    Fritz Felgentreu, ombudsman for the Bundestag defense committee, told public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that Italy’s refusal to let migrants rescued from the sea disembark at its ports meant the operation could no longer fulfill its original mandate.

    The EU played down Germany’s decision. A spokeswoman for the bloc’s diplomatic service, the EEAS, told the DPA news agency that Germany had not ruled out making other ships available for the Sophia Operation in future, a position confirmed by a German Defense Ministry spokesman.

    Decision a ’tragedy’

    The decision sparked instant criticism from various quarters in Germany. Stefan Liebich, foreign affairs spokesman for Germany’s socialist Left party, called the government’s decision to suspend its involvement a “tragedy.”

    “As long as Sophia is not replaced by a civilian operation, even more people will drown,” he told the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.

    The Green party, for its part, had a more mixed reaction. “We in the Green party have always spoken out against the military operation in the Mediterranean and have consistently rejected the training of the Libyan coast guard,” said the party’s defense spokeswoman, Agnieszka Brugger. But she added that Wednesday’s announcement had happened “for the wrong reasons.”

    Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, defense policy spokeswoman for the Free Democratic Party (FDP), called the decision a sign of the EU’s failure to find a common refugee policy.

    Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), meanwhile, defended the decision. “The core mission, to fight trafficking crimes, cannot currently be effectively carried out,” the party’s defense policy spokesman, Henning Otte, said in a statement. “If the EU were to agree to common procedure with refugees, this mission could be taken up again.”

    Otte also suggested a “three-stage model” as a “permanent solution for the Mediterranean.” This would include a coast guard from Frontex, the European border patrol agency; military patrols in the Mediterranean; and special facilities on the North African mainland to take in refugees and check asylum applications.

    https://www.dw.com/en/germany-pulls-out-of-mediterranean-migrant-mission-sophia/a-47189097
    #Allemagne #résistance #Operation_Sophia #asile #migrations #réfugiés #retrait #espoir (petit mais quand même)

    • EU: Italy’s choice to end or continue Operation Sophia

      The European Commission says it is up to Italy to decide whether or not to suspend the EU’s naval operation Sophia.

      “If Italy decides, it is the country in command of operation Sophia, to stop it - it is up to Italy to make this decision,” Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU commissioner for migration, told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday (23 January).

      The Italian-led naval operation was launched in 2015 and is tasked with cracking down on migrant smugglers and traffickers off the Libyan coast.

      It has also saved some 50,000 people since 2015 but appears to have massively scaled back sea rescues, according to statements from Germany’s defence minster.

      German defence minister Ursula von der Leyen was cited by Reuters on Wednesday saying that the Italian command had been sending the Germany navy “to the most remote areas of the Mediterranean where there are no smuggling routes and no migrant flows so that the navy has not had any sensible role for months.”

      Germany had also announced it would not replace its naval asset for the operation, whose mandate is set to expire at the end of March.

      But the commission says that Germany will continue to participate in the operation.

      “There is no indication that it will not make another asset available in the future,” said Avramopoulos.

      A German spokesperson was also cited as confirming Germany wants the mission to continue beyond March.

      The commission statements follow threats from Italy’s far-right interior minister Matteo Salvini to scrap the naval mission over an on-going dispute on where to disembark rescued migrants.

      Salvini was cited in Italian media complaining that people rescued are only offloaded in Italy.

      The complaint is part of a long-outstanding dispute by Salvini, who last year insisted that people should be disembarked in other EU states.

      The same issue was part of a broader debate in the lead up to a renewal of Sophia’s mandate in late December.

      https://euobserver.com/migration/143997

    • #Operazione_Sophia

      In riferimento alle odierne dichiarazioni relative all’operazione Sophia dell’UE, il Ministro degli Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale Enzo Moavero Milanesi ricorda che «L’Italia non ha mai chiesto la chiusura di Sophia. Ha chiesto che siano cambiate, in rigorosa e doverosa coerenza con le conclusioni del Consiglio Europeo di giugno 2018, le regole relative agli sbarchi delle persone salvate in mare». Infatti, gli accordi dell’aprile 2015 prevedono che siano sbarcate sempre in Italia, mentre il Consiglio Europeo del giugno scorso ha esortato gli Stati UE alla piena condivisione di tutti gli oneri relativi ai migranti.

      https://www.esteri.it/mae/it/sala_stampa/archivionotizie/comunicati/operazione-sophia.html

  • ‘It’s an Act of Murder’: How Europe Outsources Suffering as Migrants Drown

    This short film, produced by The Times’s Opinion Video team and the research groups #Forensic_Architecture and #Forensic_Oceanography, reconstructs a tragedy at sea that left at least 20 migrants dead. Combining footage from more than 10 cameras, 3-D modeling and interviews with rescuers and survivors, the documentary shows Europe’s role in the migrant crisis at sea.

    On Nov. 6, 2017, at least 20 people trying to reach Europe from Libya drowned in the Mediterranean, foundering next to a sinking raft.

    Not far from the raft was a ship belonging to Sea-Watch, a German humanitarian organization. That ship had enough space on it for everyone who had been aboard the raft. It could have brought them all to the safety of Europe, where they might have had a chance at being granted asylum.

    Instead, 20 people drowned and 47 more were captured by the Libyan Coast Guard, which brought the migrants back to Libya, where they suffered abuse — including rape and torture.

    This confrontation at sea was not a simplistic case of Europe versus Africa, with human rights and rescue on one side and chaos and danger on the other. Rather it’s a case of Europe versus Europe: of volunteers struggling to save lives being undercut by European Union policies that outsource border control responsibilities to the Libyan Coast Guard — with the aim of stemming arrivals on European shores.

    While funding, equipping and directing the Libyan Coast Guard, European governments have stymied the activities of nongovernmental organizations like Sea-Watch, criminalizing them or impounding their ships, or turning away from ports ships carrying survivors.

    More than 14,000 people have died or gone missing while trying to cross the central Mediterranean since 2014. But unlike most of those deaths and drownings, the incident on Nov. 6, 2017, was extensively documented.

    Sea-Watch’s ship and rescue rafts were outfitted with nine cameras, documenting the entire scene in video and audio. The Libyans, too, filmed parts of the incident on their mobile phones.

    The research groups Forensic Architecture and Forensic Oceanography of Goldsmiths, University of London, of which three of us — Mr. Heller, Mr. Pezzani and Mr. Weizman — are a part, combined these video sources with radio recordings, vessel tracking data, witness testimonies and newly obtained official sources to produce a minute-by-minute reconstruction of the facts. Opinion Video at The New York Times built on this work to create the above short documentary, gathering further testimonials by some of the survivors and rescuers who were there.

    This investigation makes a few things clear: European governments are avoiding their legal and moral responsibilities to protect the human rights of people fleeing violence and economic desperation. More worrying, the Libyan Coast Guard partners that Europe is collaborating with are ready to blatantly violate those rights if it allows them to prevent migrants from crossing the sea.

    Stopping Migrants, Whatever the Cost

    To understand the cynicism of Europe’s policies in the Mediterranean, one must understand the legal context. According to a 2012 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, migrants rescued by European civilian or military vessels must be taken to a safe port. Because of the chaotic political situation in Libya and well-documented human rights abuses in detention camps there, that means a European port, often in Italy or Malta.

    But when the Libyan Coast Guard intercepts migrants, even outside Libyan territorial waters, as it did on Nov. 6, the Libyans take them back to detention camps in Libya, which is not subject to European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction.

    For Italy — and Europe — this is an ideal situation. Europe is able to stop people from reaching its shores while washing its hands of any responsibility for their safety.

    This policy can be traced back to February 2017, when Italy and the United Nations-supported Libyan Government of National Accord signed a “memorandum of understanding” that provided a framework for collaboration on development, to fight against “illegal immigration,” human trafficking and the smuggling of contraband. This agreement defines clearly the aim, “to stem the illegal migrants’ flows,” and committed Italy to provide “technical and technological support to the Libyan institutions in charge of the fight against illegal immigration.”

    Libyan Coast Guard members have been trained by the European Union, and the Italian government donated or repaired several patrol boats and supported the establishment of a Libyan search-and-rescue zone. Libyan authorities have since attempted — in defiance of maritime law — to make that zone off-limits to nongovernmental organizations’ rescue vessels. Italian Navy ships, based in Tripoli, have coordinated Libyan Coast Guard efforts.

    Before these arrangements, Libyan actors were able to intercept and return very few migrants leaving from Libyan shores. Now the Libyan Coast Guard is an efficient partner, having intercepted some 20,000 people in 2017 alone.

    The Libyan Coast Guard is efficient when it comes to stopping migrants from reaching Europe. It’s not as good, however, at saving their lives, as the events of Nov. 6 show.

    A Deadly Policy in Action

    That morning the migrant raft had encountered worsening conditions after leaving Tripoli, Libya, over night. Someone onboard used a satellite phone to call the Italian Coast Guard for help.

    Because the Italians were required by law to alert nearby vessels of the sinking raft, they alerted Sea-Watch to its approximate location. But they also requested the intervention of their Libyan counterparts.

    The Libyan Coast Guard vessel that was sent to intervene on that morning, the Ras Jadir, was one of several that had been repaired by Italy and handed back to the Libyans in May of 2017. Eight of the 13 crew members onboard had received training from the European Union anti-smuggling naval program known as Operation Sophia.

    Even so, the Libyans brought the Ras Jadir next to the migrants’ raft, rather than deploying a smaller rescue vessel, as professional rescuers do. This offered no hope of rescuing those who had already fallen overboard and only caused more chaos, during which at least five people died.

    These deaths were not merely a result of a lack of professionalism. Some of the migrants who had been brought aboard the Ras Jadir were so afraid of their fate at the hands of the Libyans that they jumped back into the water to try to reach the European rescuers. As can be seen in the footage, members of the Libyan Coast Guard beat the remaining migrants.

    Sea-Watch’s crew was also attacked by the Libyan Coast Guard, who threatened them and threw hard objects at them to keep them away. This eruption of violence was the result of a clash between the goals of rescue and interception, with the migrants caught in the middle desperately struggling for their lives.

    Apart from those who died during this chaos, more than 15 people had already drowned in the time spent waiting for any rescue vessel to appear.

    There was, however, no shortage of potential rescuers in the area: A Portuguese surveillance plane had located the migrants’ raft after its distress call. An Italian Navy helicopter and a French frigate were nearby and eventually offered some support during the rescue.

    It’s possible that this French ship, deployed as part of Operation Sophia, could have reached the sinking vessel earlier, in time to save more lives — despite our requests, this information has not been disclosed to us. But it remained at a distance throughout the incident and while offering some support, notably refrained from taking migrants onboard who would then have had to have been disembarked on European soil. It’s an example of a hands-off approach that seeks to make Libyan intervention not only possible but also inevitable.

    A Legal Challenge

    On the basis of the forensic reconstruction, the Global Legal Action Network and the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration, with the support of Yale Law School students, have filed a case against Italy at the European Court of Human Rights representing 17 survivors of this incident.

    Those working on the suit, who include two of us — Mr. Mann and Ms. Moreno-Lax — argue that even though Italian or European personnel did not physically intercept the migrants and bring them back to Libya, Italy exercised effective control over the Libyan Coast Guard through mutual agreements, support and on-the-ground coordination. Italy has entrusted the Libyans with a task that Rome knows full well would be illegal if undertaken directly: preventing migrants from seeking protection in Europe by impeding their flight and sending them back to a country where extreme violence and exploitation await.

    We hope this legal complaint will lead the European court to rule that countries cannot subcontract their legal and humanitarian obligations to dubious partners, and that if they do, they retain responsibility for the resulting violations. Such a precedent would force the entire European Union to make sure its cooperation with partners like Libya does not end up denying refugees the right to seek asylum.

    This case is especially important right now. In Italy’s elections in March, the far-right Lega party, which campaigned on radical anti-immigrant rhetoric, took nearly 20 percent of the vote. The party is now part of the governing coalition, of which its leader, Matteo Salvini, is the interior minister.

    His government has doubled down on animosity toward migrants. In June, Italy took the drastic step of turning away a humanitarian vessel from the country’s ports and has been systematically blocking rescued migrants from being disembarked since then, even when they had been assisted by the Italian Coast Guard.

    The Italian crackdown helps explain why seafarers off the Libyan coast have refrained from assisting migrants in distress, leaving them to drift for days. Under the new Italian government, a new batch of patrol boats has been handed over to the Libyan Coast Guard, and the rate of migrants being intercepted and brought back to Libya has increased. All this has made the crossing even more dangerous than before.

    Italy has been seeking to enact a practice that blatantly violates the spirit of the Geneva Convention on refugees, which enshrines the right to seek asylum and prohibits sending people back to countries in which their lives are at risk. A judgment by the European Court sanctioning Italy for this practice would help prevent the outsourcing of border control and human rights violations that may prevent the world’s most disempowered populations from seeking protection and dignity.

    The European Court of Human Rights cannot stand alone as a guardian of fundamental rights. Yet an insistence on its part to uphold the law would both reflect and bolster the movements seeking solidarity with migrants across Europe.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/26/opinion/europe-migrant-crisis-mediterranean-libya.html
    #reconstruction #naufrage #Méditerranée #Charles_Heller #Lorenzo_Pezzani #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_en_mer #ONG #sauvetage #Sea-Watch #gardes-côtes_libyens #Libye #pull-back #refoulement #externalisation #vidéo #responsabilité #Ras_Jadir #Operation_Sophia #CEDH #cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l'homme #justice #droits_humains #droit_à_la_vie

    ping @reka

    • È un omicidio con navi italiane” L’accusa del Nyt

      Video-denuncia contro Roma e l’Ue per un naufragio di un anno fa: botte dei libici ai migranti, 50 morti.

      Patate scagliate addosso ai soccorritori della Sea Watch invece di lanciare giubbotti e salvagente ai naufraghi che stavano annegando. E poi botte ai migranti riusciti a salire sulle motovedette per salvarsi la vita. Ecco i risultati dell’addestramento che l’Italia ha impartito ai libici per far fuori i migranti nel Mediterraneo. È un video pubblicato dal New York Times che parte da una delle più gravi tra le ultime stragi avvenute del Canale di Sicilia, con un commento intitolato: “‘È un omicidio’: come l’Europa esternalizza sofferenza mentre i migranti annegano”.

      Era il 6 novembre 2017 e le operazioni in mare erano gestite dalla guardia costiera libica, in accordo con l’allora ministro dell’Interno, Marco Minniti. Il dettaglio non è secondario, lo stesso video mostra la cerimonia di consegna delle motovedette made in Italy ai partner nordafricani. Una delle imbarcazioni, la 648, la ritroviamo proprio al centro dell’azione dove, quel giorno, cinquanta africani vennero inghiottiti dal mare. Al tempo era consentito alle imbarcazioni di soccorso pattugliare lo specchio di mare a cavallo tra le zone Sar (Search and rescue, ricerca e soccorso) di competenza. Al tempo i porti italiani erano aperti, ma il comportamento dei militari libici già al limite della crudeltà. Il video e le foto scattate dal personale della Sea Watch mostrano scene durissime. Un migrante lasciato annegare senza alcun tentativo da parte dei libici di salvarlo: il corpo disperato annaspa per poi sparire sott’acqua, quando il salvagente viene lanciato è tardi. Botte, calci e pugni a uomini appena saliti a bordo delle motovedette, di una violenza ingiustificabile. Il New York Times va giù duro e nel commento, oltre a stigmatizzare attacca i governi italiani. Dalla prova delle motovedette vendute per far fare ad altri il lavoro sporco, al nuovo governo definito “di ultradestra” che “ha completato la strategia”. Matteo Salvini però non viene nominato. L’Italia, sottolinea il Nyt, ha delegato alle autorità della Tripolitania il pattugliamento delle coste e il recupero di qualsiasi imbarcazione diretta a nord. Nulla di nuovo, visto che la Spagna, guidata dal socialista Sanchez e impegnata sul fronte occidentale con un’ondata migratoria senza precedenti, usa il Marocco per “bonificare” il tratto di mare vicino allo stretto di Gibilterra da gommoni e carrette. Gli organismi europei da una parte stimolano il blocco delle migrazioni verso il continente, eppure dall’altra lo condannano. Per l’episodio del 6 novembre 2017, infatti, la Corte europea dei diritti umani sta trattando il ricorso presentato dall’Asgi (Associazione studi giuridici sull’immigrazione) contro il respingimento collettivo. Sempre l’Asgi ha presentato due ricorsi analoghi per fatti del dicembre 2018 e gennaio 2018; infine altri due, uno sulla cessione delle motovedette e l’altro sull’implementazione dell’accordo Italia-Libia firmato da Minniti.

      https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/premium/articoli/e-un-omicidio-con-navi-italiane-laccusa-del-nyt

    • Comment l’Europe et la Libye laissent mourir les migrants en mer

      Il y a un peu plus d’un an, le 6 novembre 2017, une fragile embarcation sombre en mer avec à son bord 150 migrants partis de Tripoli pour tenter de rejoindre l’Europe. La plupart d’entre eux sont morts. Avec l’aide de Forensic Oceanography – une organisation créée en 2011 pour tenir le compte des morts de migrants en Méditerranée – et de Forensic Architecture – groupe de recherche enquêtant sur les violations des droits de l’homme –, le New York Times a retracé le déroulement de ce drame, dans une enquête vidéo extrêmement documentée.

      Depuis l’accord passé en février 2017 entre la Libye et l’Italie, confiant aux autorités libyennes le soin d’intercepter les migrants dans ses eaux territoriales, le travail des ONG intervenant en mer Méditerranée avec leurs bateaux de sauvetage est devenu extrêmement difficile. Ces dernières subissent les menaces constantes des gardes-côtes libyens, qui, malgré les subventions européennes et les formations qu’ils reçoivent, n’ont pas vraiment pour but de sauver les migrants de la noyade. Ainsi, en fermant les yeux sur les pratiques libyennes régulièrement dénoncées par les ONG, l’Europe contribue à aggraver la situation et précipite les migrants vers la noyade, s’attache à démontrer cette enquête vidéo publiée dans la section Opinions du New York Times. Un document traduit et sous-titré par Courrier international.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/video/enquete-comment-leurope-et-la-libye-laissent-mourir-les-migra

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=dcbh8yJclGI

    • How We Made an Invisible Crisis at Sea Visible

      An ambitious Opinion Video project produced across three continents — in collaboration with a pioneering forensic research group — shines a spotlight on the more than 16,000 migrants who have died trying to cross the Mediterranean since 2014.

      Forensic Oceanography had created a report and a minute-by-minute reconstruction of the episode (http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-05-07-FO-Mare-Clausum-full-EN.pdf) intended partly to support a case that was about to be filed on behalf of survivors at the European Court of Human Rights.

      Their reporting was deep, but it was very technical. We wanted to build on the original research to create a short film that would sharpen the story while still embracing complexity.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/reader-center/migrants-mediterranean-sea.html
      #visibilité #invisibilité #in/visiblité #Mare_clausum

  • Fires in the Void : The Need for Migrant Solidarity

    For most, Barcelona’s immigrant detention center is a difficult place to find. Tucked away in the Zona Franca logistics and industrial area, just beyond the Montjuïc Cemetery, it is shrouded in an alien stillness. It may be the quietest place in the city on a Saturday afternoon, but it is not a contemplative quiet. It is a no-one-can-hear-you-scream quiet.

    The area is often described as a perfect example of what anthropologist Marc Augé calls a non-place: neither relational nor historical, nor concerned with identity. Yet this opaque institution is situated in the economic motor of the city, next to the port, the airport, the public transportation company, the wholesale market that provides most of the city’s produce and the printing plant for Spain’s most widely read newspaper. The detention center is a void in the heart of a sovereign body.

    Alik Manukyan died in this void. On the morning of December 3, 2013, officers found the 32-year-old Armenian dead in his isolation cell, hanged using his own shoelaces. Police claimed that Manukyan was a “violent” and “conflictive” person who caused trouble with his cellmates. This account of his alleged suicide was contradicted, however, by three detainees. They claimed Alik had had a confrontation with some officers, who then entered the cell, assaulted him and forced him into isolation. They heard Alik scream and wail all through the night. Two of these witnesses were deported before the case made it to court. An “undetectable technical error” prevented the judge from viewing any surveillance footage.

    The void extends beyond the detention center. In 2013, nearly a decade after moving to Spain, a young Senegalese man named #Alpha_Pam died of tuberculosis. When he went to a hospital for treatment, Pam was denied medical attention because his papers were not in order. His case was a clear example of the apartheid logic underlying a 2012 decree by Mariano Rajoy’s right-wing government, which excluded undocumented people from Spain’s once-universal public health care system. As a result, the country’s hospitals went from being places of universal care to spaces of systematic neglect. The science of healing, warped by nationalist politics.

    Not that science had not played a role in perpetuating the void before. In 2007, during the Socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, #Osamuyi_Aikpitanyi died during a deportation flight after being gagged and restrained by police escorts. The medical experts who investigated Aikpitanyi’s death concluded that the Nigerian man had died due to a series of factors they called “a vicious spiral”. There was an increase in catecholamine, a neurotransmitter related to stress, fear, panic and flight instincts. This was compounded by a lack of oxygen due to the flight altitude and, possibly, the gag. Ultimately, these experts could not determine what percentage of the death had been directly caused by the gag, and the police were fined 600 euros for the non-criminal offense of “light negligence”.

    The Romans had a term for lives like these, lives that vanish in the void. That term was #homo_sacer, the “sacred man”, who one could kill without being found guilty of murder. An obscure figure from archaic law revived by the philosopher #Giorgio_Agamben, it was used to incorporate human life, stripped of personhood, into the juridical order. Around this figure, a state of exception was produced, in which power could be exercised in its crudest form, opaque and unaccountable. For Agamben, this is the unspoken ground upon which modern sovereignty stands. Perhaps the best example of it is the mass grave that the Mediterranean has become.

    Organized Hypocrisy

    Its name suggests that the Mediterranean was once the world’s center. Today it is its deadliest divide. According to the International Organization for Migration, over 9,000 people died trying to cross the sea between January 1, 2014 and July 5, 2018. A conservative estimate, perhaps. The UN Refugee Agency estimates that the number of people found dead or missing during this period is closer to 17,000.

    Concern for the situation peaks when spectacular images make the horror unavoidable. A crisis mentality takes over, and politicians make sweeping gestures with a solemn sense of urgency. One such gesture was made after nearly 400 people died en route to Lampedusa in October 2013. The Italian government responded by launching Operation #Mare_Nostrum, a search-and-rescue program led by the country’s navy and coast guard. It cost €11 million per month, deploying 34 warships and about 900 sailors per working day. Over 150,000 people were rescued by the operation in one year.

    Despite its cost, Mare Nostrum was initially supported by much of the Italian public. It was less popular, however, with other European member states, who accused the mission of encouraging “illegal” migration by making it less deadly. Within a year, Europe’s refusal to share the responsibility had produced a substantial degree of discontent in Italy. In October 2014, Mare Nostrum was scrapped and replaced by #Triton, an operation led by the European border agency #Frontex.

    With a third of Mare Nostrum’s budget, Triton was oriented not towards protecting lives but towards surveillance and border control. As a result, the deadliest incidents in the region’s history occurred less than half a year into the operation. Between April 13 and April 19, 2015, over one thousand people drowned in the waters abandoned by European search and rescue efforts. Once again, the images produced a public outcry. Once again, European leaders shed crocodile tears for the dead.

    Instead of strengthening search and rescue efforts, the EU increased Frontex’s budget and complemented Triton with #Operation_Sophia, a military effort to disrupt the networks of so-called “smugglers”. #Eugenio_Cusumano, an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Leiden, has written extensively on the consequences of this approach, which he describes as “organized hypocrisy”. In an article for the Cambridge Review of International Affairs (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010836718780175), Cusumano shows how the shortage of search and rescue assets caused by the termination of Mare Nostrum led non-governmental organizations to become the main source of these activities off the Libyan shore. Between 2014 and 2017, NGOs aided over 100,000 people.

    Their efforts have been admirable. Yet the precariousness of their resources and their dependence on private donors mean that NGOs have neither the power nor the capacity to provide aid on the scale required to prevent thousands of deaths at the border. To make matters worse, for the last several months governments have been targeting NGOs and individual activists as smugglers or human traffickers, criminalizing their solidarity. It is hardly surprising, then, that the border has become even deadlier in recent years. According to the UN Refugee Agency, although the number of attempted crossings has fallen over 80 percent from its peak in 2015, the percentage of people who have died or vanished has quadrupled.

    It is not my intention, with the litany of deaths described here, to simply name some of the people killed by Europe’s border regime. What I hope to have done instead is show the scale of the void at its heart and give a sense of its ruthlessness and verticality. There is a tendency to refer to this void as a gap, as a space beyond the reach of European institutions, the European gaze or European epistemologies. If this were true, the void could be filled by simply extending Europe’s reach, by producing new concepts, mapping new terrains, building new institutions.

    But, in fact, Europe has been treating the void as a site of production all along. As political theorist #Sandro_Mezzadra writes, the border is the method through which the sovereign machine of governmentality was built. Its construction must be sabotaged, subverted and disrupted at every level.

    A Crisis of Solidarity

    When the ultranationalist Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini refused to allow the MV #Aquarius to dock in June 2018, he was applauded by an alarmingly large number of Italians. Many blamed his racism and that of the Italians for putting over 600 lives at risk, including those of 123 unaccompanied minors, eleven young children and seven pregnant women.

    Certainly, the willingness to make a political point by sacrificing hundreds of migrant lives confirms that racism. But another part of what made Salvini’s gesture so horrifying was that, presumably, many of those who had once celebrated increasing search and rescue efforts now supported the opposite. Meanwhile, many of the same European politicians who had refused to share Italy’s responsibilities five years earlier were now expressing moral outrage over Salvini’s lack of solidarity.

    Once again, the crisis mode of European border politics was activated. Once again, European politicians and media talked about a “migrant crisis”, about “flows” of people causing unprecedented “pressure” on the southern border. But attempted crossings were at their lowest level in years, a fact that led many migration scholars to claim this was not a “migrant crisis”, but a crisis of solidarity. In this sense, Italy’s shift reflects the nature of the problem. By leaving it up to individual member states, the EU has made responding to the deaths at the border a matter of national conviction. When international solidarity is absent, national self-interest takes over.

    Fortunately, Spain’s freshly sworn-in Socialist Party government granted the Aquarius permission to dock in the Port of #Valencia. This happened only after Mayor Ada Colau of Barcelona, a self-declared “City of Refuge”, pressured Spanish President Pedro Sánchez by publicly offering to receive the ship at the Port of Barcelona. Party politics being as they are, Sánchez authorized a port where his party’s relationship with the governing left-wing platform was less conflictive than in Barcelona.

    The media celebrated Sánchez’s authorization as an example of moral virtue. Yet it would not have happened if solidarity with refugees had not been considered politically profitable by institutional actors. In Spain’s highly fractured political arena, younger left-wing parties and the Catalan independence movement are constantly pressuring a weakened Socialist Party to prove their progressive credentials. Meanwhile, tireless mobilization by social movements has made welcoming refugees a matter of common sense and basic human decency.

    The best known example of this mobilization was the massive protest that took place in February 2017, when 150,000 people took to the streets of Barcelona to demand that Mariano Rajoy’s government take in more refugees and migrants. It is likely because of actions like these that, according to the June 2018 Eurobarometer, over 80 percent of people in Spain believe the country should help those fleeing disaster.

    Yet even where the situation might be more favorable to bottom-up pressure, those in power will not only limit the degree to which demands are met, but actively distort those demands. The February 2017 protest is a good example. Though it also called for the abolition of detention centers, racial profiling and Spain’s racist immigration law, the march is best remembered for the single demand of welcoming refugees.

    The adoption of this demand by the Socialist Party was predictably cynical. After authorizing the Aquarius, President Sánchez used his momentarily boosted credibility to present, alongside Emmanuel Macron, a “progressive” European alternative to Salvini’s closed border. It involved creating detention centers all over the continent, with the excuse of determining people’s documentation status. Gears turn in the sovereign machine of governmentality. The void expands.

    Today the border is a sprawling, parasitic entity linking governments, private companies and supranational institutions. It is not enough for NGOs to rescue refugees, when their efforts can be turned into spot-mopping for the state. It is not enough for social movements to pressure national governments to change their policies, when individual demands can be distorted to mean anything. It is not enough for cities to declare themselves places of refuge, when they can be compelled to enforce racist laws. It is not enough for political parties to take power, when they can be conditioned by private interests, the media and public opinion polls.

    To overcome these limitations, we must understand borders as highly vertical transnational constructions. Dismantling those constructions will require organization, confrontation, direct action, sabotage and, above all, that borderless praxis of mutual aid and solidarity known as internationalism. If we truly hope to abolish the border, we must start fires in the void.

    https://roarmag.org/magazine/migrant-solidarity-fires-in-the-void
    #solidarité #frontières #migrations #réfugiés #asile #détention_administrative #rétention #Barcelone #non-lieu #Espagne #mourir_en_détention_administrative #mort #décès #mourir_en_rétention #Alik_Manukyan #renvois #expulsions #vie_nue #Méditerranée #hypocrisie #hypocrisie_organisée #ONG #sauvetage #sabotage #nationalisme #crise #villes-refuge #Valence #internationalisme #ouverture_des_frontières #action_directe

    signalé par @isskein

  • CE FIL DE DISCUSSION COMPLÈTE CELUI COMMENCÉ ICI :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/724156

    v. aussi la métaliste sur les ONG et les sauvetages en Méditerranée :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/706177

    –-----------

    Un bateau de pêche espagnol « coincé » en mer Méditerranée après avoir secouru 12 migrants

    Un navire de pêche espagnol est « coincé » en mer Méditerranée depuis plusieurs jours avec 12 migrants à son bord. Aucun pays n’a en effet accepté de les accueillir depuis leur sauvetage la semaine dernière, a indiqué mardi 27 novembre le capitaine du bateau.

    « Nous sommes coincés en mer, nous ne pouvons aller nulle part », a déclaré à l’AFP Pascual Durá, capitaine du « #Nuestra_Madre_Loreto ». Depuis jeudi dernier, les 13 membres de l’équipage du navire cohabitent avec 12 migrants originaires du Niger, de Somalie, du Soudan, du Sénégal et d’Egypte. Ils ont été secourus après le naufrage de leur bateau pneumatique en provenance de Libye.

    « Renvoyés vers l’endroit qu’ils fuient »

    L’Italie et Malte leur ont refusé l’entrée dans leurs ports. Quant aux services espagnols de sauvetage maritime, avec lesquels les marins sont en contact, ils ont seulement offert la possibilité de les renvoyer en Libye. ""Si nous allons vers la Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie", a indiqué le capitaine, précisant que « dès qu’ils entendent le mot ’Libye’, ils deviennent très nerveux et hystériques, il est difficile de les rassurer »."

    « Nous ne voulons pas renvoyer ces pauvres gens en Libye. Après ce qu’ils ont accompli pour venir jusqu’ici, nous ne voulons pas les renvoyer vers l’endroit qu’ils fuient », a-t-il ajouté. Le capitaine du navire assure qu’il ne dispose plus que de six ou sept jours de provisions et qu’une tempête approche.

    Depuis le début de l’année, plus de 106.000 migrants sont arrivés en Europe par la mer, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations, qui a enregistré 2.119 décès pendant cette période.

    https://www.nouvelobs.com/monde/migrants/20181128.OBS6155/un-bateau-de-peche-espagnol-coince-en-mer-mediterranee-apres-avoir-secour
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #sauvetage #Méditerranée #frontières

    • #Nuestra_Madre_de_Loreto”: appello urgente dei parlamentari europei per l’apertura di porti sicuri.

      “NUESTRA MADRE DE LORETO”. APPELLO URGENTE DEI PARLAMENTARI EUROPEI PER L’APERTURA DI PORTI SICURI.

      RICHIESTA URGENTE ALL´UE ED AI GOVERNI EUROPEI PER CONSENTIRE AL PESCHERECCIO “NUESTRA MADRE LORETO” DI SBARCARE IN UN PORTO SICURO.

      Stiamo rischiando di essere testimoni di un’altra tragedia nel Mar Mediterraneo. Un peschereccio spagnolo, “Nuestra Madre de Loreto”, è bloccato da giorni in mare dopo aver salvato 12 persone che tentavano di raggiungere la costa Europea dalla Libia a bordo di un gommone.

      Nessun Paese Europeo ha consentito all’imbarcazione spagnola di attraccare e probabilmente sono in corso negoziati per riportare questi migranti, che potrebbero avere diritto di protezione internazionale, in Libia.

      Secondo l’UNHCR e la Commissione Europea la Libia non è un Paese sicuro. Per cui non può essere considerato un porto sicuro per lo sbarco. Non ha mai sottoscritto la Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati, mentre media e organizzazioni internazionali riportano violazioni sistematiche dei diritti umani nei centri di detenzione per migranti.

      Mentre si attende l’autorizzazione allo sbarco, le condizioni metereologiche stanno peggiorando e l’imbarcazione scarseggia beni essenziali, cibo e carburante. Si sta esaurendo il tempo a disposizione: abbiamo urgentemente bisogno di una soluzione sensata, nel pieno rispetto delle leggi internazionali ed Europee, inclusa la Convenzione SAR. I governi Europei non possono chiedere all’imbarcazione spagnola di violare il principio di “non-respingimento”.

      Chiediamo ai governi Europei di rispettare pienamente la legge internazionale e la Convenzione SAR e di offrire un porto sicuro alla “Nuestra Madre de Loreto”, evitando così un’altra tragedia nel Mediterraneo. Chiediamo alla Commissione Europea di prendere una posizione chiara e di facilitare una soluzione rapida.

      Questo è un appello aperto, chiediamo a ciascuno di condividerlo e di chiedere ai nostri governi di rispettare i diritti umani e di dimostrare solidarietà alle persone in pericolo in mare.

      Marina Albiol, Sergio Cofferati, Eleonora Forenza, Ska Keller, Elly Schlein, Miguel Urban Crespo, Ernest Urtasun, Gabriele Zimmer (Parlamentari Europei)

      https://mediterranearescue.org/news/nuestra-madre-de-loreto-appello-urgente-dei-parlamentari-europei

    • Faute de port d’accueil, un bateau espagnol erre toujours en Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à bord

      Le Nuestra Madre Loreto, un navire espagnol, erre depuis une semaine en Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à son bord. Les rescapés refusent d’être renvoyés en Libye. Le navire demande à l’Europe l’autorisation de débarquer dans l’un de ses ports.

      Le gouvernement espagnol a indiqué mercredi 28 novembre être en contact avec l’Italie et Malte en vue de trouver un port d’accueil pour un bateau de pêche espagnol errant en mer Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à bord.

      Depuis jeudi dernier, les 13 membres de l’équipage du « Nuestra Madre Loreto » cohabitent avec 12 migrants originaires du Niger, de Somalie, du Soudan, du Sénégal et d’Egypte rescapés d’un bateau pneumatique en provenance de Libye.

      « Nous sommes coincés en mer, nous ne pouvons aller nulle part », a déclaré Pascual Durá, le capitaine du bateau.

      Le gouvernement espagnol a dans un premier temps demandé à la Libye de prendre les réfugiés en charge, comme le prévoit le droit international. Les embarcations de migrants secourues dans la SAR zone (zone de détresse en Méditerranée où ont lieu les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage) relèvent en effet de l’autorité de Tripoli depuis le mois de juin 2018.

      Les migrants refusent d’être ramenés en Libye. Face à leur refus, le navire espagnol « fait des démarches auprès des gouvernements de l’Italie et de Malte, dont les côtes sont proches du lieu où se trouve le bateau, dans le but de favoriser une solution alternative, rapide et satisfaisante » pour les accueillir, a indiqué la vice-présidente de l’exécutif Carmen Calvo dans un communiqué.

      « En aucune circonstance, [les migrants] ne devraient être renvoyées en Libye, où elles risquent d’être victimes de détention arbitraire, de torture et d’autres violences. Toute instruction donnée au capitaine du Nuestra Madre de Loreto de transférer les survivants en Libye serait contraire au droit international », s’est alarmé de son côté Matteo de Bellis, chercheur sur l’asile et les migrations à Amnesty International.

      « Si nous allons en Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie »

      Face à l’aggravation des conditions météorologiques, le bateau a pris mardi la direction de l’île italienne de Lampedusa, selon le gouvernement espagnol.

      Le capitaine du « Nuestra Madre Loreto », avait indiqué de son côté mardi que l’Italie, dont le ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini (Ligue, extrême droite) s’oppose à l’arrivée de nouveaux migrants dans son pays, et Malte lui avaient refusé l’entrée dans leurs ports.

      Il avait également souligné que les services espagnols de sauvetage maritime lui avaient seulement offert la possibilité de les renvoyer en Libye.

      Selon le capitaine, les migrants à bord de son bateau « deviennent très nerveux et hystériques dès qu’ils entendent le mot ‘Libye’ ». « Si nous allons vers la Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie », avait-il averti.

      Depuis l’arrivée du socialiste Pedro Sanchez au pouvoir, l’Espagne a accueilli un navire humanitaire, l’Aquarius, refusé par l’Italie et Malte et à trois reprises un bateau de l’ONG Open Arms. Mais elle a refusé un retour de l’Aquarius, préférant négocier avec d’autres États européens la répartition des migrants qu’il avait à bord.


      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/13639/faute-de-port-d-accueil-un-bateau-espagnol-erre-toujours-en-mediterran

    • #Sophia mission will cease unless rules changed - Salvini

      The EU’s anti-human trafficking Sophia naval mission in the Mediterranean will stop when its current mandate expires at the end of the year unless the rules of the operation are changed, Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said on Wednesday. The government says the operation currently puts too much of the burden of rescued migrants on Italy.

      “We are staying firm in our unwillingness to accept landing procedures that involve dockings only in Italian ports,” Salvini told a Schengen committee hearing.

      “Unless there is convergence on our positions, we do not consider it opportune to continue the mission”.

      http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2018/12/05/sophia-mission-will-cease-unless-rules-changed-salvini_05836d11-3f8c-474c-
      #Opération_Sophia #EUNAVFOR_MED

      #Salvini (encore lui)

    • MSF et SOS Méditerranée mettent un terme aux opérations de sauvetage de l’« Aquarius »

      Déplorant les « attaques » répétées, les ONG étudient des options pour un nouveau navire et un futur pavillon. Depuis février 2016, le bateau a secouru 30 000 personnes.

      L’Aquarius est devenu le symbole de la crise politique autour de l’accueil des migrants. Il ne sera bientôt plus. Médecins sans frontières (MSF) et SOS Méditerranée ont annoncé, jeudi 6 décembre, devoir « mettre un terme » aux opérations de sauvetage de leur navire humanitaire, privé de pavillon depuis deux mois.

      « Renoncer à l’Aquarius a été une décision extrêmement difficile à prendre », a déclaré dans un communiqué Frédéric Penard, directeur des opérations de SOS Méditerranée, en déplorant « les attaques incessantes dont le navire et ses équipes ont fait l’objet ». Mais l’ONG basée à Marseille « explore déjà activement les options pour un nouveau navire et un nouveau pavillon », et « étudie sérieusement toutes les propositions d’armateurs qui lui permettraient de poursuivre sa mission de sauvetage ». « Nous refusons de rester les bras croisés sur le rivage alors que des gens continuent de mourir en mer », a assuré M. Penard.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2018/12/07/msf-et-sos-mediterranee-mettent-un-terme-aux-operations-de-sauvetage-de-l-aq

    • MSF forced to terminate search and rescue operations as Europe condemns people to drown

      As men, women and children continue to die in the Mediterranean Sea, international medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and its partner SOS Méditerranée have been forced to terminate the lifesaving operations of their search and rescue vessel, Aquarius.

      Over the last two months as people have continued to flee by sea on the world’s deadliest migration route, the Aquarius has remained in port, unable to carry out its vital humanitarian work.

      This is due to a sustained smear campaign, spearheaded by the Italian government and backed by other European countries to delegitimise, slander and obstruct aid organisations trying to save the lives of vulnerable people in the Mediterranean.

      Coupled with ill-conceived policies aimed at trapping people outside Europe’s borders, this campaign has undermined international law and humanitarian principles.

      With no immediate solution to these attacks, MSF and SOS Méditerranée have no option but to end the operations of the Aquarius.

      https://www.msf.org.uk/article/msf-forced-terminate-search-and-rescue-operations-europe-condemns-people-dro

    • « Aquarius » : « La #non-assistance_à_personnes_en_danger est revenue en force en Méditerranée »

      Mego Terzian, président de MSF-France et Michaël Neuman, directeur d’études à MSF expliquent dans une tribune au « Monde » pourquoi leur ONG et SOS Méditerranée, l’Association européenne de sauvetage en mer, mettent un terme aux opérations de sauvetage de l’« Aquarius ».

      « Dont acte, la politique de harcèlement judiciaire, administratif, politique aura eu raison de l’“Aquarius”, déployé entre 2015 et le milieu de l’année 2018 en mer Méditerranée. » usage worldwide/DPA / Photononstop

      Tribune. Dont acte, la politique de harcèlement judiciaire, administratif, politique aura eu raison de l’« Aquarius », déployé entre 2015 et le milieu de l’année 2018 en mer Méditerranée.
      En 2014, l’opération « Mare Nostrum », mise en place par les autorités italiennes inaugurait pourtant une séquence pendant laquelle le sauvetage d’embarcations de migrants en détresse fut pourtant considéré comme légitime.

      Ce qui est d’abord, rappelons-le, une obligation légale était alors politiquement et publiquement acceptable. En 2018, les Italiens furent de nouveau à la manœuvre, signifiant cette fois-ci qu’ils ne sauraient accepter davantage que se poursuivent ces interventions : dès le début de l’été, Matteo Salvini, tout récent ministre de l’intérieur, œuvra pour fermer ses ports aux bateaux de secours, accélérant une politique de dissuasion largement entamée par Marco Minniti, son prédécesseur, qui aboutit, in fine, à la liquidation des moyens destinés à secourir les personnes fuyant la Libye.

      Bien sûr, des organisations de la société civile tentent vaille que vaille et, avec une
      remarquable ténacité, de maintenir leurs activités de secours en mer : Sea Watch, Mare Jonio, Proactiva Open Arms sont de celles-là. Les pilotes volontaires du Moonbird et du Colibri poursuivent leurs survols, tentant de déceler entre les vagues des embarcations à la dérive et d’éviter ainsi que la longue liste des décès – plus de 17 000 depuis 2014 – ne s’allonge davantage.

      Pressions italiennes

      Mais toutes le font avec d’extrêmes difficultés : ennuis administratifs récurrents, obstacles posés aux escales techniques, interdiction d’accoster en Europe, et poursuites judiciaires, comme c’est le cas de l’« Aquarius », navire de secours affrété en partenariat avec SOS Méditerranée. Celui-ci, déjà privé de pavillon sous pressions italiennes, est maintenant menacé d’une mise sous séquestre à la suite des accusations grotesques de crime organisé, de nouveau, en Italie.

      Une partie de l’équipage et des membres des équipes de MSF sont mis en cause : leur activité de secours est criminalisée. Force est de constater que ce dispositif de secours en mer, auquel nous avons participé depuis 2015 avec cinq navires différents, quelquefois en partenariat avec d’autres organisations, est mis hors-la-loi.

      Les victimes de ce combat à armes inégales sont évidemment ces personnes migrantes, demandeuses d’asiles ou réfugiées, dont plus grand monde ne semble désormais se soucier. D’ailleurs combien sont-elles, ces victimes ? Aujourd’hui, sans témoin en mer, personne ne le sait, tandis que le piège libyen se referme, un piège dont la maintenance est assurément l’œuvre d’autorités libyennes disparates mais dont la mécanique est bien due à l’ingéniosité européenne.

      Des milliers de personnes sont condamnées à tenter de survivre dans l’entrelacs de centres de détention dits « officiels » et de prisons clandestines en Libye. On ne saurait suffisamment conseiller à nos décideurs d’aller visiter ces geôles pour se faire une idée de l’avenir qu’ils promettent à leurs frères humains. Beaucoup d’autres personnes, enfin, prises dans les mailles serrées d’un dispositif militaro-technique de pointe, meurent plus en amont sur les routes dans la vaste région sahélienne.

      Absence de l’Europe

      S’il est beaucoup question d’Italie, il ne faudrait pas négliger l’unanimisme européen dans lequel cette dynamique mortifère s’est mise en place : ni la France, ni l’Espagne, ni aucun Etat ou institution européenne ne s’est réellement opposé à la mise en coupe réglée de la politique européenne de gestion des frontières par des dirigeants aux pratiques racistes et violentes. Rien de surprenant puisque la manœuvre était en cours depuis quelque temps déjà.

      Ainsi, on ne trouva personne ou presque, pour se résoudre à accueillir quelques centaines de personnes qui, par une chance inouïe, bénéficiaient ça et là du programme de relocalisation du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR). Depuis longtemps, le refoulement des indésirables aux frontières, notamment franco-italienne, était acté, tout comme l’abandon de 15 000 personnes sur les îles grecques dans des conditions épouvantables, laissés-pour-compte d’une mise en scène sordide de la frontière.

      L’errance durant plus d’une semaine du Nuestra Madre de Loreto, en est le dernier avatar : ayant secouru douze personnes, ce chalutier espagnol s’est vu refuser l’autorisation de débarquer dans les ports européens, y compris de l’Espagne, jusque-là bonne élève dans l’accueil des rescapés de la mer mais qui là prôna leur retour dans l’univers carcéral libyen. Ce n’est qu’après la décision du capitaine de faire, malgré tout, route vers l’Espagne, que le navire obtint le transfert des rescapés vers Malte.

      Non-assistance généralisée

      Aujourd’hui s’ouvre une séquence bien plus lourde de menaces. Aux côtés de la délégation du secours en mer aux gardes-côtes libyens, la généralisation de la non-assistance à personnes en danger est revenue en force en Méditerranée. On se souvient, en effet, qu’en 2011, en pleine intervention militaire occidentale en Libye, des dizaines de migrants étaient morts noyés, au terme d’une dérive de plusieurs jours, malgré les survols et observations d’un nombre important d’avions et de bateaux de l’OTAN.

      Ces pratiques de non-assistance ressurgissent : par crainte de ne pas savoir où débarquer leurs rescapés, les navires commerciaux se détournent de leurs routes habituelles, ou s’écartent lorsqu’ils aperçoivent l’embarcation redoutée. Telle est, en tout cas, la teneur des témoignages que nos équipes travaillant en Libye ont recueillis auprès des rescapés du Nivin, un porte-véhicules dont l’histoire raconte l’ensemble des lâchetés des responsables politiques européens et des agences internationales.

      Tous ceux-là avaient, pourtant, affirmé, à un moment ou à un autre, que les migrants interceptés ne sauraient être ramenés en Libye contre leur gré. Ce fut pourtant exactement ce qu’il s’est passé avec le Nivin, duquel les quatre-vingt-quinze rescapés qu’il transportait refusèrent de débarquer au port de Misrata, à l’est de Tripoli. L’occupation du navire se poursuivit une dizaine jours pendant lesquels nos équipes apportèrent de l’aide médicale à bord et constatèrent qu’aucune solution alternative à la remise en détention ne fut sérieusement examinée.

      Elle prit fin lorsque les forces libyennes lancèrent un assaut, au cours duquel une dizaine de personnes furent blessées, dont certaines grièvement. Certains sont aujourd’hui poursuivis par la justice libyenne pour crimes de piraterie. Telle est donc l’alternative pour les migrants de Libye : la folie, la torture, ou la mort. Et pour les marins, fuir leurs obligations ou subir les persécutions européennes.

      Alors que, de part et d’autre de la Méditerranée, les Etats s’arrogent le droit de vie et de mort sur des gens n’ayant pour motivation que celle de rendre leur vie meilleure, nous ne renonçons pas pour autant à porter secours là où nous le pouvons encore, à soutenir les initiatives de secours en mer et participer à en renouveler le modèle. Spectateurs et acteurs lucides, nous ne renonçons pas à contester ces logiques de sacrifice.

      Mego Terzian (Médecin, président de Médecins sans frontières (MSF)) et Michaël Neuman(Directeur d’études à MSF)

      https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/12/07/aquarius-la-non-assistance-a-personnes-en-danger-est-revenue-en-force-en-med

    • Le accuse a Open Arms, ovvero il mondo capovolto.

      Proactiva Open Arms è compagna di viaggio di Mediterranea fin dall’inizio. Insieme noi e a Sea Watch è parte dell’alleanza United4Med: una piattaforma aperta per un’Europa solidale in mare e in terra.
      Ma le ipotesi di reato contenute nell’avviso di conclusione delle indagini preliminari depositate dalla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Ragusa non ci lasciano sgomenti solo perché colpiscono ancora una volta delle persone di cui conosciamo direttamente l’integrità, e perché rilanciano la criminalizzazione del salvataggio della vita umana in mare e del rispetto della dignità delle persone salvate.

      L’accusa di violenza privata, unita a quella del favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione illegale, rappresenta un pericolosissimo uso del diritto che estende all’inverosimile il concetto di violenza, e, rispetto al soggetto offeso che in questo caso sarebbe il Ministero dell’Interno come Istituzione, rappresenta un precedente particolarmente inquietante che potrebbe estendersi praticamente ad ogni azione giuridicamente rilevante. Rimandando per i dettagli all’articolata e preziosa analisi elaborata in merito dal Giudice del Tribunale di Torino Andrea Natale, quello che emerge sempre più chiaramente è che davvero il mondo per come lo conoscevamo appare capovolto.
      Il comandante della nave Proactiva Open Arms, Marc Reig Creus, e la capo missione Ana Isabel Montes avrebbero esercitato violenza privata, disattendendo gli ordini dell’Italia e poi delle autorità libiche di non intervenire, per avere salvato centinaia di persone che stavano rischiando di annegare in mare. Successivamente, quando la cosiddetta guardia libica si è presentata sul posto, la violenza privata sarebbe consistita nel rifiuto di riconsegnare le persone salvate ai libici, ovvero nel fatto di non restituire 216 donne, bambini e giovani uomini alle sevizie e alle torture già subite nei campi della Libia.
      Anabel e Marc avrebbero poi esercitato violenza privata per non aver chiesto a Malta di fornire un porto sicuro, cosa che Malta negli anni precedenti aveva rifiutato sistematicamente di fare, ed essersi diretti verso l’Italia. Il culmine della violenza privata sarebbe stato quindi quello di avere obbligato l’Italia a fornire un porto sicuro di approdo, e quindi di avere costretto il nostro governo a non avere anche questi profughi sulla propria coscienza.
      Cosa ci sia di violento e di privato in tutti questi accadimenti, e come possa un Ministero dell’Interno in quanto Istituzione essere soggetto a violenza privata è qualcosa che davvero appare ad oggi circondata da un alone di mistero, a meno che non si guardi a queste accuse come a ipotesi di reato fortemente ideologiche e orientate da una precisa visione politica.
      Appare già distintamente, a prescindere da quello che accadrà in sede processuale, che il diritto rischia sempre di più di diventare uno strumento di potere che colpisce in maniera arbitraria, paradossalmente, il rispetto del diritto stesso, proprio mentre la violazione dei diritti diventa normale maniera di procedere dei decisori politici europei e italiani innanzitutto. E questa riflessione andrebbe estesa ad ogni ambito e non solo alle politiche migratorie che colpendo le persone rese più vulnerabili sono, come sempre, un campanello d’allarme che ci dice fino a che punto le garanzie di libertà e i diritti di ogni persona siano sempre più messi in discussione.
      Rispettare i diritti umani è un reato, violarli è un merito: c’è ancora qualcuno che crede che questo capovolgimento del mondo vada arrestato prima che travolga tutti? La storia di Mediterranea, la sua comunità di mare e quella sempre più grande di terra ci racconta di sì. E si stringe intorno a Open Arms, Marc e Anabel, ringraziandoli profondamente per ogni singola vita sottratta alla morte e portata in salvo, per tutto il coraggio, per avere difeso da anni la nostra possibilità di essere umani e di immaginare una società più giusta.

      https://mediterranearescue.org/news/accuse-open-arms

    • L’Italie ferme ses ports à un navire d’une ONG et 300 migrants à bord

      Les ports italiens seront fermés aux quelque 310 migrants sauvés en Méditerranée par l’ONG espagnole, Proactiva Open Arms, a déclaré samedi le ministre italien de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, après un premier refus des autorités de Malte.

      « Ma réponse est claire : les ports italiens sont fermés ! », a twitté le ministre d’extrême droite. « Pour les trafiquants d’êtres humains et pour ceux qui les aident, la fête est terminée ».

      M. Salvini a précisé que la demande de l’ONG de permettre l’accès au territoire italien des hommes, femmes, enfants et bébés sauvés vendredi, avait été déposée après une réponse négative de Malte.

      L’ONG a précisé que parmi les migrants, une femme et son bébé, né sur une plage libyenne, ont été emmenés à Malte par un hélicoptère des gardes-côtes.

      « Nous restons avec 311 personnes à bord, sans port où accoster, et avec des besoins », a twitté l’ONG de son côté.

      Proactiva Open Arms a annoncé vendredi avoir secouru près de 300 migrants au large de la Libye, dont des femmes enceintes, qui se trouvaient à bord de trois embarcations.

      L’ONG a posté en ligne une vidéo de certains des migrants secourus « d’une mort certaine en mer ». « Si vous pouviez aussi ressentir le froid, il serait plus facile de comprendre l’urgence. Aucun port pour débarquer, et refus de Malte de nous donner de la nourriture. Ceci n’est pas Noël ».

      Le navire avait repris fin novembre, avec deux autres bateaux d’ONG, ses missions de sauvetage en Méditerranée centrale, au large de la Libye.

      Cet itinéraire de l’immigration clandestine est le plus mortel, avec plus de 1.300 migrants morts en tentant de gagner l’Italie ou Malte depuis le début de l’année, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les Migrations (OIM).

      Les navires humanitaires opèrent dans cette zone malgré l’opposition farouche de M. Salvini, qui leur ferme les ports en les accusant de favoriser les affaires des passeurs, et les réticences de Malte.

      Une autre ONG, l’allemande Sea-Eye, a annoncé vendredi soir le départ, depuis Algésiras dans le sud de l’Espagne, d’un nouveau bateau vers le large des côtes libyennes, le « Professor Albrecht-Penck ».

      Une partie des 18 membres de son équipage sont d’anciens volontaires de l’Aquarius, ce bateau qui avait déclenché l’été dernier une crise diplomatique entre les États européens et mis définitivement à l’arrêt début décembre.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/depeche/litalie-ferme-ses-ports-un-navire-dune-ong-et-300-migrants-bo

    • Sea Watch 3 e Sea Eye: le due navi che nessuno vuole far attraccare

      Le navi delle due Ong vagano da giorni nel Mediterraneo con decine di migranti a bordo, senza un porto sicuro dove approdare e in condizioni sempre più complicate. I sogni delle persone salvate

      32 esseri umani, tra cui 3 minori non accompagnati, 2 bambini piccoli e un neonato, sono da 10 giorni in mare. Sono stati salvati dalla Ong tedesca Sea Watch. A questi si sono aggiunti altre 17 persone salvati da un’altra Ong tedesca, Sea Eye.
      Nessuno li vuole, nessun Paese europeo vuol farsi carico del destino di queste persone. L’Agenzia delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati ha chiesto agli Stati Ue di garantire lo sbarco delle due navi.

      «Non vogliamo che le persone che ci hanno salvato la vita, i nostri fratelli, passino dei guai per averci soccorso in mare», dice Youssef. «Siamo sfuggiti a torture e violenze. Quando abbiamo lasciato la nostra casa abbiamo perso i nostri affetti più cari, e proprio per questi motivi la nostra vita in futuro non potrà che essere migliore», aggiunge Lamin.

      Nonostante tutto, in queste parole c’è speranza. Se i loro nomi sono di fantasia, per proteggerne le identità, i loro sogni, ma anche le loro paure e le loro attese sono autentiche: così come lo sono le loro vite sottratte alla morte dal coraggio dei volontari della nave Sea Watch 3. Da dieci giorni è con queste 32 persone salvate dai marosi che l’equipaggio del comandante Anne Paul Lancet condivide umanità, cibo e riparo: «Durante la notte stiamo stretti sotto coperta, in questo modo tutti quanti possiamo stare all’asciutto ed evitare che qualcuno debba dormire sul ponte esposto alle intemperie», racconta Ayla, uno dei medici a bordo della nave della Ong tedesca.
      «Stamattina ho quasi pianto - aggiunge l’altro medico a bordo - perché tante persone mi pregavano solo di poter contattare le loro famiglie almeno per dire loro che erano al sicuro e stavano arrivando in Europa: volevano solo sentire le voci dei loro cari per qualche secondo. E noi non possiamo far nulla: e se io mi trovassi al loro posto, e se io avessi quegli stessi bisogni e desideri?», si chiede ancora il medico tedesco, guardando fuori l’orizzonte.
      L’inverno e il mare alto non perdonano, le temperature sono rigide e i rischi per l’incolumità delle 54 persone che si trovano sulla nave Sea Watch non dovrebbero venire sottovalutati. Al tavolo della politica europea, però, lontano dalle onde alte due metri, non si è ancora presa alcuna decisione sulla sicurezza di queste persone, tenute in “ostaggio” senza l’indicazione di un porto sicuro di approdo.
      Malta, Italia, Spagna, Germania e Olanda hanno rifiutato nei giorni scorsi di aiutarli e a bordo della Sea Watch 3 così come della Sea Eye si sta vivendo un’altra odissea umanitaria: molto simile nelle modalità alle crisi che avevano tenuto in scacco in estate le navi Aquarius, Open Arms e Lifeline delle ong internazionali, e i pescherecci Sarost5 e Nuestra Madre de Loreto che dovettero attendere giorni e giorni prima di potersi mettere al riparo in porto. E perfino della Diciotti, la nave della Guardia Costiera Italiana, costretta a navigare da Lampedusa a Catania e infine rimasta bloccata nel porto etneo in attesa che dal Viminale arrivasse l’ok allo sbarco dei migranti, in gran parte profughi di guerra dal Corno d’Africa.

      La situazione a bordo della Sea Watch inizia a farsi proibitiva, anche a causa del peggioramento delle condizioni meteo: «Non abbiamo problemi con il carburante - rassicura il capitano - ma lentamente stiamo esaurendo le provviste di cibo fresco e di sicuro nelle prossime settimane, pur cercando a bordo di sprecare meno acqua possibile, avremo problemi ad avere acqua a disposizione a causa del nostro sistema di filtraggio».
      «Ma perché non ci permettono di entrare in Europa?», chiede Amina che ha 31 anni e viene dal Sudan: lei è la portavoce dei sogni di tanti dei suoi compagni di sventura, ma riesce anche a dare voce all’interrogativo di tantissimi soccorritori che in mare hanno speso le loro vite per salvarne altre. «Oramai è diventato sempre più difficile spiegare alle persone che abbiamo tratto in salvo e con cui stiamo condividendo tantissime emozioni contrastanti e ore infinite di attesa, che dobbiamo restare in mare un giorno in più, perché dall’Europa non riceviamo indicazioni per un porto sicuro», spiega ancora Ayla, la dottoressa olandese, convinta che «i Paesi europei abbiano scelto finora di non assumersi la responsabilità delle vite delle persone in gioco sul confine mortale dell’Europa».
      Come abbiamo raccontato su Avvenire, Amina e le altre 31 persone sono state salvate dalla Sea Watch 3 lo scorso 22 dicembre grazie alla collaborazione con la ong Pilotes Volontaires che sorvola i cieli con l’obiettivo di avvistare gommoni e imbarcazioni in emergenza. Da allora e in attesa di ricevere indicazioni per approdare sulla terraferma l’equipaggio del capitano Lancet non si è arreso e - sostenuto anche dalle persone salvate «Sono qui per aiutare», ha detto subito Youssef mettendosi a disposizione del comandante - ha continuato a pattugliare la zona di search and rescue (Sar) libica, rispondendo alle chiamate di soccorso. Così era accaduto per le 75 persone che erano a bordo di un gommone pochi giorni fa, ma di cui non si sono più avuto notizie, probabilmente perché ingoiati dal mare o ripresi da una motovedetta libica che li ha riportati nei campi di detenzione.

      «Ho davvero paura di tornare in Libia, ho provato a scappare due volte senza riuscirci - ha raccontato ancora Amina lasciando uscire le parole con lentezza -. Quello che ho passato è stato terribile», così tanto da non riuscire quasi più a parlarne, come accade spesso con i traumi più violenti. «Avevamo molta paura quando eravamo sul gommone. Non abbiamo usato il telefono satellitare per il terrore di essere localizzati e ripresi dai libici - ha aggiunto Youssef -. Grazie a Dio siamo stati molto fortunati e i nostri fratelli ci hanno salvati. E ora possiamo prepararci a scoprire quello che sarà il nostro futuro in Europa».

      I bambini provano a raccontare i loro giorni più tristi e le paure attraverso i disegni. Uno di loro ha riportato su carta tre momenti: la vista del barcone su cui sarebbero saltati per lasciarsi alla spalle l’inferno libico, poi il gommone che si sgonfia, mentre i 32 temevano di perdere la vita, e infine la visione della Sea Watch 3, l’unico soggetto disegnato completamente a colori. Un passaggio, dal bianco e nero del gommone alla vivacità della nave di salvataggio, che da solo spiega i timori e le speranze di chi adesso, finalmente al sicuro, non si spiega il perché delle porte chiuse.
      Un sogno e un desiderio, quello dell’Europa, che emerge ancora dalle parole straziate dal dolore di Amina: «Noi donne dobbiamo essere forti – si lascia andare la donna, mentre i medici di bordo le prestano le cure –. Soprattutto possiamo essere libere in Europa. Lì possiamo vivere la nostra vita, ecco perché voglio raggiungerla». Quell’Europa che però sembra aver voltato loro le spalle.

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-migranti-bloccati-in-mare

    • E LA NAVE VA… È piena di naufraghi nessun porto la vuole

      Da dieci giorni in mare decine di profughi e nessuno li vuole

      C’è un bambino appena nato che ha trascorso la notte di Capodanno in mezzo al mare. Al largo di Malta. Le autorità europee hanno deciso che è bene così. Che se l’è meritata. Insieme a quel bambino ci sono due ragazzini un po’ più grandi, tre quattr’anni, altri tre adolescenti senza genitori, e poi ancora 26 adulti, tutti africani, tutti in fuga dalla guerra, scappati dai campi di prigionia in Libia. Stavano su un gommone il 22 dicembre, volevano arrivare in Sicilia, ma il gommone ha iniziato a sgonfiarsi, le onde erano alte, il vento gelido, e loro pensavano di essere a pochi minuti dalla morte. Poi li ha avvistati un piccolo aereo da ricognizione di una Ong tedesca, Dio lo benedica, ed ha lanciato la esseoesse ad una imbarcazione sempre della stessa Ong tedesca, la Sea Watch. L’aereo ha fornito al comandante della Sea Watch le coordinate del gommone, e la Sea Watch ha raggiunto i naufraghi in tempo. Li hanno fatti salire a bordo, li hanno asciugati, riscaldati, hanno dato loro da mangiare. Il bimbo neonato ha smesso di piangere. I 31 naufraghi hanno ringraziato il personale tedesco e olandese a bordo, erano commossi, non si aspettavano più di poter sopravvivere.

      Hanno raccontato a Ilaria Solaini, che è una giornalista inviata dell’Avvenire, i loro sentimenti, il terrore di morire o di finire nel lager libici. Hanno detto che avrebbero voluto poter parlare un minuto solo, al telefono, con i loro cari lasciati a casa. Ma non hanno potuto. Hanno chiesto di poter sbarcare in un porto europeo. Malta, Spagna e poi Italia hanno risposto con un no secco. Hanno detto che loro devono difendere i confini. Anche Germania e Olanda – che non dispongono di porti ( né di confini) nel Mediterraneo – hanno detto di no. Le onde da qualche ora si sono fatte più alte. Il meteo dice che da stanotte si va sottozero. Di acqua non ce n’è tantissima. Di cibo poco. I medici a bordo della nave temono che possano apparire delle malattie. I marinai temono che il mare possa alzarsi molto. Gli ausiliari temono il freddo. Fin qui sono riusciti a far dormire tutti, di notte, sottocoperta. Anche sottocoperta però, se si va sottozero, diventa dura. Intanto un’altra imbarcazione di una Ong tedesca, la See Eye, ha raccolto altri 17 naufraghi. Anche loro sono stati rifiutati da tutti i porti europei. Qui non c’è posto, hanno detto. Tornate in Libia. Buona Fortuna.

      L’altro giorno la Sea Watch ha ricevuto una richiesta di soccorso di un altro gommone ancora. Lo ha avvistato sempre l’aereo di ricognizione. Dall’aereo hanno detto che a bordo c’erano circa 75 persone. E hanno fornito alla Sea Watch, di nuovo, le coordinate. La Sea Watch però non ha trovato il gommone. Neanche l’aereo lo ha più visto. Spariti. Nella migliore delle ipotesi sono stati catturati dai libici, e portati in un lager sulla costa. Nella peggiore se li è mangiati il mare.

      E’ vero, i confini ora sono ben difesi. E i caduti tra le fila dei nemici aumentano a vista d’occhio. La vittoria è vicina. Vabbè, diciamo che comunque 32, più 17, più una ventina di persone di equipaggio, tra marinai, medici e ausiliari, in tutto fa un po’ meno di settanta persone. Cosa volete che sia se 70 persone passano il Capodanno in mare per decisione delle autorità europee. Con tutto quello che succede nel mondo volete scandalizzarvi per così poco?

      Facevo un po’ di conti. Se non calcoliamo i soccorritori, che comunque poi se ne torneranno a casa loro, si tratta di 48 persone più un neonato di un paio di chili. L’Europa comunitaria, secondo le statistiche ufficiali, ha 503 milioni, 679 mila e 730 abitanti. Voi dite che se ospita anche questi 48, più un neonato, scoppia? O dite che i suoi 15 mila 326 miliardi di Pil annuo potrebbero andare dispersi nel soccorrere questi 49 disperati?

      Eppure è così. Talvolta la politica è esattamente così. Succede che sia la ragion di Stato a prevalere sul senso di umanità. Succede spesso. Stavolta la ragion di stato non c’entra niente. C’entrano solo i calcoli politici dei leader europei. Quanto potranno costare 49 naufraghi? Qualche migliaia di euro, che sono niente per gli Stati. E diverse migliaia, o centinaia di migliaia di voti: che sono molto, molto per i partiti.

      P. S. Inizia così la dichiarazione dei diritti universali dell’uomo, redatta dall’Onu 70 anni fa: «Considerato che il riconoscimento della dignità inerente a tutti i membri della famiglia umana e dei loro diritti, uguali ed inalienabili, costituisce il fondamento della libertà, della giustizia e della pace nel mondo; Considerato che il disconoscimento e il disprezzo dei diritti umani hanno portato ad atti di barbarie che offendono la coscienza dell’umanità…» . Poi c’è l’articolo 13 che dice così: «Ogni individuo ha diritto alla libertà di movimento e di residenza entro i confini di ogni Stato. Ogni individuo ha diritto di lasciare qualsiasi paese, incluso il proprio, e di ritornare nel proprio paese».

      E infine l’articolo 14, che si potrebbe anche imparare a memoria, perché è molto breve: «Ogni individuo ha il diritto di cercare e di godere in altri paesi asilo dalle persecuzioni». Chissà se i governanti di Germania, Olanda, Spagna, Malta e Italia hanno mai letto questi articoli. Si potrebbe proporre agli Stati europei di chiedere a chiunque entri in un governo della Ue di superare un esamino nel quale dimostra di conoscere la dichiarazione dei diritti dell’Uomo…

      http://ildubbio.news/ildubbio/2019/01/02/e-la-nave-va-e-piena-di-naufraghi-nessun-porto-la-vuole

    • Le Sea Watch 3, avec à bord 32 migrants depuis le 22 décembre, a été autorisé par les autorités maltaises à pénétrer dans ses eaux territoriales, pour s’abriter de la très menaçante météo. Mais ni accostage, ni soins ni accueil

      Un bateau de l’alliance #United4Med (Sea Watch et Mediterranea) a rejoint aujourd’hui (4/1/19) SeaWatch3. A bord le témoignage d’Alessandra Sciurba (Mediterranea) :
      https://www.instagram.com/p/BsNom3NCA1X

    • Un nouveau bateau de sauvetage affrété par la société civile basque et andalouse

      Le 14 ou le 15 janvier, partira de Pasaia, port basque, l’ex-chalutier l’#Aita_Mari, pour secourir en Méditerranée les personnes fuyant la Libye.
      Il fera escale le 16 janvier à Bilbao, passera par Barcelone puis par Majorque - avant de rejoindre les eaux au large de la Libye.
      Ce bateau a été acheté, dans cet objectif, par le gouvernement basque et remis en état par la société civile.
      Le projet est soutenu par deux associations, une basque et une andalouse.
      Les rescapés à bord, le bateau tentera d’accoster à Malte ou en Italie, mais aura toujours la possibilité, en cas de refus, de faire route vers un port espagnol, puisqu’il navigue sous pavillon espagnol.
      A son bord, sept bénévoles, 5 secouristes, 2 médecins.
      Il y aussi un mécanicien et un cuisinier.
      Et les deux capitaines, celui du bateau, et celui des secours.
      Une cabine est prévue pour un.e journaliste.
      L’équipe communiquera régulièrement et aura besoin de relai.

      Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • EU nations deadlocked on rescued migrants

      Nearly 50 migrants rescued in the Mediterranean by two ships run by rights groups are still looking for countries to take them in, one of the groups told AFP Saturday.

      “The situation is still the same,” a spokeswoman for one of the groups, Sea Watch, said.

      Their vessel, Sea Watch 3, was sheltering from stormy weather off the coast of Malta, which like Italy, has refused to allow the boat into port.

      It has had 32 migrants on board, three of them children, since rescuing them on December 22.

      A one-year-old baby and two children, aged six and seven, “are vomiting continuously and are at risk of hypothermia and dehydration,” Alessandro Metz of rights group Mediterranean wrote on Twitter Friday.

      The German NGO Sea-Eye also has a ship stranded in the Mediterranean with 17 migrants on board.


      https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-nations-deadlocked-on-rescued-migrants-1.809725

    • Ecco la diffida al governo per accogliere i 49 migranti bloccati in mare

      Azione di cittadinanza attiva in almeno 90 Province italiane: «Abbiamo consegnato in Prefettura un documento che obbliga le autorità ad adempiere alle leggi di soccorso di mare», spiega Antonio Nigro del movimento Move to resist, che ha mutuato il testo diffuso da Possibile

      http://www.vita.it/it/article/2019/01/07/ecco-la-diffida-al-governo-per-accogliere-i-49-migranti-bloccati-in-ma/150262

    • “La Chiesa accoglierà i migranti della Sea Watch”

      L’annuncio di Nosiglia durante la festa dei Popoli: un gesto simbolico ma concreto.
      «Voglio dichiarare la disponibilità della Chiesa torinese ad accogliere alcune delle famiglie che si trovano a bordo delle navi Sea Watch 3 e Sea Eye». Lo ha annunciato l’arcivescovo di Torino, monsignor Cesare Nosiglia, oggi alla chiesa del Santo Volto, durante l’omelia nella Festa dei Popoli. «La nostra Chiesa, come si ricorderà - ha aggiunto Nosiglia - aveva già offerto questa disponibilità per i profughi della nave Diciotti, nel settembre scorso».


      https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/06/cronaca/la-chiesa-accoglier-i-migranti-della-sea-watch-8uxIAoytx33U6r7hjA65UN/pagina.html

    • #Diaconia_Valdese e #FCEI pronti all’accompagnamento dei profughi della Sea-Watch
      Chiese evangeliche. “Il nostro sostegno alle ONG perché il soccorso in mare e l’accoglienza a terra sono un dovere umanitario. Per noi è anche la testimonianza dell’amore di Cristo”. FCEI e Diaconia valdese pronti all’accompagnamento e all’accoglienza dei 49 profughi della Sea-Watch e della Sea eye.

      “Confermiamo il nostro sostegno alle ONG che svolgono azioni di soccorso in mare e ci rendiamo disponibili a sostenere il trasferimento e l’accoglienza dei migranti salvati dalla Sea-Watch e dalla Sea eye”. Lo affermano congiuntamente il Presidente della Federazione delle chiese evangeliche in Italia, past. Luca M. Negro, e il Presidente della Diaconia Valdese, Giovanni Comba. “Come FCEI siamo impegnati in un partenariato con Open Arms, la ONG che nei giorni scorsi ha salvato oltre trecento persone in mare – aggiunge Negro – e oggi sentiamo nostro dovere esprimere il sostegno attivo alla altre navi impegnate in azioni di soccorso che da giorni aspettano un porto sicuro in cui attraccare”. E infatti la vicepresidente della FCEI, Christiane Groeben, oggi 4 gennaio parteciperà alla delegazione di politici, esponenti della società civile e del volontariato che saliranno a bordo della Sea-Watch per chiedere con forza una rapida soluzione a quella che rischia di diventare una drammatica violazione del diritto alla protezione internazionale. “Stiamo lavorando con i nostri partner per costruire un corridoio europeo e la città di Heidelberg e le sue chiese hanno già manifestato la loro disponibilità all’accoglienza. Siamo pronti a farci carico del trasporto dei migranti nella loro destinazione finale e a collaborare per la loro accoglienza" aggiunge il presidente Comba.

      https://www.diaconiavaldese.org/csd/news/diaconia-valdese-e-fcei-pronti-all-accompagnamento-e-all-accoglienz

    • #Malte profite de l’urgence pour se délester de 220 migrants

      Le Premier ministre maltais a annoncé un accord pour le débarquement des 49 migrants bloqués sur deux navires d’ONG allemandes et leur répartition dans huit pays européens. Il se débarrasse en passant de 220 migrants déjà accueillis à Malte.

      Les 49 migrants coincés depuis parfois plus de deux semaines en mer avaient été secourus dans les eaux internationales au large de la Libye, le 22 décembre par l’ONG Sea-Watch pour 32 d’entre eux, et le 29 décembre par l’ONG Sea-Eye pour les 17 autres.

      Les pays européens se sont finalement mis d’accord pour les secourir. Ils doivent être transférés « dès que possible » sur des vedettes de la marine maltaise, qui les conduiront à La Valette. Ensuite, Malte a prié les navires des deux ONG de s’éloigner « immédiatement ».

      Les deux navires avaient été autorisés il y a une semaine à s’abriter du mauvais temps dans les eaux maltaises, mais l’accord en vue d’un débarquement des migrants a pris du temps parce que Malte exigeait d’y inclure 249 autres migrants que ce petit pays méditerranéen avait secourus et accueillis ces derniers jours.

      « Un accord ad hoc a été trouvé. Sur les 249 (migrants) présents à Malte et les 49 à bord (des navires de) Sea-Watch and Sea-Eye, 220 personnes seront redistribuées dans d’autres pays membres ou rentreront dans leur pays d’origine », a déclaré Joseph Muscat au cours d’une conférence de presse à Malte.

      Les migrants seront répartis entre l’Allemagne, la France, le Portugal, l’Irlande, la Roumanie, le Luxembourg, les Pays-Bas et l’Italie, a précisé Joseph Muscat.

      Parallèlement, 44 Bangladais du groupe des migrants déjà présents à Malte seront renvoyés dans leur pays, La Valette estimant qu’ils n’ont pas de raison d’y demander l’asile. Au final, 78 des migrants du premier groupe resteront à Malte, le plus petit pays de l’UE avec 450 000 habitants.

      « Malte n’a jamais fermé ses ports et reste un port sûr. Nous voulons simplement que tous respectent les règles internationales que nous n’avons pas créées, nous », a assuré le Premier ministre, malgré l’interdiction jusqu’ici exprimée.

      « Un signe de faiblesse »

      « Nous voulions faire passer un message politique fort, à savoir que le fardeau devait être partagé car il s’agit d’un problème européen. Il ne s’agit pas d’un discours contre les ONG, nous voulons simplement que tous suivent les règles », a insisté le Maltais.

      « Chaque heure passée sans règlement n’était pas une heure dont j’étais fier », a-t-il ajouté, en regrettant que la solution n’implique que quelques pays et non l’ensemble de l’UE.

      Redoutant de voir les arrivées dans ses eaux se multiplier à l’avenir maintenant que les navires de secours plus au sud se sont raréfiés, Malte avait plaidé pour une solution « complète et globale ».

      « Malte est un très petit pays et il est dans notre nature d’aider les personnes en détresse, mais en tant que Premier ministre, je ne peux pas me soustraire à la responsabilité de préserver notre sécurité et nos intérêts nationaux », a expliqué Joseph Muscat, répétant que le présent accord ne constituait pas « un précédent ».

      Le commissaire européen chargé des migrations, Dimitris Avramopoulos, s’est réjoui qu’une solution ait été trouvée pour permettre aux migrants de débarquer et a salué le geste de solidarité de Malte et des États membres.

      En Italie, la question faisait encore débat : le ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini s’oppose farouchement à tout débarquement, mais le chef du gouvernement Giuseppe Conte s’est dit prêt à aller chercher les migrants « en avion ».

      « À Bruxelles, ils font semblant de ne rien comprendre et facilitent le travail des passeurs et des ONG. Je suis et je resterai absolument opposé à de nouvelles arrivées en Italie », a réagi Matteo Salvini, également patron de la Ligue (extrême droite), dans un communiqué.

      « Céder aux pressions et aux menaces de l’Europe et des ONG est un signe de faiblesse que les Italiens ne mérite pas », a ajouté le ministre, qui a lancé mardi soir sur Twitter le mot d’ordre #SalviniNonMollare (« Salvini tiens bon »), parmi les plus partagés depuis en Italie.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/malte-profite-de-lurgence-pour-se-delester-de-220-migrants

    • Migranti, anche in Spagna stretta sulle Ong: Open Arms bloccata a Barcellona

      Dopo aver fatto sbarcare ad #Algeciras 311 migranti il 28 dicembre scorso, la nave sarebbe dovuta ripartire l’8 gennaio per una nuova missione. Ma le autorità hanno negato l’autorizzazione: così nel Mediterraneo centrale non ci sono più imbarcazioni delle organizzazioni per il salvataggio

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/01/14/news/migranti_open_arms_bloccata_in_spagna-216523058

    • "Je ne pourrai bientôt plus parler, je gèle" : faute de secours, 100 migrants ont passé plus de 12 heures en mer

      Pendant plus de 12h, la plateforme téléphonique Alarm Phone a alerté dimanche les autorités italiennes, maltaises et libyennes sur une embarcation en détresse au large de la Libye. Rome et La Valette ont, toute la journée, renvoyé la responsabilité à Tripoli qui a finalement coordonné le secours de ce canot en envoyant un navire marchand, plus de 12h après la première alerte.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/14641/je-ne-pourrai-bientot-plus-parler-je-gele-faute-de-secours-100-migrant

    • Navire Sea-Watch bloqué en Méditerranée : « La mer est agitée et certains migrants sont malades »

      Après avoir été bloqué deux semaines début janvier en Méditerranée dans l’attente d’être accepté par un port européen, le navire humanitaire Sea-Watch erre une nouvelle fois en mer depuis son dernier sauvetage. Cinq jours se sont déjà écoulés, avec 47 migrants rescapés à bord dont huit enfants, et aucun signe encourageant de la part des pays européens.

      L’histoire se répète. L’ONG allemande Sea Watch, dont le navire humanitaire a secouru le 19 janvier dernier 47 personnes qui se trouvaient à bord d’un bateau pneumatique, attend depuis maintenant cinq jours l’autorisation d’accoster en Europe. Lors d’une précédente opération de sauvetage, le même navire avait erré deux semaines en mer avant d’être autorisé à débarquer ses rescapés à Malte le 9 janvier dernier. Un épisode qualifié de “record de la honte” par plusieurs ONG.

      L’équipage et les passagers actuellement à bord sont “assez stressés”, confie une porte-parole de Sea Watch contactée par InfoMigrants. “La nuit a été difficile. La mer est agitée et certains sont malades”, poursuit-elle, précisant que le groupe compte huit mineurs non-accompagnés et neuf nationalités différentes : Guinée, Sénégal, Guinée-Bissau, Mali, Sierra Leone, Centrafrique, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambie et Soudan.

      "Une fois de plus, nous sommes à la merci des autorités"

      “Aucun État n’a encore répondu à nos requêtes pour un port sûr”, déplore l’ONG sur Twitter, estimant que “l’Union européenne empêche le dernier navire humanitaire de travailler, alors que des centaines de personnes meurent en Méditerranée”.

      Les 47 migrants actuellement à bord du Sea-Watch ont été pris en charge après qu’Alarm Phone et l’avion de repérage Moonbird ont donné l’alerte. “Juste après le sauvetage, nous avons informé le MRCC de Rome puisque le port sûr le plus proche de notre position était celui de Lampedusa. Ils nous ont renvoyés vers les garde-côtes libyens. Nous avons essayé de les joindre, en vain. Nous ne savons même pas s’ils lisent nos emails”, explique la porte-parole de l’ONG jointe par InfoMigrants.

      Dans l’impasse, l’équipage du Sea-Watch s’est donc tourné vers le MRCC de Malte puis celui de Den Helder, au Pays-Bas puisque le navire humanitaire bat pavillon néerlandais. “Tous les deux ont décliné toute responsabilité. Nous avons demandé un port sûr à plusieurs reprises à tous ces interlocuteurs, mais nous sommes une fois de plus à la merci des autorités, dans l’attente d’un ordre de leur part”, affirme-t-elle.

      "La détresse des migrants comme outil de chantage politique"

      Dix jours avant ce nouveau sauvetage, le Sea-Watch et un autre navire humanitaire, le Sea-Eye, avaient finalement pu débarquer 49 migrants à Malte après plus de deux semaines d’errance en Méditerranée. Une période particulièrement difficile, les installations à bord des navires humanitaires ne permettant pas d’héberger durablement autant de personnes et les conditions météorologiques rendant la vie à bord très pénible.

      Malgré les demandes répétées des ONG, pendant 19 jours, le gouvernement maltais avait refusé de laisser débarquer dans son port ces 49 migrants : 32 secourus au large de la Libye le 22 décembre par le Sea-Watch et 17 autres sauvés le 29 décembre par le Sea-Eye.

      Redoutant de voir les arrivées dans ses eaux se multiplier et de devenir la principale porte d’entrée des migrants en Europe – l’Italie ayant fermé ses ports aux navires humanitaires – Malte a finalement négocié avec plusieurs pays européens un accord de répartition des 49 migrants ainsi que 249 autres recueillis quelques jours plus tôt par les autorités maltaises.

      "Nous voulions faire passer un message politique fort, à savoir que le fardeau devait être partagé car il s’agit d’un problème européen. Il ne s’agit pas d’un discours contre les ONG, nous voulons simplement que tous suivent les règles", avait déclaré le Premier ministre maltais Joseph Muscat au moment où l’accord a été trouvé.

      Mais Sea Watch ne l’entend pas de la sorte. “Nous ne pouvons pas nous retrouver encore dans cette impasse, c’était trop difficile la dernière fois pour notre équipage comme pour les rescapés. Il est inacceptable que les gouvernements européens utilisent des personnes en détresse comme outils de chantage dans leurs luttes de pouvoir”, conclut la porte-parole.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/14700/navire-sea-watch-bloque-en-mediterranee-la-mer-est-agitee-et-certains-

    • Dutch refuse Italian request to accept 47 migrants on rescue ship: government

      The Netherlands refused on Monday an Italian request to take in 47 migrants on a humanitarian ship that is being blocked from Italian ports, saying there was a need to distinguish between genuine refugees and economic migrants.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-italy-netherlands/dutch-refuse-italian-request-to-accept-47-migrants-on-rescue-ship-governmen
      #Pays-Bas #tri #catégorisation

      Dans l’article on parle de:
      #genuine_refugees and #economic_migrants
      #terminologie #mots #vocabulaire

      v. aussi le tweet de Sea Watch:
      Le comunicazioni intercorse tra #SeaWatch e l’Olanda per la richiesta di porto rifugio (POR).
      https://twitter.com/SeaWatchItaly/status/1089815346113069057

    • Caso Sea Watch. Il Garante, Mauro Palma: “E’ illecita detenzione”

      Inviata informativa alla Procura di Siracusa e richiesto al Ministro dei trasporti Toninelli di consentire urgentemente lo sbarco: «Le persone sono la nostra giurisdizione, anche se con bandiera straniera». Intanto 50 organizzazioni scrivono al premier Conte: «Sbarco Immediato». E il Cnca si dice disponibile ad accogliere i migranti nelle sue strutture

      http://www.agenzia.redattoresociale.it/Notiziario/Articolo/617603/Caso-Sea-Watch-Il-Garante-Mauro-Palma-E-illecita-detenzione

    • Les migrants du Sea-Watch 3 vont pouvoir débarquer grâce à un accord entre sept pays européens

      L’Italie a annoncé un accord avec six autres pays européens pour répartir les 47 migrants bloqués depuis 12 jours en mer sur le Sea-Watch. Le navire est attendu dans la nuit au port de Catane, dans l’est de la Sicile.

      Les 47 migrants bloqués depuis près de deux semaines à bord du Sea-Watch 3 au large de la Sicile vont pouvoir débarquer grâce à un accord conclu mercredi 30 janvier entre l’Italie et six autres pays européens pour répartir les migrants.

      Le Sea-Watch 3, qui se trouvait depuis vendredi au large du port sicilien de Syracuse pour s’abriter du mauvais temps, « a reçu l’instruction de se diriger vers le port de Catane », environ 70 km plus au nord, où il est attendu dans la nuit, a annoncé une source ministérielle italienne.

      A la mi-journée, le chef du gouvernement italien, Giuseppe Conte, avait annoncé que les opérations de débarquement allaient débuter « dans les prochaines heures ». Les six pays avec laquelle l’Italie a conclu un accord sont la France, le Portugal, l’Allemagne, Malte, le Luxembourg et la Roumanie. Il n’était pas clair si l’Italie elle-même garderait une partie des migrants. Giuseppe Conte l’a laissé entendre mais son ministre de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, qui s’y est toujours opposé de manière catégorique, ne l’a pas confirmé.

      « Prise d’otages européenne »

      « Nous sommes heureux que cette prise d’otages européenne prenne fin », a déclaré le porte-parole de Sea-Watch, Ruben Neugebauer. « En même temps, c’est un mauvais jour pour l’Europe car les droits humains ont une fois de plus été subordonnés à des négociations au sein de l’UE. Encore un jour amer », a-t-il ajouté.

      Depuis des mois, diplomates européens et humanitaires réclament un mécanisme permanent de répartition des migrants secourus en mer pour leur épargner les interminables discussions au cas par cas.

      Mais les cas pourraient devenir de plus en plus rares avec le blocage progressif des navires humanitaires privés, comme l’Aquarius de SOS Méditerranée et Médecins sans frontières (MSF) ou l’Open Arms de l’ONG espagnole Proactiva Open Arms.

      Le choix d’envoyer à Catane le Sea-Watch 3, affrété par l’ONG allemande Sea-Watch et battant pavillon néerlandais, semble répondre au souhait formulé par M. Salvini de voir la justice enquêter sur les activités de l’équipage.

      Le gouvernement italien lui reproche de ne pas avoir laissé les garde-côtes libyens se charger des migrants, puis de s’être précipité vers l’Italie plutôt que de chercher refuge sur la côte tunisienne, qui était beaucoup plus proche. Mais l’ONG assure n’avoir jamais reçu de réponse de Tripoli ni de Tunis.

      Le procureur de Syracuse, Fabio Scavone, a estimé lundi que le commandant du Sea-Watch n’avait « commis aucun délit » et avait seulement « sauvé les migrants et choisi la route qui semblait la plus sûre sur le moment ».

      Mais à Catane, le procureur Carmelo Zuccaro s’est montré particulièrement incisif contre les ONG depuis deux ans. En mars 2018, il avait obtenu le placement sous séquestre de l’Open Arms dans le cadre d’une enquête pour aide à l’immigration clandestine contre les responsables du bateau qui avaient refusé de remettre des migrants secourus aux garde-côtes libyens.

      La source au ministère de l’Intérieur a expliqué que Catane avait été choisie parce qu’elle compte des centres pour l’accueil des 13 adolescents du groupe. Les migrants majeurs seront conduits dans un centre d’identification et de premier accueil à Messine, également en Sicile.

      « Mission accomplie ! », s’est réjoui M. Salvini mercredi. « Encore une fois (...), l’Europe a été contrainte à intervenir et à prendre ses responsabilités ».

      https://www.france24.com/fr/20190130-migrants-sea-watch-italie-catane-salvini-accord-europeen

    • No more civilian rescue boats off Libyan coast

      The civilian rescue vessel Sea Watch 3, which was detained in Italy on Friday, is the latest of such boats to stop operations in the central Mediterranean. Now, only the Libyan Coast Guard is able to save migrants risking their lives at sea in an attempt to reach Europe from North Africa.

      The main non-government organizations rescuing migrants off the coast of Libya stopped their efforts in mid-2017, mainly because of increased threats from the Libyan Coast Guard. The news agency AFP compiled this update on migrant rescue organizations and their activities:

      The Maltese aid group MOAS, which was the first to carry out migrant rescue operations in 2014 and had deployed two vessels, transferred its activities to helping the Rohingya in Bangladesh in September 2017.

      At about the same time, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) ended its operations with the Vos Prudence, the biggest private boat deployed off Libya with a record 1,500 people rescued at the same time.

      Save the Children ended its search and rescue operations with the Vos Hestia in October 2017.

      In August 2017, Italian authorities impounded the Juventa, operated by small German aid group Jugend Rettet, after it was accused of helping Libyan human traffickers. Jugend Rettet has denied the charge.

      The Lifeline rescue vessel, operated by a German aid group of the same name, was impounded on arrival in Valletta, Malta, in June 2018, for alleged registration issues.

      The aid groups SOS Mediterranee and MSF stopped search and rescue operations with the Aquarius in December 2018 after it was stuck in a French port for two months following the revocation of its registration.

      In January 2019, Spanish authorities refused to allow the Open Arms ship to leave Barcelona harbor. In early 2018 the boat, operated by the Spanish NGO Proactiva Open Arms, was impounded for a month by Italy. It was then forced to take rescued migrants to Spain several times after Malta and Italy refused to allow them to disembark.

      The Sea Eye charity from Germany had several vessels impounded during 2018 but deployed another ship, the Professor Albrecht Penck, in December, rescuing 12 migrants. The boat is currently in Majorca and plans to set sail again in around two weeks, according to AFP.

      SOS Mediterranee has said it is looking for another boat and flag so it can continue search and rescue operations.

      In Italy a collective of associations launched the Mediterranea, flying an Italian flag, mainly to witness the situation for migrants off Libya.

      There are also two light aircraft which overfly the Mediterranean trying to identify and locate boats in trouble: the Colibri operated by French aid group Pilotes Volontaires, and the Moonbird operated by Sea Watch.


      http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/14966/no-more-civilian-rescue-boats-off-libyan-coast
      #the_end

    • Sea Watch 3 still held in Catania, despite rescue vessel vacuum in the Mediterranean

      The crew of the migrant rescue vessel Sea Watch 3 are ready to continue life saving operations in the central Mediterranean but the vessel remains without permission to leave from Catania harbour, the NGO said yesterday.

      With NGO vessels being barred from leaving ports and coast guard and navy ships withdrawn from the area, it is not known how many attempted crossings there have been over the past week.

      The Sea-Watch 3 vessel remains unable to leave Catania under orders of the port authority and is barred from performing essential search and rescue activities in the Central Mediterranean Sea.

      The vessel was recently caught up in another migrant stand-off between Malta and Sicily and was eventually allowed to disembark the migrants it had rescued in Catania.

      However, the vessel has not been allowed to leave, in what is reminiscent of the time it spent impounded in Malta during the summer of 2018.

      Earlier this year, the vessel, along with another ship operated by the Sea-Eye NGO, was left stranded off the coast of Malta for over two weeks.

      The rescued migrants were eventually disembarked in Malta after an agreement was reached between several member states. The vessels were then ordered to leave Maltese waters, with permission for a crew change reportedly denied.

      Maltese national Danny Mainwaring is among the crew members currently stuck on the Sea Watch in the port of Catania.

      In comments to The Malta Independent, Sea Watch said: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Catania stated that Sea-Watch and the crew of its last mission have committed no criminal offence and that all their actions in the rescue of 19 January were justified, as the vessel and her crew saved the lives of 47 people whose boat was bound to sink.

      “That mission culminated in a stand-off that saw vulnerable people stranded at sea on the coast of Syracuse as European leaders failed to provide a port of safety in a timely manner. Despite the public acknowledgement that Sea-Watch conducted itself within the law, the vessel remains barred from departing on technical grounds and awaits a visit from the Dutch flag state requested by the Italian Coast Guard.

      “The Sea-Watch 3 passed a flag state inspection in the summer of 2018, which also confirmed its correct registration. We find ourselves in a scenario reminiscent to that which unfolded in Malta that same summer, when the vessel was kept from leaving port for over four months while a record number of people drowned at sea.

      “EU governments have unanimously adopted a policy of attempting to criminalize sea rescue NGOs and instead finance, train and provide logistical support to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard.

      “Despite the fact that Libya remains in a state of civil war and migrants and refugees face well documented human rights abuses in its detention facilities, the EU is outsourcing a policy of forced return to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

      “This principle, enshrined in international law, prohibits governments from returning asylum seekers to a country in which they face a well-founded fear of persecution, and inhumane and degrading treatment.

      “With many national coast guard and navy assets withdrawn from the Central Mediterranean and no NGO vessels currently at sea, it is not known how many attempted crossings there have been over the past week. With absolute numbers of crossings declining but the death rate rising, one can only conclude that Europe has strayed from the spirit of cooperation and respect for human rights that it was founded on; the same spirit that breathed life into Operation Sophia when mass drownings alarmed the continent and the world in May 2015.

      “The Sea-Watch 3 and her crew are ready to sail and perform the essential life saving duties for which the organisation has been lauded across the world.

      “European governments must meet their responsibilities towards those in distress both at sea and on land. Rather than criminalize rescue NGOs, who are upholding this responsibility in Europe’s stead, governments must seek sustainable solutions while cooperating with NGOs and opening their ports to people rescued at sea.”


      http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2019-02-11/local-news/Sea-Watch-3-still-held-in-Catania-despite-rescue-vessel-vacuum-in-th

    • When commercial ships tell migrants rescued at sea they are going to bring them to Europe

      Some commercial ships that have rescued people in danger have lied about their destination, according to a telephone hotline that helps migrants lost at sea. Alarm Phone says the crews of several ships led migrants to believe they would be dropped off in Europe, but instead returned them to Libya.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15194/when-commercial-ships-tell-migrants-rescued-at-sea-they-are-going-to-b

    • When rescue is capture: kidnapping and dividing migrants in the Mediterranean

      EU member states are holding migrants hostage while playing pass the parcel with their fates. It’s a strategy that is as cruel as it is deliberate.

      The Italian minister of the interior, Matteo Salvini, is currently under investigation for abuse of power and the kidnapping of 177 migrants. These migrants were, on Salvini’s orders, confined to the coast guard vessel Diciotti for more than one week in late August last year. While this case received international media attention, it was not an isolated event. Over the last several years Italian ministers and politicians have repeatedly violated international and domestic law as they have sought to prevent individuals from migrating over the Mediterranean Sea. The disembarkation of rescued migrants has been denied or delayed many times. On a few occasions, Italy has arbitrarily closed its ports entirely.

      While the closure of ports and the kidnapping of migrants triggered a strong reaction from some citizens and municipalities, many seemingly do not care. They do not care about the kidnapping of people by the state, nor about an interior minister who violates the law. They just do not want the migrants to land in Italy. Yet, far from being an exclusive Italian affair, the above mentioned legal and political controversies are part of a European battle, in which member states compete to not take care of a few dozen people on a boat seeking asylum. In fact, the recurrent strategy of taking migrants hostage is a sign of how deep Europe’s crisis has become.

      Kidnapping migrants is a strategy designed to deter and exhaust migrants while putting pressure on other member states.
      Migrants as hostages of European politics

      31 January 2019: after being held on a ship of the NGO Sea Watch for 13 days by the Italian authorities, the 47 migrants who were rescued in central Mediterranean were finally authorised to disembark in Sicily, or to put it better they had been liberated. During the period of their captivity the Italian government had argued that the Netherlands should receive them, due to the Dutch flag on the Sea Watch vessel. The Dutch authorities refused to do so. The standoff resulted in a meeting at the European Commission in Brussels to discuss how to deal with the 47 migrants nobody wanted to take. After days of negotiations, the Vatican offered to host the minors while eight member states (France, Germany, Romania, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg and Italy) agreed to take a few migrants each. Meanwhile, the NGO Sea Watch was defending itself against a cynical smear campaign in which the Italian government accused it of “putting migrants’ lives at risk”.

      This case is only the latest in a series of episodes that took place in central Mediterranean. The kidnapping of migrants has been repeatedly enacted by the Italian government and by Malta over the last year. It’s a strategy designed to deter and exhaust migrants, on the one hand, and to put pressure on the EU and on other member states, on the other. It is worth highlighting the continuity of this tactic. Among other episodes, in July 2018 the coast guard vessel Diciotti was prevented from disembarking rescued migrants in the port of Catania until the Italian president at the time successfully intervened. One month later, the Diciotti was again blocked for more than one week, this time with 177 migrants on board. In both these cases the rescue vessel was Italian. In more recent episodes the vessels have belonged to NGOs registered to other member states. In the closing days of 2018, 49 migrants had to wait 19 days after being rescued by the Sea Eye and Sea Watch vessels. They were finally disembarked in Malta on 9 January, and then relocated to other EU countries.

      The strategy of migrant kidnapping on the northern shore of the Mediterranean is part of a broader politics of migration containment. Together with the protracted detention of migrants on rescue vessels, the Libyan Coast Guard intercepts and rescues migrants in distress and takes them back to detention centres in Libya as a result of the 2017 Italy-Libya Memorandum of Understanding. International organisations like UNHCR and the IOM are involved in their containment in Libya once they arrive. In both cases – the confinement of migrants on rescue ships and the return of migrants to Libya – rescue at sea turns out to be a mode of capture.

      We might have been pulled out of the sea, the argument goes, but we are no less human and we are not to be bartered and haggled over.
      The European battle over numbers

      The migrants at the centre of these intra-European diplomatic battles are actually very few in number. Meetings, internal political crises, and struggles between states and non-state actors have resulted from a few dozen migrants seeking entry into Europe despite already being within European territory; confined to their rescue ships either in or just off European harbours for no other reason than member states’ refusal to take them. It is noticeable that the dispute among European countries was also predicated on migrants’ vulnerability: some member states have declared that they would welcome women and minors only. In this way, the right to protection and to mobility appear as a sort of “privilege” of those deemed to be the most vulnerable.

      The “fear of the small numbers”, as the anthropologist Ariun Appadurai calls it, has rarely been so evident. With just a few dozen migrants at issue, Salvini is by no means staving off a ‘crisis’ of quantity. Yet that is what makes recent events so troubling. They show that public sentiment does not soften when the counterargument focuses on how small the numbers are, as it has done so far. Both citizens’ active consensus and passive acceptance of migration containment has proved immoveable. The European front against migrants ultimately remains solid.

      At the same time, the anti-migrant front does not monopolise the field. Thousands of citizens mobilised across Europe and in Italy to demand the liberation of the detained migrants. Their solidaric reaction was not primarily driven by the fact that there were only a ‘few’ migrants to host, but by a conviction that those kidnapped – like with any other kidnapping – must be unconditionally released. As such, during the protests that haven taken place we have seen many more banners with the words “let them disembark!” than with more Italy-centric slogans like “not in my name”. In short, it’s not about Italy, it’s about the people on the ship.

      That central point is further enshrined in the “We are not fish” campaign, launched in Rome on 28 January 2019. We might have been pulled out of the sea, the argument goes, but we are no less human and we are not to be bartered and haggled over. The “We are not fish” campaign demands that Italian harbours remain open and that migrants are allowed to disembark. It opposes the fundamental inequality of lives that sustain the politics of migration, which is premised on the suggestion that migrants are not truly humans.

      The widespread citizen reaction against migrants’ seizure at sea and against deaths in the Mediterranean constitutes not only a fundamental ethical response, but also potentially a catalyst for actively refusing the leave-to-die politics playing out in the Mediterranean. Indeed, the ongoing civic mobilisation should be seized as an opportunity for moving beyond the horizon of a politics of rescue and the current debate that pivots around the question, should we rescue or not rescue the migrants?

      Indeed, a left-wing discourse on migration would require fighting the politics of migration containment as a whole, including the most recent bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya that the previous government led by the Democratic Party signed. It would also require challenging the racialisation and inequalities of lives enforced by the global visa regime, which forces many people across the world to become shipwrecked lives to be rescued. Neither the trial of Salvini nor the acceptance of the terms of the current debate centred around leave-to-die politics will liberate migrants from being held hostage to European politics. “We are not fish”. This motto is circulating widely. It posits the existence of a ‘we’, a common ground, between migrants and European citizens that refuses the reproduction of the asymmetries between ‘rescuers’ and ‘rescued’.

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/martina-tazzioli/when-rescue-is-capture-kidnapping-and-dividing-migrants-in-mediterran

    • Un seul navire humanitaire est actuellement présent au large de la Libye

      Près de 17 000 personnes sont mortes en mer Méditerranée ces quatre dernières années. Pour tenter d’enrayer la tragédie, des navires humanitaires se sont relayés dans la zone de détresse, au large des côtes libyennes pour les secourir. Mais actuellement, un seul patrouille dans cette zone.

      Actuellement, seul le bateau Aylan Kurdi (anciennement appelé Professor Albrecht Penck) est actuellement au large de la Libye. Il appartient à l’ONG allemande Sea Eye.

      Où sont les autres bateaux d’ONG ? InfoMigrants fait le point.

      Les navires humanitaires qui sont bloqués dans des ports européens :

      – Le Sea-Watch 3 de l’ONG Sea Watch est en escale dans le port de Marseille pour un problème administratif relatif à son pavillon néerlandais (et effectuer sa maintenance). Il devrait repartir en mer mi-mars.

      – Depuis un débarquement en juin 2018 à Malte, le Lifeline de l’ONG allemande eponyme est bloqué au port de La Valette, à Malte, où les autorités contestent sa situation administrative.

      – Depuis le mois de janvier 2019, l’Open Arms de l’ONG espagnole Proactiva Open Arms est bloqué à Barcelone par les autorités espagnoles. Au printemps 2018, ce navire avait été placé un mois sous séquestre en Italie avant d’être autorisé à repartir.

      – Début août 2017, la justice italienne a saisi le Juventa de l’ONG allemande Jugend Rettet, accusée de complicité avec les passeurs libyens mais qui clame depuis son innocence.

      Les ONG qui résistent :

      –Dans les airs, les petits avions Colibri de l’ONG française Pilotes volontaires et Moonbird de Sea-Watch mènent régulièrement des patrouilles pour tenter de repérer les embarcations en difficulté.

      –L’Astral, le voilier de l’ONG Open Arms, est actuellement à Barcelone.

      –En Italie, un collectif d’associations a lancé le Mare Jonio, un navire battant pavillon italien qui entend avant tout témoigner de la situation en mer. Il est actuellement à Palerme.

      Les navires humanitaires qui ont renoncé :

      Des ONG engagées au large des côtes libyennes ont suspendu leurs activités, face à la chute des départs de Libye et face à une intensification des menaces des garde-côtes libyens, qui considèrent les ONG comme complices des passeurs.

      – Suite aux pressions politiques, privé de pavillon, l’Aquarius de l’ONG SOS Méditerranée – qui a secouru près de 20 000 personnes en deux ans et demi - a mis fin à ses missions en décembre 2018. L’ONG espère toutefois trouver un nouveau bateau pour repartir rapidement en mer au printemps 2019.

      – Médecins sans frontières (MSF) a mis fin au même moment aux activités du Vos Prudence, le plus gros navire humanitaire privé actif au large de la Libye avec un record de de 1 500 personnes secourues en même temps.

      – Save the Children a également mis fin aux activités de sauvetage du navire Vos Hestia.

      – L’ONG maltaise Moas, la première à s’engager dans les opérations de secours en 2014 et qui a compté jusqu’à deux navires dans la zone, a transféré ses activités auprès des Rohingyas au Bangladesh.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/15426/un-seul-navire-humanitaire-est-actuellement-present-au-large-de-la-lib

    • Sea Watch segreto di Stato. Viminale e Infrastrutture: no accesso agli atti

      Non è possibile sapere da chi e come fu bloccata la nave. Ed è giallo anche sull’omesso sbarco dei minori. Cortocircuito tra Prefettura, Comune e Tribunale di minori

      Nel Paese dei misteri irrisolti anche la sorte dei migranti rischia di diventare un “segreto di Stato”. Non sarà infatti possibile sapere chi, nello scorso gennaio, ha dato l’ordine di bloccare a Siracusa la nave umanitaria Sea Watch, né chi e perché ha impedito lo sbarco immediato dei 15 minorenni, dirottando poi il vascello verso il porto di Catania.

      La conferma dello stato di riservatezza degli atti arriva dal Viminale, che ha respinto la richiesta di divulgazione dei documenti depositati presso il ministero delle Infrastrutture. Intorno al caso, dopo che Avvenire aveva documentato la smentita del ministero che esclude sia mai stato dato l’ordine di «porti chiusi», è stato eretto un muro di gomma. Nei giorni scorsi il Viminale aveva assicurato che da Salvini, contrariamente alle reiterate dichiarazioni pubbliche, non era mai partito alcun ordine di stop alle navi umanitarie né alcun «divieto di sbarco».

      Non restava che interpellare il dicastero guidato da Danilo Toninelli, competente per la Guardia costiera e i porti. Ma la nuova richiesta di accesso ai documenti è stata respinta. Motivo? «La tipologia di atti richiesti non è soggetta a pubblicazione obbligatoria». Così il capo di gabinetto del ministro Salvini ha risposto all’istanza «indirizzata – viene precisato nella risposta – anche al ministero delle Infrastrutture», a cui era stata originariamente rivolta. Nella missiva, che reca la data del 26 febbraio, viene escluso per il caso Sea Watch l’obbligo di divulgazione delle informazioni.

      Secondo la legge richiamata nello scambio di documenti tra l’avvocato Alessandra Ballerini, che aveva chiesto trasparenza per contro di Adif (Associazione Diritti e Frontiere), e il prefetto a capo del gabinetto del ministro, viene invocata la norma che giustifica il rifiuto alla conoscibilità per «la sicurezza pubblica e l’ordine pubblico; la sicurezza nazionale; la difesa e le questioni militari; le relazioni internazionali; la politica e la stabilità finanziaria ed economica dello Stato; la conduzione di indagini sui reati e il loro perseguimento; il regolare svolgimento di attività ispettive». In quale di queste categorie rientri il caso della Sea Watch e dei minorenni bloccati a bordo per 13 giorni non è dato da sapere.

      Indirettamente, però, una cosa il Viminale la conferma. Se nei giorni scorsi era stata negata l’esistenza di deliberazioni riconducibili al ministro Matteo Salvini, adesso viene implicitamente riconosciuto che le decisioni furono prese formalmente dal ministero delle Infrastrutture. Una circostanza che di fatto esenta Salvini, che aveva dato “indicazioni politiche”, da responsabilità che eventualmente ricadrebbero su Toninelli.

      La gestione dei 15 minori non accompagnati e l’omissione dello sbarco immediato (come previsto dalle norme per i minorenni non accompagnati) potrebbe avere seguiti giudiziari. Da uno scambio di comunicazioni tra la prefettura di Siracusa, il Tribunale dei minori di Catania e il Comune di Siracusa risulta, infatti, che la scelta di trasferire la nave al porto di Catania, dopo giorni alla fonda davanti al “Porto rifugio” siracusano, sarebbe stata assunta dal Comando generale delle Capitanerie di porto, che dipende dal ministero delle Infrastrutture. Disposizione necessaria «in ragione della presenza di minori a bordo».

      A scriverlo è proprio la prefettura aretusea in una nota trasmessa il 31 gennaio (giorno dello sbarco) al Tribunale per i minorenni di Catania. Eppure ventiquattr’ore prima lo stesso tribunale aveva inviato i decreti di affido dei 15 minori ai Servizi sociali del Comune di Siracusa, che immediatamente aveva individuato e messo a disposizione 4 strutture del circondario. Invece, nessuno viene fatto sbarcare e in serata la Sea Watch, dopo una settimana di attesa in Sicilia, riceve l’ordine di procedere verso Catania. Una decisione, come sostiene il prefetto Luigi Pizzi in uno dei documenti ottenuti da Avvenire, dovuta alla mancanza di strutture di prima accoglienza idonee. Una carenza che però non risulta, vista la disponibilità certificata dal Comune e che sorprende anche il Tribunale che proprio dall’ente locale aveva ricevuto l’elenco dei centri di accoglienza.

      «Non c’era nessun bisogno che intervenisse il tribunale per far sbarcare i minori. La legge è chiara: andavano fatti sbarcare subito», dice Sandra Zampa, ex parlamentare del Pd e autrice della legge sui minori non accompagnati votata nella precedente legislatura con il sostegno del M5s. L’intervento del tribunale dei minorenni ha confermato l’efficacia delle norme, «interrompendo – spiega Zampa – l’omissione che si stava compiendo».

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-segreto-di-stato

    • Sea Watch, inchieste sugli atti «top secret». Si muovono le procure

      Dopo che il Viminale si è rifiutato di rendere pubblici gli ordini, i pm accendono un faro. Il sindaco di Siracusa: «Anomalie, abbiamo le prove. Fare chiarezza». E accusa: «Ci furono ordini politici»

      Il caso Sea Watch, con lo stallo davanti al porto di Siracusa e poi il trasferimento nello scalo di Catania, avrà seguiti giudiziari. Sono almeno due le procure che stanno esaminando i fatti riguardanti l’omesso sbarco immediato dei 15 minorenni e le modalità con cui le autorità politiche hanno eretto un muro intorno alla catena di comando. Una barriera contro cui è disposta a fare breccia la giunta di Siracusa, che si dichiara pronta ad andare davanti ai magistrati per riferire tutte le anomalie registrate a fine gennaio.
      Le inchieste, a quanto trapela, riguardano non solo Sea Watch, ma anche altri sbarchi con le navi umanitarie costrette al largo per giorni prima di poter mettere al sicuro, sulla terraferma, i naufraghi scampati ai lager libici e alle tempeste. Vari esposti erano da tempo sui tavoli della procura di Roma e di alcune procure siciliane, che hanno acquisito quanto rivelato da «Avvenire» giovedì scorso. A cominciare dalla massima riservatezza apposta dal ministero dell’Interno sugli atti relativi alla Sea Watch, mentre il dicastero guidato da Danilo Toninelli ha lasciato trascorrere i 30 giorni previsti dalle norme per rispondere alle richieste di accesso civico agli atti presentata dall’Associazione Diritti e frontiere. Uniche spiegazioni sono arrivate dal Viminale con due risposte in apparente contraddizione. La prima, firmata dal Dipartimento Immigrazione, escludeva che fosse mai stato dato l’ordine di porti chiusi e divieto di sbarco. La seconda, siglata dal capo di gabinetto del ministro, precisava che «la tipologia di atti richiesti non è soggetta a pubblicazione obbligatoria». Da qualche parte, dunque, ci sono documenti che non si vuole rendere noti. Perché?
      Quanto all’ipotetico cavillo usato per trasferire la Sea Watch copn i suoi 47 naufraghi improvvisamente da Siracusa a Catania, emerge un dettaglio da un documento della prefettura di Siracusa, che come è noto risponde al Viminale. La lettera, visionata da “Avvenire”, è del 31 gennaio 2019, giorno in cui la nave ricevette l’ordine di lasciare le acque antistanti il “Porto Rifugio” di Siracusa per recarsi, scortata da Guardia costiera e Guardia di finanza, verso Catania. La missiva, indirizzata al presidente e al procuratore del Tribunale dei minorenni, rivela che la nave è stata dirottata «proprio in ragione della presenza di minori a bordo che in quella sede saranno immediatamente accolti in idonee strutture. Diversamente da quanto sarebbe avvenuto in questa provincia, ove non si dispone di centri destinati ai minori in argomento». Sarebbe questo, dunque, uno dei grimaldelli adottati per sottrarre la Sea Watch alla procura di Siracusa - che aveva escluso irregolarità commesse in mare dall’equipaggio - consegnando la nave umanitaria alla procura di Catania, mai stata tenera con le Ong. Il procuratore Zuccaro (Catania) ha però dato ragione alle indagini del collega Scavone (Siracusa) non ravvisando comportamenti illeciti dell’equipaggio.

      I fatti emersi in questi giorni hanno provocato la reazione del Comune di Siracusa, accusato di non avere a disposizione luoghi di accoglienza per minori non accompagnati. «Bisognerà far chiarezza su come si sono svolti i fatti», afferma Alessandra Furnari, assessore alle Pari opportunità sociali. Su richiesta del Tribunale dei minorenni erano invece state individuate strutture adeguate presenti nel comprensorio. «Sul trasferimento dei minori a Catania – prosegue l’assessore Furnari - non abbiamo mai avuto notizie ufficiali, ma solo colloqui telefonici con la prefettura». Scambi verbali senza che mai «la prefettura – insiste l’assessore - desse riscontro per iscritto». Una costante durante quei giorni ad alta tensione. «Ciò che ha caratterizzato tutta la vicenda - osserva il sindaco di Siracusa, Francesco Italia – è stata proprio l’assenza di risposte formali». Come se si avesse il timore di lasciare tracce. «In tutti gli sbarchi avvenuti a Siracusa precedentemente – ricorda Italia – i minori sono sempre stati accolti nelle strutture di II livello (le stesse predisposte per la Sea Watch, in linea con l’ordine del tribunale), senza che ciò creasse alcun problema». Per il primo cittadino c’è una sola spiegazione: «Si è trattato di decisioni di tipo politico».
      Ora a Siracusa attendono solo una convocazione da parte dei magistrati inquirenti. «Non abbiamo alcun problema a raccontare quello che è successo», ribadisce l’assessore Alessandra Furnari. E a differenza del muro di gomma eretto nei ministeri, le accuse della giunta possono essere «documentalmente provate, perché molti rapporti con il tribunale e con la prefettura, almeno da parte nostra, sono avvenuti per iscritto».

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-inchiesta-su-atti-top-secret

    • Migrants on hunger strike in Malta after stuck for 2 months

      Many of the 49 people rescued in December by the #Sea_Watch and #Sea_Eye ships are engaged in a hunger strike, the platform Mediterranea Saving Humans reports. The migrants have been in a Malta center for two months and are protesting “against the de facto detention that they are illegally subjected to.”

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15616/migrants-on-hunger-strike-in-malta-after-stuck-for-2-months
      #Malte #grève_de_la_faim #attente #limbe #détention #Marsa

    • Migranti, la nave ong Alan Kurdi diretta a Malta. Esposto di Mediterranea contro il governo

      Dopo il rifiuto delle madri con figli di sbarcare a Lampedusa senza i loro mariti. La Procura di Agrigento dovrà aprire un fascicolo sulla mancata autorizzazione a entrare in acque italiane e la non assegnazione di un porto sicuro. E il capitano De Falco andrà sulla nave che partirà verso la Libia per soccorrere naufraghi

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/04/06/news/migranti-223409223

    • Italy’s prime minister and Matteo Salvini under investigation over detention of migrants

      Far-right politician Matteo Salvini and Italy’s prime minister Giuseppe Conte have been placed under investigation over the detention of 47 migrants.

      Mr Salvini said he was once again under investigation for alleged false imprisonment on Monday after a dispute earlier this year over whether the interior minister and Lega Nord party leader should be tried over the detention of 177 asylum seekers last August.

      The current case concerns the decision to prevent migrants from leaving a Sea-Watch ship, which rescued them off the coast of Libya on 19 January.

      Deputy prime minister Luigi Di Maio and infrastructure minister Danilo Toninelli, also face charges with Mr Salvini and Mr Conte.

      The 47 migrants were forced to wait off the coast of Sicily for more than a week after the ship was denied the right to dock in Palermo, inspiring an emergency appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and criticism from the United Nations.

      The Sea-Watch ship was only allowed to dock after other European countries agreed to accept the migrants.

      In March, senators stopped a criminal case against Mr Salvini for blocking a rescue ship in August 2018 after an Italian court ruled that he should be tried.

      Mr Salvini has repeatedly berated rescue ships and accused charitable organisations of aiding and abetting illegal immigration.

      “I am under investigation again, but as long as I am the interior minister, the government colleagues can say what they want, the Italian ports remain closed,” he said, maintaining his hardline stance on immigration.

      “Another 18 criminal proceedings can be opened, I don’t change my mind."

      Before the senate vote on Mr Salvini’s case in March, Mr Conte and Mr Di Maio, who leads the Five Star Movement (M5S), formally defended the minister.

      “If Salvini is responsible for the seizure [of the boat] then the whole government is responsible,” they said in a statement.

      Giorgia Linardi, a spokesperson for Sea-Watch in Italy, said the organisation had worked within the law and the boat was unjustly detained.

      “The detention on board for propaganda purposes cannot once again be unjustified, because it is protected be politics,” she said.

      “People fleeing Libya must be rescued and protected, not exploited.”

      The court will reportedly have three months to decide whether the four politicians should face trial.

      If the court decides to bring charges, the senate will vote on whether their parliamentary immunity should be removed.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/matteo-salvini-italy-prime-minister-conte-migrants-detention-a8872301

  • 21.11.2018 – UE - Tunisie - Conseil d’association - Priorités stratégiques

    Décision n° 1/2018 du Conseil d’association UE-Tunisie du 9 novembre 2018 adoptant les priorités stratégiques UE-Tunisie pour la période 2018-2020

    (...)

    Consolider le partenariat privilégié UE-Tunisie : priorités stratégiques pour la période 2018-2020

    (...)

    2.3. Rapprochement entre les peuples, mobilité et migration

    Le rapprochement entre les sociétés tunisiennes et européennes constitue un pilier essentiel du partenariat privilégié, à travers le renforcement des échanges entre peuples, sociétés et cultures. Cette dimension mobilité revêt une importance particulière dans la mise en œuvre du partenariat pour la Jeunesse. La mise en œuvre effective de l’association de la Tunisie à Horizon 2020 et sa participation à Europe Créative et Erasmus+ seront les pierres angulaires de ces efforts.

    La gestion concertée de la migration est une priorité politique, tant pour la Tunisie que pour l’Union européenne. Les deux parties s’engagent à intensifier le dialogue et la coopération, notamment par la mise en œuvre du partenariat pour la mobilité, le renforcement de la lutte contre les causes profondes de la migration irrégulière, ainsi qu’une disponibilité européenne pour soutenir la mise en place d’un système d’asile tunisien. Cette coopération, qui reflétera aussi la dimension régionale de ces problématiques, inclura :

    -- la mise en œuvre de la stratégie nationale tunisienne en matière de migration, couvrant également l’asile et la protection internationale, y inclus la mise en œuvre d’un cadre législatif approprié,

    -- la conclusion des négociations d’accords de réadmission et de facilitation des visas,

    -- la bonne gouvernance de la migration légale, par une meilleure coordination avec les États membres de l’Union européenne dans le respect de leurs compétences, y compris à travers la mise en place de schémas pilotes de mobilité et une meilleure intégration des migrants dans les pays hôtes,

    --

    le soutien à la mobilisation des Tunisiens de l’étranger pour les investissements dans les secteurs innovants en Tunisie,

    -- le soutien à la prévention de la migration irrégulière, en particulier par une meilleure prise en compte des questions migratoires dans les stratégies de développement ; ceci passe également par une gestion des frontières renforcée et par des campagnes de sensibilisation sur les risques de la migration irrégulière,

    -- le soutien aux activités de prévention, et de lutte contre le trafic des migrants et la traite des êtres humains, y compris à travers la détection et la poursuite des réseaux criminels, et

    -- la consolidation de la coopération en matière de retour et réadmission, y compris à travers le soutien à la réinsertion durables des Tunisiens de retour.

    –-> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.293.01.0039.01.FRA&toc=OJ:L:2018:293:TOC

    http://www.europeanmigrationlaw.eu/fr/articles/actualites/ue-tunisie-conseil-d-association-priorites-strategiques.html
    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Tunisie #EU #UE #Europe

    Commentaire de Claudia Charles sur la mailing-list Migreurop :

    En complément du message envoyé par Alizée, voici un article sur la décision n° 1/2018 du conseil d’association (en vertu de l’#accord_d'association UE - Tunisie) "adoptant les priorités stratégiques UE - Tunisie pour la période 2018 - 2020

    Le point sur « rapprochement entre les peuples, mobilité et migration » se résume (rien de nouveau) à l’adoption, par la Tunisie, d’une réglementation en matière de migration et d’asile, des mesurettes concernant la mobilité (ce qui était déjà dit à multiples occasions et enceintes (processus de Rabat, Sommet de Malte, FFU, partenariat pour la mobilité), et les #accords_de_réadmission / facilitation de #visa.

    L’#OIM aura sa part du gâteau : « la consolidation de la coopération en matière de retour et #réadmission, y compris à travers le soutien à la #réinsertion durables des Tunisiens de retour. »

    #IOM #retours #renvois #expulsions

    ping @_kg_

    • L’émigration irrégulière : Conception de l’opération et parade

      L’émigration vers l’Europe n’est pas un phénomène nouveau en Tunisie car elle date depuis 1970. Par contre, l’émigration irrégulière (la #Harga) entre les côtes tunisiennes et italiennes a commencé en 1990 lorsque l’#Italie a ratifié les accords #Schengen imposant ainsi des #visas d’entrée pour les ressortissants tunisiens.

      Une étude élaborée par le Forum tunisien des droits économiques et sociaux (FTDES) montre qu’avant la révolution de 2011, 30% des Tunisiens de moins de 35 ans exprimaient le désir de migrer vers l’Europe. En raison de la #crise_économique qui ne cesse de frapper le pays durant la période de transition démocratique, ce chiffre a grimpé à 54% en 2017.

      La recrudescence de l’#émigration clandestine à partir de 2015 s’est traduite par des chiffres très alarmants. En effet, 119.369 migrants sont arrivés en Italie en 2017 alors que le nombre de victimes en 2016 est de 5000 selon un rapport publié par les Nations Unies.

      Face à cette situation préoccupante, l’Europe cherche à coordonner avec les #pays_de_transit en vue de trouver une solution à ce quelle considère une menace asymétrique qui pèse sur la sécurité de l’Occident.

      Aujourd’hui, les causes de l’émigration irrégulière sont connues et toute solution au problème doit passer par une combinaison de mesures politiques, économiques, sociales et sécuritaires.
      Sachant que les mesures politiques et socio-économiques ont fait l’objet de plusieurs études, le présent article est consacré à l’explication du volet opérationnel de l’émigration irrégulière. Une explication sans laquelle toute mesure sécuritaire reste incomplète et non concluante.

      Ainsi, après une présentation succincte de l’importance géographique de la Tunisie qui fait du pays un tremplin pour l’Europe, je prendrai en détails la conception de l’opération d’émigration clandestine avant de proposer les actions à entreprendre pour interdire ou contrer cette opération.

      1. Importance géographique de la Tunisie

      Selon une carte tracée par l’Union Européenne, les flux de l’émigration clandestine à destination de l’Europe suivent trois routes en mer méditerranéenne : La route occidentale qui passe par Gibraltar, la route centrale qui passe par la Tunisie et la Libye (carte nr1) et la route orientale qui passe par la Turquie et la mer Egée.

      Sur cette route centrale, la Tunisie occupe une place privilégiée. En effet, située sur le canal de Sicile qui constitue un pont entre l’Afrique et l’Europe et marquée par des conditions météorologiques clémentes sur la quasi-totalité de l’année, elle offre plusieurs possibilités pour rallier l’Italie (carte nr2) :

      Au nord, on trouve deux routes : La Galite-La Sardaigne (130 km) et Bizerte-Mazzara (175km).
      le nord-est présente trois options : Kélébia-Pantelleria (70km), Al Hawaria-Mazzara (160km) et Béni Khiar-Lampedusa (195km).
      au sud, trois autres itinéraires vers Lampedusa : à partir de Chebba (135km), de Kerkennah (140km) et de Zarzis (250km).

      En outre, la Tunisie est devenue le seul pays de transit après la fermeture des routes partant de la Libye. En effet, le flux d’émigrés à partir de ce pays a significativement tari suite à la signature d’un mémorandum d’entente le 2 février 2017 entre Rome et Tripoli (appuyé par les dirigeants européens dans la déclaration de Malte). Aux termes de cet accord, l’Italie doit coopérer avec les forces armées et les garde-frontières libyennes afin de juguler l’afflux de migrants illégaux. Un dispositif a été alors mis en place et 20.000 émigrants ont été interceptés en 2017 et reconduits en Libye, dans des centres de détention. Ainsi, le flux venant essentiellement des pays du Sahel africain a basculé sur le territoire tunisien.
      2. Déroulement d’une opération d’émigration clandestine

      De prime abord, il est à signaler que Les voyages clandestins sont organisés par des réseaux criminels. Le trafic est devenu transnational et apporte beaucoup d’argent. Une étude publiée par le journal d’actualités américain « The Christian Science Monitor » souligne « l’apparition de groupes mafieux d’envergure internationale italiens, albanais, libyens et autres » qui se livrent à ce trafic et gagnent 400 milliards de dollars à travers leurs actions qui englobent toute la région. Selon la même étude, Le candidat à l’émigration clandestine à partir de la Tunisie doit dépenser entre 3000 et 8000 dinars.
      L’organisation d’une opération d’émigration irrégulière passe par trois phases :
      2.1. La phase de recrutement

      Il s’agit de se servir d’agents et intermédiaires pour chercher et d’identifier les postulants à l’émigration sur le territoire national. Les quartiers pauvres et les zones grises du pays sont visés en priorité. Le contact se fait soit directement de bouche à l’oreille dans les cafés et les lieux publics soit par internet et notamment à travers les réseaux sociaux. Ceux qui viennent des pays étrangers sont recrutés et regroupés dans les pays limitrophes avant de les transférer par des passeurs en Tunisie.
      2.2. La phase de préparation logistique

      Tout d’abord, il faut trouver des caches (locaux) où regrouper les postulants au voyage et stocker des vivres pour subvenir à leur besoin durant la période d’attente. Ensuite, on prévoit le moyen de transport. Il est généralement un moyen vétuste acheté à moindre coût pour effectuer un aller sans retour (canot pneumatique, embarcation ou un vieux chalutier). Ce moyen est dépourvu de tout équipement de sécurité, de navigation et de communication. Enfin, le chef de réseau doit coordonner avec ses agents locaux et ses pairs à l’étranger pour fixer les moyens et les procédures nécessaires pour passer et/ou diriger les émigrés sur le lieu du regroupement. Cette phase englobe aussi une collecte de renseignement sur les dispositifs de sécurité déployés sur le théâtre de l’opération.
      2.3. Phase de préparation du transit

      C’est la phase la plus importante car elle fait appel à une bonne expérience pour choisir l’itinéraire, la période propice au voyage et le passeur (patron) qui sera chargé de la traversée.

      2.3.1. Choix de l’itinéraire : Le choix de la route doit prendre en compte la caractéristique physique du milieu marin, la sûreté du transit et le temps mis pour la traversée :

      La route La Galite-La Sardaigne est relativement longue (130km). Elle traverse une zone connue par la faible densité du trafic maritime et le mauvais temps. Elle est donc favorable à la détection radar (difficulté de dissimulation) et défavorable à la navigation des petites embarcations.
      Les deux routes à destination de Mazzara à partir de Bizerte (175km) et de Hawaria (160km) sont similaires. Elles sont longues et traversent une zone de séparation de trafic par laquelle passe plusieurs centaines de navires par jour. La zone est caractérisée par des courants giratoires relativement forts. Elle est donc favorable à la dissimulation mais défavorable à la navigation des petites embarcations.
      La route Kélébia-Pantellaria est la plus courte (70km). Cependant, elle est risquée en raison des patrouilles, de la couverture radar et du dispositif de sécurité mis en place par les autorités italiennes.
      La route Béni Khiar-Lampedusa (195km) est longue et traverse une zone peu fréquentée sur une grande partie de l’année. Elle est donc très défavorable à l’emploi des embarcations pneumatiques qui sont handicapées par le manque d’autonomie et le mode de propulsion.
      Les deux routes à destination de Lampedusa à parir de Chebba (135km) et de Kerkenah (140km) sont très similaires. Elles ont la même distance et traversent la zone de pêche réservée délimitée par l’isobathe de 50m (la zone verte sur la carte nr3). C’est une zone de haut fond qui s’étend jusqu’aux approches de Lampedusa. Cette zone est très hospitalière pour les petits navires. Elle est fréquentée par plusieurs milliers de chalutiers et embarcations. L’environnement est donc très favorable à la navigation et la dissimulation.

      La route Zarzis-Lampedusa est la plus longue (250km). L’emploi de petites embarcations sur cette route est très risqué à moins qu’elles soient utilisées comme relais pour rallier une plate-forme plus grande stationnée au large (navire ou chalutier).

      2.3.2. Le critère de compétence : Les iles Kerkennah se distinguent par le nombre de compétences (des anciens pêcheurs) qui coopèrent avec les réseaux criminels. Ces pêcheurs reconvertis en passeurs sont chargés de la traversée. Cette reconversion s’explique par une pollution maritime qui a mis ces gens de mer au chômage. En effet, les déchets chimiques provenant des industriels dont notamment Thyna Petroleum Services (TPS) et Petrofac ont dégradé l’environnement marin détruisant ainsi la faune marine (poissons, poulpes et éponges). victime de cette pollution et de la pêche illicite, la mer n’est plus généreuse comme au bon vieux temps. D’après The Christian Science Monitor, “les pêcheurs gagnaient jusqu’à 40$ - 100$ par jour (entre 100 et 250 dinars tunisiens). Maintenant, ils ont du mal à gagner 4 à 7$ (entre 10 et 17 dinars) par jour”. Ils ce sont alors livrés aux contrebondiers et leurs embarcations sont vendues aux réseaux criminels à un coût qui fait trois fois le prix réel.

      C’est cette qualité de pêcheur qui explique l’enrôlement des Kerkéniens dans les réseaux de trafic de migrants. Les statistiques du ministère de l’intérieur montrent que la majorité des patrons d’embarcations arrêtés lors des opérations avortées sont originaires de l’archipel.

      2.3.3. Le choix de la période et lieu d’embarquement :

      C’est le critère le plus important pour décider de l’exécution de l’opération. Tout s’explique par la force et la direction du vent. Une étude élaborée par l’Institut Tunisien des Etudes Stratégiques ( ITES) montre des chiffres très significatifs tirés à partir des opérations avortées en 2017 :

      le gouvernorat de Sfax est classé premier sur la liste avec 62 opérations suivi par Nabeul (34 opérations), Bizerte (24 opérations) et Zarzis (11 opérations). En outre, les statistiques montrent que 60% de ces opérations sont effectuées pendant les mois de septembre et d’octobre, 14% pendant juin et juillet. Le reste (26%) est réparti sur toute l’année. Ceci s’explique par la force et la direction (moyenne sur toute l’année) du vent dans ces régions (voir tableau).
      En effet, dans la région de Sfax, le vent atteint sa force la plus faible durant septembre et octobre (inférieur à 10 km/h). Il souffle du secteur Est engendrant de petites vagues qui ne gênent pas le mouvement des embarcations qui naviguent bout au vent (face au vent). Les accidents qui surviennent durant cette période sont causés essentiellement par un manque de stabilité en raison d’un excès de chargement. Ces caractéristiques du vent qui s’ajoutent aux caractéristiques physiques de l’environnement et aux compétences des pêcheurs font de Kerkénah le port préféré pour l’embarquement.
      Le fait que Nabeul et Bizerte occupent respectivement la deuxième et la troisième place s’explique par le vent du secteur Ouest qui souffle sur ces régions et qui pousse les embarcations (vent arrière) sur les côtes de Pantellaria et Mazzara. Les itinéraires partant de la Galite vers la Sardaigne et de Béni Khiar vers Lampeduza, qui sont déjà discriminés par le facteur physique, sont écartés en raison du vent très défavorable (vent de travers).
      La place occupée par Zarzis (4ème place) s’explique uniquement par sa proximité des frontières libyennes et par le vent modéré qui domine la région.

      3. Comment lutter contre le fléau ?

      Tout d’abord, il faut signaler que nos voisins européens déploient leur force (Opération Sofia) sur nos frontières et cherchent à s’ingérer dans nos affaires intérieures sous prétexte de lutter contre l’immigration clandestine. Plusieurs déclarations de responsables européens rentrent dans ce sens :

      Le 15 février 2011, le ministre de l’intérieur italien Roberto Maroni propose de déployer des policiers italiens en Tunisie. Le 9 avril de la même année, il parle de « débarquement » de 22.000 Tunisiens sur les côtes italiennes.
      Le 26 mai 2011, le député maire de Nice, Christian Estrosi, déclare “On constate aussi qu’une partie d’entre eux (les imigrés) – et cela est plus grave – appartiennent aux 10 000 délinquants condamnés et évadés des prisons.”
      Le 3 juin 2018, le nouveau ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini déclare « Il y a de plus en plus de migrants clandestins qui arrivent de Tunisie ici. Ce ne sont pas des réfugiés de guerre mais bien souvent des délinquants et ex-détenus. »
      Dans son projet de rapport 2018/2044(INI), la commission spéciale sur le terrorisme demande au parlement européen « que le mandat de l’opération #EUNAVFOR_MED Sophia soit étendu et que sa portée territoriale soit élargie afin de mieux répondre à l’évolution des schémas migratoires tels que les débarquements fantômes en provenance de la Tunisie, et que la lutte contre le terrorisme soit spécifiquement couverte par son mandat ». Elle propose aussi de « saisir Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU en vue d’adopter une résolution permettant à Sophia d’accéder aux eaux territoriales des États côtiers afin d’effectuer des contrôles sur les navires suspects ».
      Ensuite, il faut appliquer les textes juridiques propres à la matière :
      le Protocole contre le trafic illicite de migrants par terre, air et mer, additionnel à la Convention des Nations unies contre la criminalité transnationale organisée en 2000.
      notre réglementation intérieure en matière de lutte contre l’émigration clandestine et notamment la loi du 3 février 2004 relative à la traite des personnes et au trafic des migrants.
      Les accords bilatéraux (avec la France et l’Italie) concernant les migrants.

      Sur le plan opérationnel, la lutte doit se baser sur deux volets ; le renseignement et l’intervention. Le renseignement est la seule solution pour compenser le manque de moyens matériels dont souffrent nos unités.

      Aujourd’hui, l’intervention est handicapée par le manque d’unités navales et la diversité des intervenants en mer qui appartiennent aux différents ministères (marine nationale, garde maritime nationale et douane). Pour assurer notre souveraineté sur les espaces maritimes qui nous reviennent de droit et remplir nos missions en mer (dont la lutte contre l’émigration clandestine), il faut agir en deux directions :

      Adopter le concept de la sauvegarde maritime pour assurer la synergie des efforts entre tous les intervenants en mer,
      Déployer nos unités en fonction des impératifs du moment. A titre d’exemple, basculer des unités sur le port de Sfax, durant les mois de septembre et d’octobre pour couper la route à l’émigration clandestine entre Kerkennah et Lampedusa.

      Ainsi, ce sont quelques idées proposées aux décideurs pour les éclairer sur le coté opérationnel de l’émigration irrégulière. La guerre contre ce fléau ne peut être gagnée qu’avec la combinaison de mesures d’ordre économique et social.

      http://www.leaders.com.tn/article/25601-l-immigration-irreguliere-conception-de-l-operation-et-parade
      #émigration_irrégulière #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Tunisie #statistiques #chiffres #histoire #opération_sophia #externalisation
      ping @_kg_

  • #métaliste (qui va être un grand chantier, car il y a plein d’information sur seenthis, qu’il faudrait réorganiser) sur :
    #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #migrations #réfugiés

    Des liens vers des articles généraux sur l’externalisation des frontières de la part de l’ #UE (#EU) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/569305
    https://seenthis.net/messages/390549
    https://seenthis.net/messages/320101

    Ici une tentative (très mal réussie, car évidement, la divergence entre pratiques et les discours à un moment donné, ça se voit !) de l’UE de faire une brochure pour déconstruire les mythes autour de la migration...
    La question de l’externalisation y est abordée dans différentes parties de la brochure :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/765967

    Petit chapitre/encadré sur l’externalisation des frontières dans l’ouvrage "(Dé)passer la frontière" :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/769367

    Les origines de l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers (maritimes) : accord #USA-#Haïti de #1981 :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/768694

    L’externalisation des politiques européennes en matière de migration
    https://seenthis.net/messages/787450

    "#Sous-traitance" de la #politique_migratoire en Afrique : l’Europe a-t-elle les mains propres ?
    https://seenthis.net/messages/789048

    Partners in crime ? The impacts of Europe’s outsourced migration controls on peace, stability and rights :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/794636
    #paix #stabilité #droits #Libye #Niger #Turquie

    Proceedings of the conference “Externalisation of borders : detention practices and denial of the right to asylum”
    https://seenthis.net/messages/880193

    Brochure sur l’externalisation des frontières (passamontagna)
    https://seenthis.net/messages/952016

  • Operation Sophia : new training module in Italy

    A Training “Package 2” module in favour of Libyan Coastguard and Navy started in #La_Maddalena (Italy) on October the 8.

    In the wide framework of Libyan Coastguard and Navy training carried out by SOPHIA operation, a new module, composed by “#Deck_Officer_Course” and “#Maintainer_Course” and in favour of 69 trainees, was launched in the Italian Navy Training Centre in LA MADDALENA (Italy) last 8th of October.

    The end of the course is scheduled for next 30th of November 2018.

    The course, hosted by the Italian Navy, will last 8 weeks, and it will provide knowledge and training in relation to the general activity on board an off shore patrol vessel and lessons focused on Human Rights, Basic First Aid, Gender Policy and Basic English language.

    Additionally, with the positive conclusion of these two courses, the threshold of 305 Libyan Coastguard and Navy personnel trained by EUNAVFOR Med will be reached.

    Moreover, further training modules are planned in Croatia and other EU member states in favour of a huge number of trainees.

    From October 2016, SOPHIA is fully involved in the training of the Libyan Coastguard and Navy; the aim of the training is to improve security of the Libyan territorial waters and the Libyan Coastguard and Navy ability to perform the duties in their territorial waters, with a strong focus on respect of human rights, including minors and women’s rights, and the correct handling of migrants in occasion of search and rescue activities to save lives at sea.


    https://www.operationsophia.eu/operation-sophia-new-training-module-in-italy
    #Opération_sophia #Italie #Libye #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #cours #formation

    –---

    Ajouté à la métaiste sur les formations des gardes-côtes lybiens sur le territoire européen :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/938454

    • EU rift widens on migrants, Sophia Op extended for 3 months

      The EU’s Political and Security Committee has approved a three-month extension for Operation Sophia, the bloc’s mission against human trafficking in the Mediterranean Sea whose mandate was set to expire on December 31. But there are still many issues regarding border protection and migration that the 28 EU countries disagree on.

      The decision to extend Operation Sophia came on the second day of the EU summit held in Brussels on December 13 and 14. Though migration was not even the central topic of the summit (Brexit was), it ended up being the cause of friction once again with many losing their patience altogether.

      At the end of the summit, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker criticized what he viewed as the hypocrisy of those calling for more secure borders but who are blocking Frontex reform at the same time.

      He also accused some European leaders of spreading false news, such as Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban.

      Divisions in the EU

      Even Belgium, which on the Global Compact issue has lost part of the government, called for those blocking the reform of the Dublin Rules on asylum to be removed from the Schengen zone. It also asked Brussels for an investigation into misinformation spread on social media on the UN agreement.

      Despite six months of negotiations, the 28-member bloc is still divided on Operation Sophia. The EU mission in the Mediterranean was due to expire at the end of this month, but has received a three-month extension in a last-minute attempt to achieve an agreement at the beginning of the year to review the rules of engagement and the distribution of migrants taken to Italian ports.

      Faced with EU conclusions that are even vaguer than usual, in which there are no expiration dates for the Dublin reform nor for the Frontex one, Juncker said that he was losing his patience.

      He said that though ’’everyone says they want better protection of external borders’’, a proposal on the table for a 10,000-strong EU border guard agency had been refused by those claiming to be the most interested in border control - among them are Hungary and Italy, who oppose the measure for reasons of national sovereignty.
      Juncker rails against governments supporting fake news

      Some heads of state and governments were also spreading fake news on issues ranging from migrants to Brexit, Juncker said, such as ’’when Orban says I am responsible’’ for Brexit or that migrants were.

      The countdown for Visegrad countries - meaning the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia - who do not want to accept migrants could come soon, said Belgian prime minister Charles Michel. There is ’’ever more agreement’’ among EU states to remove those blocking Dublin reform from the Schengen zone, he said. Michel asked the European Commission to open an investigation into ’’manipulated information’’ on the Global Compact circulated online with a deliberate desire to destabilize EU democracies.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/13971/eu-rift-widens-on-migrants-sophia-op-extended-for-3-months?ref=tw

    • La fin de la plongée croate pour les #garde-côtes_libyens

      Pour trois gardes-côtes libyens et trois autres marins libyens, ce 29 mars sonne comme la fin des cours de #plongée.

      Durant cinq semaines, ils ont suivi un module de formation au Centre de formation de la marine croate à Split (Croatie), géré par l’opération Sophia d’EUNAVFOR MED. La cérémonie de clôture a eu lieu au centre d’instruction de la marine croate à Split, en présence de son chef, le commandant adjoint de l’opération Sophia EUNAVFOR MED et de son chef du secteur de l’instruction de l’OHQ, ainsi que d’une délégation libyenne d’officiers supérieurs.

      Le cours, organisé par la marine croate, portait sur les procédures et techniques de plongée afin de pouvoir effectuer des opérations de maintenance sous-marine des navires. Le cours comprenait également quelques leçons sur les droits de l’homme, les premiers soins et la politique en matière d’égalité des sexes (un rituel côté européen).

      Avec ce cours, l’opération Sophia indique avoir atteint un niveau de 355 membres du personnel des garde-côtes et de la marine libyens formés.

      http://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/03/29/la-fin-de-la-plongee-croate

      #Croatie

  • L’Italie fermera ses #aéroports aux migrants

    Le ministre italien de l’Intérieur s’est opposé, dimanche, à tout renvoi de migrants de l’Allemagne vers son pays, sans accord préalable.

    L’Italie va fermer ses aéroports aux avions de ligne non autorisés transportant des migrants en provenance d’Allemagne, a annoncé dimanche le ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini. Une décision qui accentue les tensions entre Rome et Berlin.

    L’Allemagne et l’Italie travaillent à un #accord aux termes duquel des migrants résidant en Allemagne pourraient être renvoyés en Italie, pays où ils ont déposé une demande d’asile. L’accord n’a pas été signé pour le moment.

    Le quotidien La Repubblica rapportait samedi que l’office allemand pour les réfugiés avait adressé « des dizaines de lettres » à des migrants les informant d’un possible transfert vers l’Italie via des #vols_charters. Le premier vol est prévu mardi prochain.

    « Pas d’aéroports disponibles »

    « Si des gens pensent, à Berlin ou à Bruxelles, qu’ils vont pouvoir balancer des dizaines de migrants en Italie par des vols charter non autorisés, ils doivent savoir qu’il n’y a pas et n’y aura pas d’aéroports disponibles », a dit M. Salvini dans un communiqué. « Nous fermerons les aéroports comme nous avons fermé les #ports », a-t-il dit.

    Le ministre allemand de l’Intérieur Horst Seehofer affirmait en septembre qu’un accord avait été trouvé avec l’Italie et qu’il devait être signé prochainement. Matteo Salvini avait démenti le lendemain, exigeant de nouvelles concessions de la part de l’Allemagne. Le ministre italien avait alors expliqué qu’il avait reçu des assurances de la part de l’Allemagne que pour chaque migrant renvoyé en Italie les autorités allemandes accepteraient un demandeur d’asile en Italie. Matteo Salvini exigeait deux autres concessions - une révision du traité de Dublin sur la gestion des demandes d’asile dans le pays d’arrivée et la fin de la mission navale européenne Sophia qui porte secours aux migrants en Méditerranée.

    Sortir de l’impasse

    Horst Seehofer a appelé la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et le président du Conseil italien Giuseppe Conte à intervenir pour sortir de l’impasse. « L’accord a été négocié et suit les mêmes principes que celui avec la Grèce »« , a dit M. Seehofer au Welt am Sonntag. »Nous renvoyons des réfugiés en Italie mais nous acceptons un même nombre de personnes sauvées en mer« .

     »Mais Salvini dit maintenant : je ne signerai que si l’Allemagne soutient la position de l’Italie sur le droit d’asile dans l’Union européenne". Rome demande une réforme du traité de Dublin afin que soit organisée une répartition des nouveaux arrivants dans l’ensemble de l’UE et non plus l’obligation de rester dans le pays où ils sont arrivés en Europe.

    https://www.tdg.ch/monde/L-Italie-fermera-ses-aeroports-aux-migrants/story/27268662

    Commentaire sur twitter :

    Charter deportation from Germany to Italy planned for Tuesday, but Salvini now saying that Italy is going to “close the airports” to “non-authorised charters”

    https://twitter.com/twentyone_miles/status/1049015499219263489

    Et comme dit Philippe sur twitter, l’Italie devient une #île :


    #péninsule

    #Italie #Salvini #fermeture #fermeture_des_aéroports #Dublin #renvois_Dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Allemagne

    cc @isskein @reka

    • Quelques questions, car ce n’est pas du tout clair pour moi les termes de ce fantomatique accord :

      On peut lire :

      « Le ministre italien avait alors expliqué qu’il avait reçu des assurances de la part de l’Allemagne que pour chaque migrant renvoyé en Italie les autorités allemandes accepteraient un demandeur d’asile en Italie. »

      « L’accord a été négocié et suit les mêmes principes que celui avec la Grèce »« , a dit M. Seehofer au Welt am Sonntag. »Nous renvoyons des réfugiés en Italie mais nous acceptons un même nombre de personnes sauvées en mer« .

      --> Mais qui sont ces « migrants renvoyés en Italie », si ce n’est des dublinés ? Et qui sont ces « réfugiés renvoyés en Italie » ? Si c’est des réfugiés, donc des personnes avec un statut reconnu, ils ne peuvent pas être renvoyés en Italie, j’imagine...
      --> Et les « personnes sauvées en mer » ? Il s’agit d’un nombre de personne déterminé, qui n’ont pas déjà été catégorisés en « migrants » ou « demandeurs d’asile » ?

      Et puis :

      « L’Allemagne et l’Italie travaillent à un #accord aux termes duquel des migrants résidant en Allemagne pourraient être renvoyés en Italie, pays où ils ont déposé une demande d’asile. L’accord n’a pas été signé pour le moment. »

      --> ce n’est pas déjà Dublin, ça ? C’est quoi si ce n’est pas Dublin ?

      #accord_UE-Turquie (bis)

      ping @i_s_

    • v. aussi le fil de discussion sur twitter de Matteo Villa :

      Sui voli #charter dalla Germania all’Italia non bisogna fare confusione, né cedere alla disinformazione.
      (1) Si tratta di “dublinati”, persone che hanno fatto primo ingresso in ?? dall’Italia, non migranti fermati alla frontiera tedesca e rispediti in Italia in modi spicci. Finché non cambiamo Dublino, gli accordi sono questi.
      2) Non è certo qualcosa di eccezionale. Tra 2014 e 2017, la Germania ha fatto più di 50.000 richieste di trasferimento verso l’Italia applicando le regole Dublino.
      (3) Non è neanche mistero che il sistema Dublino non funzioni. Sulle oltre 50.000 richieste da parte tedesca dal 2014, l’Italia ha effettuato solo circa 12.000 trasferimenti. Meno di 1 su 4 alla fine torna in ??.
      (4) una volta effettuato il trasferimento verso l’Italia, il richiedente asilo non è detenuto. Può quindi tentare di spostarsi di nuovo verso il Paese che lo ha riportato indietro.
      (5) Utilizzare voli charter rispetto a voli di linea è uno strappo diplomatico? Dipende. Tecnicamente, senza il consenso dell’Italia l’aereo non potrebbe neppure partire.
      (6) Vogliamo fare tutto questo casino per 40/100 persone? Davvero?

      https://twitter.com/emmevilla/status/1048951274677460993

    • Migranti, la Germania riporta 40 profughi a Roma con volo charter

      L’arrivo del primo #charter dalla Germania, con a bordo 40 migranti cosiddetti «secondari» respinti dal governo tedesco, è previsto all’aeroporto di Fiumicino giovedì prossimo, l’11 ottobre. Nonostante le smentite ufficiali del Viminale, un’intesa è stata dunque raggiunta. Adesso che la notizia è pubblica, però, bisognerà vedere cosa succederà nelle prossime ore. «Non farò favori elettorali alla Merkel», aveva detto il mese scorso Matteo Salvini all’ultimo vertice europeo sull’immigrazione.

      Così, anche se formalmente il ministero dell’Interno non può opporsi, potrebbe essere la polizia di frontiera italiana, per motivi legati al piano di volo, a non autorizzare l’atterraggio o lo sbarco dei passeggeri. È la prima volta, infatti, che la Germania si serve di un charter per riportare in Italia i «dublinanti», cioè quei migranti che sbarcano e chiedono asilo da noi, ma poi se ne vanno da uomini liberi nel resto d’Europa. In base al Trattato di Dublino, però, quando vengono rintracciati possono essere rimandati indietro, perché le norme dell’accordo prevedono appunto che sia il Paese di primo approdo a valutarne la domanda d’asilo e quindi a farsi carico dello straniero fino all’esito della procedura.

      Finora, però, il rientro dei «dublinanti» in Italia si svolgeva con viaggi di singoli migranti su aerei di linea. Dalla Francia, per esempio, ne arrivano così una ventina ogni mese. E dalla Germania, fino a oggi, una media di 25: tutti selezionati dopo una lunga istruttoria, quindi accompagnati a bordo dalla polizia tedesca fino all’atterraggio in Italia, qui infine presi in consegna dalle nostre forze dell’ordine e portati in un centro d’accoglienza.

      Ma il governo tedesco ora ha deciso di accelerare le operazioni: l’Ufficio federale per l’immigrazione e i rifugiati ha già inviato decine di lettere ai migranti arrivati in Germania passando per l’Italia, avvisandoli che saranno riportati presto nel primo Paese d’ingresso in Europa.

      Un giro di vite deciso a prescindere dal patto sui migranti fra Italia e Germania da tempo in discussione e che il nostro ministro dell’Interno, Matteo Salvini, continua ad escludere di aver mai firmato. Da Berlino, però, lo danno già per stipulato e a condizioni precise: la Germania può rimandare in Italia i migranti che attraversano il confine, garantendo in cambio la sua disponibilità a rivedere i termini dei ricollocamenti. Nei giorni scorsi, però, lo stesso Salvini era stato chiaro, parlando di «accordo a saldo zero»: in cambio cioè del ritorno in Italia dei «dublinanti» il nostro Paese invierà a Berlino un analogo numero di profughi da accogliere. «Firmerò l’accordo quando sarà chiaro che non ci sarà un solo immigrato in più a nostro carico», aveva detto. E dal Viminale, infatti, continuano a dire che la firma del ministro non c’è.

      Ma ora l’intesa apparentemente trovata sul charter in arrivo l’11 ottobre infittisce il giallo. E l’opposizione attacca: «Biglietti già fatti — ha twittato il deputato del Pd Filippo Sensi — nei prossimi giorni la Germania riporterà in Italia molti profughi, quanti? Matteo Salvini aveva tuonato che l’accordo con il suo amico Seehofer non c’era. Chi mente?». E Alessia Morani, Pd, commenta su Fb: «L’amico tedesco di Salvini, il sovranista Seehofer, vuole rimandare in Italia i profughi coi voli charter. Queste sono le conseguenze dell’accordo di giugno del premier Conte e della politica isolazionista di Salvini: si apparenta con chi alza i muri contro di noi, invece che fare accordi per la redistribuzione dei richiedenti asilo in Europa. La ricetta sovranista sta complicando la gestione dei migranti. Stanno creando il caos e questa incapacità la pagheranno gli italiani».

      https://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/18_ottobre_06/primo-volo-charter-profughi-dublino-merkel-salvini-6c4cd2a8-c9a4-11e8-

      Quelques explications de plus dans cet article :

      È la prima volta, infatti, che la Germania si serve di un charter per riportare in Italia i «dublinanti» (...) Finora, però, il rientro dei «dublinanti» in Italia si svolgeva con viaggi di singoli migranti su aerei di linea.

      –-> donc, ce qui est nouveau c’est le fait que l’Allemagne renvoie les « dublinés » via charter, alors qu’avant ces renvois étaient effectués sur des vols de ligne.

      Le fameux accord, qui ressemble à celui entre la Turquie et l’UE, devrait prévoir ceci :

      la Germania può rimandare in Italia i migranti che attraversano il confine, garantendo in cambio la sua disponibilità a rivedere i termini dei ricollocamenti.

      –-> l’Allemagne peut renvoyer en Italie les migrants qui traversent la frontière, en garantissant, en échange, sa disponibilité à revoir les termes des #relocalisation

      Salvini sur ce point :

      Salvini era stato chiaro, parlando di «accordo a saldo zero»: in cambio cioè del ritorno in Italia dei «dublinanti» il nostro Paese invierà a Berlino un analogo numero di profughi da accogliere

      –-> Salvini demande un « accord avec un solde zéro » : en échange du retour des dublinés en Italie, l’Italie enverra à Berlin un nombre analogue de réfugiés à accueillir.

      Le journal rapporte les mots de Salvini qui dit ne pas avoir signé d’accord avec l’Allemagne :

      dal Viminale, infatti, continuano a dire che la firma del ministro non c’è.

      ... mais vu qu’il y a un charter qui devrait arriver à Rome le 11 octobre... et donc on se demande si cet accord a été signé...
      Du coup, c’est la polémique : qui ment ? Seehofer ou Salvini ?

      –------------------

      Nouveau terme, @sinehebdo :

      40 migranti cosiddetti «secondari»

      –-> « #migrants_secondaires », ça doit faire référence aux #mouvements_secondaires... que l’UE cherche par tout les moyens de combattre, mais qui, en réalité, avec ses politiques, les créent... les associations et quelques chercheurs/ses utilisent plutôt le terme #Migrerrants (#migrerrance)
      #terminologie #vocabulaire #mots

    • Berlin dément avoir le projet de renvoyer des migrants en Italie

      Les autorités allemandes ont démenti dimanche avoir le projet de renvoyer en Italie des migrants résidant en Allemagne comme le rapportait un quotidien italien, information qui avait provoqué un regain de tension entre Berlin et Rome.

      Le quotidien La Repubblica rapportait samedi que l’office allemand pour les réfugiés avait adressé « des dizaines de lettres » à des migrants les informant d’un possible transfert vers l’Italie via des vols charters. Le premier vol est prévu mardi prochain.

      Cette information a provoqué une vive réaction de la part du ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini qui a menacé de fermer tous les aéroports de son pays aux avions de ligne non autorisés transportant des migrants en provenance d’Allemagne.

      « Aucun vol de transfert n’est prévu vers l’Italie dans les prochains jours », a déclaré un porte-parole du ministère allemand de l’Intérieur dans un courrier électronique.

      L’Allemagne et l’Italie travaillent à un accord aux termes duquel des migrants résidant en Allemagne pourraient être renvoyés en Italie, pays où ils ont déposé une demande d’asile. L’accord n’a pas été signé pour le moment.

      « Si des gens pensent, à Berlin ou à Bruxelles, qu’ils vont pouvoir balancer des dizaines de migrants en Italie par des vols charters non autorisés, ils doivent savoir qu’il n’y a pas et n’y aura pas d’aéroports disponibles », a dit Salvini dans un communiqué.

      « Nous fermerons les aéroports comme nous avons fermé les ports », a-t-il dit.

      Le ministre allemand de l’Intérieur Horst Seehofer affirmait en septembre qu’un accord avait été trouvé avec l’Italie et qu’il devait être signé prochainement. Salvini avait démenti le lendemain, exigeant de nouvelles concessions de la part de l’Allemagne.

      Le ministre italien avait alors expliqué qu’il avait reçu des assurances de la part de l’Allemagne que pour chaque migrant renvoyé en Italie les autorités allemandes accepteraient un demandeur d’asile en Italie.

      Matteo Salvini exigeait deux autres concessions - une révision du traité de Dublin sur la gestion des demandes d’asile dans le pays d’arrivée et la fin de la mission navale européenne #Sophia qui porte secours aux migrants en Méditerranée.

      Seehofer a appelé la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et le président du Conseil italien Giuseppe Conte à intervenir pour sortir de l’#impasse.

      « L’accord a été négocié et suit les mêmes principes que celui avec la Grèce », a dit Seehofer au Welt am Sonntag. « Nous renvoyons des réfugiés en Italie mais nous acceptons un même nombre de personnes sauvées en mer ».

      « Mais Salvini dit maintenant : je ne signerai que si l’Allemagne soutient la position de l’Italie sur le droit d’asile dans l’Union européenne », poursuit Seehofer.

      Rome demande une réforme du traité de Dublin afin que soit organisée une répartition des nouveaux arrivants dans l’ensemble de l’UE et non plus l’obligation de rester dans le pays où ils sont arrivés en Europe

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/071018/berlin-dement-avoir-le-projet-de-renvoyer-des-migrants-en-italie
      #opération_Sophia

  • Chèr·es tou·tes,

    j’ai donc fait un peu d’ordre et mis les liens et textes à la bonne place.

    J’essaie de faire une petite #métaliste des listes.

    #métaliste
    #ONG #sauvetage #Méditerranée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_en_mer #sauvetages

    En général, quelques autres liens à droite et à gauche à retrouver avec les tags #Méditerranée #ONG #sauvetage :
    https://seenthis.net/recherche?recherche=%23ong+%23m%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9e+%23sauvetage

    Et un résumé + vidéos de SOS Méditerranée sur les 5 ans d’atteinte au #droit_maritime :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/780857

    cc @reka @isskein

  • J’essaie de compiler ici des liens et documents sur les processus d’ #externalisation des #frontières en #Libye, notamment des accords avec l’#UE #EU.

    Les documents sur ce fil n’ont pas un ordre chronologique très précis... (ça sera un boulot à faire ultérieurement... sic)

    Les négociations avec l’#Italie sont notamment sur ce fil :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/600874
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    Peut-être qu’Isabelle, @isskein, pourra faire ce travail de mise en ordre chronologique quand elle rentrera de vacances ??

    • Ici, un des derniers articles en date... par la suite de ce fil des articles plus anciens...

      Le supplice sans fin des migrants en Libye

      Ils sont arrivés en fin d’après-midi, blessés, épuisés, à bout. Ce 23 mai, près de 117 Soudanais, Ethiopiens et Erythréens se sont présentés devant la mosquée de Beni Oualid, une localité située à 120 km au sud-ouest de Misrata, la métropole portuaire de la Tripolitaine (Libye occidentale). Ils y passeront la nuit, protégés par des clercs religieux et des résidents. Ces nouveaux venus sont en fait des fugitifs. Ils se sont échappés d’une « prison sauvage », l’un de ces centres carcéraux illégaux qui ont proliféré autour de Beni Oualid depuis que s’est intensifié, ces dernières années, le flux de migrants et de réfugiés débarquant du Sahara vers le littoral libyen dans l’espoir de traverser la Méditerranée.

      Ces migrants d’Afrique subsaharienne – mineurs pour beaucoup – portent dans leur chair les traces de violences extrêmes subies aux mains de leurs geôliers : corps blessés par balles, brûlés ou lacérés de coups. Selon leurs témoignages, quinze de leurs camarades d’évasion ont péri durant leur fuite.

      Cris de douleur
      A Beni Oualid, un refuge héberge nombre de ces migrants en détresse. Des blocs de ciment nu cernés d’une terre ocre : l’abri, géré par une ONG locale – Assalam – avec l’assistance médicale de Médecins sans frontières (MSF), est un havre rustique mais dont la réputation grandit. Des migrants y échouent régulièrement dans un piètre état. « Beaucoup souffrent de fractures aux membres inférieurs, de fractures ouvertes infectées, de coups sur le dos laissant la chair à vif, d’électrocution sur les parties génitales », rapporte Christophe Biteau, le chef de la mission MSF pour la -Libye, rencontré à Tunis.

      Leurs tortionnaires les ont kidnappés sur les routes migratoires. Les migrants et réfugiés seront détenus et suppliciés aussi longtemps qu’ils n’auront pas payé une rançon, à travers les familles restées au pays ou des amis ayant déjà atteint Tripoli. Technique usuelle pour forcer les résistances, les détenus torturés sont sommés d’appeler leurs familles afin que celles-ci puissent entendre en « direct » les cris de douleur au téléphone.

      Les Erythréens, Somaliens et Soudanais sont particulièrement exposés à ce racket violent car, liés à une diaspora importante en Europe, ils sont censés être plus aisément solvables que les autres. Dans la région de Beni Oualid, toute cette violence subie, ajoutée à une errance dans des zones désertiques, emporte bien des vies. D’août 2017 à mars 2018, 732 migrants ont trouvé la mort autour de Beni Oualid, selon Assalam.

      En Libye, ces prisons « sauvages » qui parsèment les routes migratoires vers le littoral, illustration de l’osmose croissante entre réseaux historiques de passeurs et gangs criminels, cohabitent avec un système de détention « officiel ». Les deux systèmes peuvent parfois se croiser, en raison de l’omnipotence des milices sur le terrain, mais ils sont en général distincts. Affiliés à une administration – le département de lutte contre la migration illégale (DCIM, selon l’acronyme anglais) –, les centres de détention « officiels » sont au nombre d’une vingtaine en Tripolitaine, d’où embarque l’essentiel des migrants vers l’Italie. Si bien des abus s’exercent dans ces structures du DCIM, dénoncés par les organisations des droits de l’homme, il semble que la violence la plus systématique et la plus extrême soit surtout le fait des « prisons sauvages » tenues par des organisations criminelles.

      Depuis que la polémique s’est envenimée en 2017 sur les conditions de détention des migrants, notamment avec le reportage de CNN sur les « marchés aux esclaves », le gouvernement de Tripoli a apparemment cherché à rationaliser ses dispositifs carcéraux. « Les directions des centres font des efforts, admet Christophe Biteau, de MSF-Libye. Le dialogue entre elles et nous s’est amélioré. Nous avons désormais un meilleur accès aux cellules. Mais le problème est que ces structures sont au départ inadaptées. Il s’agit le plus souvent de simples hangars ou de bâtiments vétustes sans isolation. »

      Les responsables de ces centres se plaignent rituellement du manque de moyens qui, selon eux, explique la précarité des conditions de vie des détenus, notamment sanitaires. En privé, certains fustigent la corruption des administrations centrales de Tripoli, qui perçoivent l’argent des Européens sans le redistribuer réellement aux structures de terrain.

      Cruel paradoxe
      En l’absence d’une refonte radicale de ces circuits de financement, la relative amélioration des conditions de détention observée récemment par des ONG comme MSF pourrait être menacée. « Le principal risque, c’est la congestion qui résulte de la plus grande efficacité des gardes-côtes libyens », met en garde M. Biteau. En effet, les unités de la marine libyenne, de plus en plus aidées et équipées par Bruxelles ou Rome, ont multiplié les interceptions de bateaux de migrants au large du littoral de la Tripolitaine.

      Du 1er janvier au 20 juin, elles avaient ainsi reconduit sur la terre ferme près de 9 100 migrants. Du coup, les centres de détention se remplissent à nouveau. Le nombre de prisonniers dans ces centres officiels – rattachés au DCIM – a grimpé en quelques semaines de 5 000 à 7 000, voire à 8 000. Et cela a un impact sanitaire. « Le retour de ces migrants arrêtés en mer se traduit par un regain des affections cutanées en prison », souligne Christophe Biteau.

      Simultanément, l’Organisation mondiale des migrations (OIM) intensifie son programme dit de « retours volontaires » dans leurs pays d’origine pour la catégorie des migrants économiques, qu’ils soient détenus ou non. Du 1er janvier au 20 juin, 8 571 d’entre eux – surtout des Nigérians, Maliens, Gambiens et Guinéens – sont ainsi rentrés chez eux. L’objectif que s’est fixé l’OIM est le chiffre de 30 000 sur l’ensemble de 2018. Résultat : les personnes éligibles au statut de réfugié et ne souhaitant donc pas rentrer dans leurs pays d’origine – beaucoup sont des ressortissants de la Corne de l’Afrique – se trouvent piégées en Libye avec le verrouillage croissant de la frontière maritime.

      Le Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR) des Nations unies en a bien envoyé certains au Niger – autour de 900 – pour que leur demande d’asile en Europe y soit traitée. Cette voie de sortie demeure toutefois limitée, car les pays européens tardent à les accepter. « Les réfugiés de la Corne de l’Afrique sont ceux dont la durée de détention en Libye s’allonge », pointe M. Biteau. Cruel paradoxe pour une catégorie dont la demande d’asile est en général fondée. Une absence d’amélioration significative de leurs conditions de détention représenterait pour eux une sorte de double peine.

      http://lirelactu.fr/source/le-monde/28fdd3e6-f6b2-4567-96cb-94cac16d078a
      #UE #EU

    • Remarks by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini at the joint press conference with Sven Mikser, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Estonia
      Mogherini:

      if you are asking me about the waves of migrants who are coming to Europe which means through Libya to Italy in this moment, I can tell you that the way in which we are handling this, thanks also to a very good work we have done with the Foreign Ministers of the all 28 Member States, is through a presence at sea – the European Union has a military mission at sea in the Mediterranean, at the same time dismantling the traffickers networks, having arrested more than 100 smugglers, seizing the boats that are used, saving lives – tens of thousands of people were saved but also training the Libyan coasts guards so that they can take care of the dismantling of the smuggling networks in the Libyan territorial waters.

      And we are doing two other things to prevent the losses of lives but also the flourishing of the trafficking of people: inside Libya, we are financing the presence of the International Organisation for Migration and the UNHCR so that they can have access to the detention centres where people are living in awful conditions, save these people, protect these people but also organising voluntary returns to the countries of origin; and we are also working with the countries of origin and transit, in particular Niger, where more than 80% of the flows transit. I can tell you one number that will strike you probably - in the last 9 months through our action with Niger, we moved from 76 000 migrants passing through Niger into Libya to 6 000.

      https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/26042/remarks-high-representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-joint-press
      #Libye #Niger #HCR #IOM #OIM #EU #UE #Mogherini #passeurs #smugglers

    • Il risultato degli accordi anti-migranti: aumentati i prezzi dei viaggi della speranza

      L’accordo tra Europa e Italia da una parte e Niger dall’altra per bloccare il flusso dei migranti verso la Libia e quindi verso le nostre coste ha ottenuto risultati miseri. O meglio un paio di risultati li ha avuti: aumentare il prezzo dei trasporti – e quindi i guadagni dei trafficanti di uomini – e aumentare a dismisura i disagi e i rischi dei disperati che cercano in tutti i modi di attraversare il Mediterraneo. Insomma le misure adottate non scoraggiano chi vuole partire. molti di loro muoiono ma non muore la loro speranza di una vita migliore.

      http://www.africa-express.info/2017/02/03/il-risultato-dellaccordo-con-il-niger-sui-migranti-aumentati-prezzi

    • C’était 2016... et OpenMigration publiait cet article:
      Il processo di esternalizzazione delle frontiere europee: tappe e conseguenze di un processo pericoloso

      L’esternalizzazione delle politiche europee e italiane sulle migrazioni: Sara Prestianni ci spiega le tappe fondamentali del processo, e le sue conseguenze più gravi in termini di violazioni dei diritti fondamentali.

      http://openmigration.org/analisi/il-processo-di-esternalizzazione-delle-frontiere-europee-tappe-e-conseguenze-di-un-processo-pericoloso/?platform=hootsuite

    • Per bloccare i migranti 610 milioni di euro dall’Europa e 50 dall’Italia

      Con la Libia ancora fortemente compromessa, la sfida per la gestione dei flussi di migranti dall’Africa sub-sahariana si è di fatto spostata più a Sud, lungo i confini settentrionali del Niger. Uno dei Paesi più poveri al mondo, ma che in virtù della sua stabilità - ha mantenuto pace e democrazia in un’area lacerata dai conflitti - è oggi il principale alleato delle potenze europee nella regione. Gli accordi prevedono che il Niger in cambio di 610 milioni d’ euro dall’Unione Europea, oltre a 50 promessi dall’Italia, sigilli le proprie frontiere settentrionali e imponga un giro di vite ai traffici illegali. È dal Niger infatti che transita gran parte dei migranti sub-sahariani: 450.000, nel 2016, hanno attraversato il deserto fino alle coste libiche, e in misura inferiore quelle algerine. In Italia, attraverso questa rotta, ne sono arrivati 180.000 l’anno scorso e oltre 40.000 nei primi quattro mesi del 2017.


      http://www.lastampa.it/2017/05/31/esteri/per-bloccare-i-migranti-milioni-di-euro-dalleuropa-e-dallitalia-4nPsLCnUURhOkXQl14sp7L/pagina.html

    • The Human Rights Risks of External Migration Policies

      This briefing paper sets out the main human rights risks linked to external migration policies, which are a broad spectrum of actions implemented outside of the territory of the state that people are trying to enter, usually through enhanced cooperation with other countries. From the perspective of international law, external migration policies are not necessarily unlawful. However, Amnesty International considers that several types of external migration policies, and particularly the externalization of border control and asylum-processing, pose significant human rights risks. This document is intended as a guide for activists and policy-makers working on the issue, and includes some examples drawn from Amnesty International’s research in different countries.

      https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/6200/2017/en

    • Libya’s coast guard abuses migrants despite E.U. funding and training

      The European Union has poured tens of millions of dollars into supporting Libya’s coast guard in search-and-rescue operations off the coast. But the violent tactics of some units and allegations of human trafficking have generated concerns about the alliance.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/libyas-coast-guard-abuses-desperate-migrants-despite-eu-funding-and-training/2017/07/10/f9bfe952-7362-4e57-8b42-40ae5ede1e26_story.html?tid=ss_tw

    • How Libya’s #Fezzan Became Europe’s New Border

      The principal gateway into Europe for refugees and migrants runs through the power vacuum in southern Libya’s Fezzan region. Any effort by European policymakers to stabilise Fezzan must be part of a national-level strategy aimed at developing Libya’s licit economy and reaching political normalisation.

      https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/north-africa/libya/179-how-libyas-fezzan-became-europes-new-border
      cc @i_s_

      v. aussi ma tentative cartographique :


      https://seenthis.net/messages/604039

    • Avramopoulos says Sophia could be deployed in Libya

      (ANSAmed) - BRUSSELS, AUGUST 3 - European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos told ANSA in an interview Thursday that it is possible that the #Operation_Sophia could be deployed in Libyan waters in the future. “At the moment, priority should be given to what can be done under the current mandate of Operation Sophia which was just renewed with added tasks,” he said. “But the possibility of the Operation moving to a third stage working in Libyan waters was foreseen from the beginning. If the Libyan authorities ask for this, we should be ready to act”. (ANSAmed).

      http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2017/08/03/avramopoulos-says-sophia-could-be-deployed-in-libya_602d3d0e-f817-42b0-ac3

    • Les ambivalences de Tripoli face à la traite migratoire. Les trafiquants ont réussi à pénétrer des pans entiers des institutions officielles

      Par Frédéric Bobin (Zaouïa, Libye, envoyé spécial)

      LE MONDE Le 25.08.2017 à 06h39 • Mis à jour le 25.08.2017 à 10h54

      Les petits trous dessinent comme des auréoles sur le ciment fauve. Le haut mur hérissé de fils de fer barbelés a été grêlé d’impacts de balles de kalachnikov à deux reprises, la plus récente en juin. « Ils sont bien mieux armés que nous », soupire Khaled Al-Toumi, le directeur du centre de détention de Zaouïa, une municipalité située à une cinquantaine de kilomètres à l’ouest de Tripoli. Ici, au cœur de cette bande côtière de la Libye où se concentre l’essentiel des départs de migrants vers l’Italie, une trentaine d’Africains subsahariens sont détenus – un chiffre plutôt faible au regard des centres surpeuplés ailleurs dans le pays.

      C’est que, depuis les assauts de l’établissement par des hommes armés, Khaled Al-Toumi, préfère transférer à Tripoli le maximum de prisonniers. « Nous ne sommes pas en mesure de les protéger », dit-il. Avec ses huit gardes modestement équipés, il avoue son impuissance face aux gangs de trafiquants qui n’hésitent pas à venir récupérer par la force des migrants, dont l’arrestation par les autorités perturbe leurs juteuses affaires. En 2014, ils avaient repris environ 80 Erythréens. Plus récemment, sept Pakistanais. « On reçoit en permanence des menaces, ils disent qu’ils vont enlever nos enfants », ajoute le directeur.

      Le danger est quotidien. Le 18 juillet, veille de la rencontre avec Khaled Al-Toumi, soixante-dix femmes migrantes ont été enlevées à quelques kilomètres de là alors qu’elles étaient transférées à bord d’un bus du centre de détention de Gharian à celui de Sorman, des localités voisines de Zaouïa.

      On compte en Libye une trentaine de centres de ce type, placés sous la tutelle de la Direction de combat contre la migration illégale (DCMI) rattachée au ministère de l’intérieur. A ces prisons « officielles » s’ajoutent des structures officieuses, administrées ouvertement par des milices. L’ensemble de ce réseau carcéral détient entre 4 000 et 7 000 détenus, selon les Nations unies (ONU).

      « Corruption galopante »

      A l’heure où l’Union européenne (UE) nourrit le projet de sous-traiter à la Libye la gestion du flux migratoire le long de la « route de la Méditerranée centrale », le débat sur les conditions de détention en vigueur dans ces centres a gagné en acuité.

      Une partie de la somme de 90 millions d’euros que l’UE s’est engagée à allouer au gouvernement dit d’« union nationale » de Tripoli sur la question migratoire, en sus des 200 millions d’euros annoncés par l’Italie, vise précisément à l’amélioration de l’environnement de ces centres.

      Si des « hot spots » voient le jour en Libye, idée que caressent certains dirigeants européens – dont le président français Emmanuel Macron – pour externaliser sur le continent africain l’examen des demandes d’asile, ils seront abrités dans de tels établissements à la réputation sulfureuse.

      La situation y est à l’évidence critique. Le centre de Zaouïa ne souffre certes pas de surpopulation. Mais l’état des locaux est piteux, avec ses matelas légers jetés au sol et l’alimentation d’une préoccupante indigence, limitée à un seul plat de macaronis. Aucune infirmerie ne dispense de soins.

      « Je ne touche pas un seul dinar de Tripoli ! », se plaint le directeur, Khaled Al-Toumi. Dans son entourage, on dénonce vertement la « corruption galopante de l’état-major de la DCMI à Tripoli qui vole l’argent ». Quand on lui parle de financement européen, Khaled Al-Toumi affirme ne pas en avoir vu la couleur.

      La complainte est encore plus grinçante au centre de détention pour femmes de Sorman, à une quinzaine de kilomètres à l’ouest : un gros bloc de ciment d’un étage posé sur le sable et piqué de pins en bord de plage. Dans la courette intérieure, des enfants jouent près d’une balançoire.

      Là, la densité humaine est beaucoup plus élevée. La scène est un brin irréelle : dans la pièce centrale, environ quatre-vingts femmes sont entassées, fichu sur la tête, regard levé vers un poste de télévision rivé au mur délavé. D’autres se serrent dans les pièces adjacentes. Certaines ont un bébé sur les jambes, telle Christiane, une Nigériane à tresses assise sur son matelas. « Ici, il n’y a rien, déplore-t-elle. Nous n’avons ni couches ni lait pour les bébés. L’eau de la nappe phréatique est salée. Et le médecin ne vient pas souvent : une fois par semaine, souvent une fois toutes les deux semaines. »

      « Battu avec des tuyaux métalliques »

      Non loin d’elle, Viviane, jeune fille élancée de 20 ans, Nigériane elle aussi, se plaint particulièrement de la nourriture, la fameuse assiette de macaronis de rigueur dans tous les centres de détention.

      Viviane est arrivée en Libye en 2015. Elle a bien tenté d’embarquer à bord d’un Zodiac à partir de Sabratha, la fameuse plate-forme de départs à l’ouest de Sorman, mais une tempête a fait échouer l’opération. Les passagers ont été récupérés par les garde-côtes qui les ont répartis dans les différentes prisons de la Tripolitaine. « Je n’ai pas pu joindre ma famille au téléphone, dit Viviane dans un souffle. Elle me croit morte. »

      Si la visite des centres de détention de Zaouïa ou de Sorman permet de prendre la mesure de l’extrême précarité des conditions de vie, admise sans fard par les officiels des établissements eux-mêmes, la question des violences dans ces lieux coupés du monde est plus délicate.

      Les migrants sont embarrassés de l’évoquer en présence des gardes. Mais mises bout à bout, les confidences qu’ils consentent plus aisément sur leur expérience dans d’autres centres permettent de suggérer un contexte d’une grande brutalité. Celle-ci se déploie sans doute le plus sauvagement dans les prisons privées, officieuses, où le racket des migrants est systématique.

      Et les centres officiellement rattachés à la DCMI n’en sont pas pour autant épargnés. Ainsi Al Hassan Dialo, un Guinéen rencontré à Zaouïa, raconte qu’il était « battu avec des tuyaux métalliques » dans le centre de Gharian, où il avait été précédemment détenu.

      « Extorsion, travail forcé »

      On touche là à l’ambiguïté foncière de ce système de détention, formellement rattaché à l’Etat mais de facto placé sous l’influence des milices contrôlant le terrain. Le fait que des réseaux de trafiquants, liés à ces milices, peuvent impunément enlever des détenus au cœur même des centres, comme ce fut le cas à Zaouïa, donne la mesure de leur capacité de nuisance.

      « Le système est pourri de l’intérieur », se désole un humanitaire. « Des fonctionnaires de l’Etat et des officiels locaux participent au processus de contrebande et de trafic d’êtres humains », abonde un rapport de la Mission d’appui de l’ONU en Libye publié en décembre 2016.

      Dans ces conditions, les migrants font l’objet « d’extorsion, de travail forcé, de mauvais traitements et de tortures », dénonce le rapport. Les femmes, elles, sont victimes de violences sexuelles à grande échelle. Le plus inquiétant est qu’avec l’argent européen promis les centres de détention sous tutelle de la DCMI tendent à se multiplier. Trois nouveaux établissements ont fait ainsi leur apparition ces derniers mois dans le Grand Tripoli.

      La duplicité de l’appareil d’Etat, ou de ce qui en tient lieu, est aussi illustrée par l’attitude des gardes-côtes, autres récipiendaires des financements européens et même de stages de formation. Officiellement, ils affirment lutter contre les réseaux de passeurs au maximum de leurs capacités tout en déplorant l’insuffisance de leurs moyens.

      « Nous ne sommes pas équipés pour faire face aux trafiquants », regrette à Tripoli Ayoub Kassim, le porte-parole de la marine libyenne. Au détour d’un plaidoyer pro domo, le hiérarque militaire glisse que le problème de la gestion des flux migratoires se pose moins sur le littoral qu’au niveau de la frontière méridionale de la Libye. « La seule solution, c’est de maîtriser les migrations au sud, explique-t-il. Malheureusement, les migrants arrivent par le Niger sous les yeux de l’armée française » basée à Madama…

      Opérations de patrouille musclées

      Les vieilles habitudes perdurent. Avant 2011, sous Kadhafi, ces flux migratoires – verrouillés ou tolérés selon l’intérêt diplomatique du moment – étaient instrumentalisés pour exercer une pression sur les Européens.

      Une telle politique semble moins systématique, fragmentation de l’Etat oblige, mais elle continue d’inspirer le comportement de bien des acteurs libyens usant habilement de la carte migratoire pour réclamer des soutiens financiers.

      La déficience des équipements des gardes-côtes ne fait guère de doute. Avec son patrouilleur de 14 mètres de Zaouïa et ses quatre autres bâtiments de 26,4 mètres de Tripoli – souffrant de défaillances techniques bien qu’ayant été réparés en Italie –, l’arsenal en Tripolitaine est de fait limité. Par ailleurs, l’embargo sur les ventes d’armes vers la Libye, toujours en vigueur, en bride le potentiel militaire.

      Pourtant, la hiérarchie des gardes-côtes serait plus convaincante si elle était en mesure d’exercer un contrôle effectif sur ses branches locales. Or, à l’évidence, une sérieuse difficulté se pose à Zaouïa. Le chef local de gardes-côtes, Abdelrahman Milad, plus connu sous le pseudonyme d’Al-Bija, joue un jeu trouble. Selon le rapport du panel des experts sur la Libye de l’ONU, publié en juin, Al-Bija doit son poste à Mohamed Koshlaf, le chef de la principale milice de Zaouïa, qui trempe dans le trafic de migrants.

      Le patrouilleur d’Al-Bija est connu pour ses opérations musclées. Le 21 octobre 2016, il s’est opposé en mer à un sauvetage conduit par l’ONG Sea Watch, provoquant la noyade de vingt-cinq migrants. Le 23 mai 2017, le même patrouilleur intervient dans la zone dite « contiguë » – où la Libye est juridiquement en droit d’agir – pour perturber un autre sauvetage mené par le navire Aquarius, affrété conjointement par Médecins sans frontières et SOS Méditerranée, et le Juvena, affrété par l’ONG allemande Jugend Rettet.

      Duplicité des acteurs libyens

      Les gardes-côtes sont montés à bord d’un Zodiac de migrants, subtilisant téléphones portables et argent des occupants. Ils ont également tiré des coups de feu en l’air, et même dans l’eau où avaient sauté des migrants, ne blessant heureusement personne.

      « Il est difficile de comprendre la logique de ce type de comportement, commente un humanitaire. Peut-être le message envoyé aux migrants est-il : “La prochaine fois, passez par nous.” » Ce « passez par nous » peut signifier, selon de bons observateurs de la scène libyenne, « passez par le réseau de Mohamed Koshlaf », le milicien que l’ONU met en cause dans le trafic de migrants.

      Al-Bija pratiquerait ainsi le deux poids-deux mesures, intraitable ou compréhensif selon que les migrants relèvent de réseaux rivaux ou amis, illustration typique de la duplicité des acteurs libyens. « Al-Bija sait qu’il a commis des erreurs, il cherche maintenant à restaurer son image », dit un résident de Zaouïa. Seule l’expérience le prouvera. En attendant, les Européens doivent coopérer avec lui pour fermer la route de la Méditerranée.

      http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2017/08/16/en-libye-nous-ne-sommes-que-des-esclaves_5172760_3212.html

    • A PATTI CON LA LIBIA

      La Libia è il principale punto di partenza di barconi carichi di migranti diretti in Europa. Con la Libia l’Europa deve trattare per trovare una soluzione. La Libia però è anche un paese allo sbando, diviso. C’è il governo di Tripoli retto da Fayez al-Sarraj. Poi c’è il generale Haftar che controlla i due terzi del territorio del paese. Senza contare gruppi, milizie, clan tribali. Il compito insomma è complicato. Ma qualcosa, forse, si sta muovendo.

      Dopo decine di vertici inutili, migliaia di morti nel Mediterraneo, promesse non mantenute si torna a parlare con una certa insistenza della necessità di stabilizzare la Libia e aiutare il paese che si affaccia sul Mediterraneo. Particolarmente attiva in questa fase la Francia di Macron, oltre naturalmente all’Italia.

      Tra i punti in discussione c’è il coinvolgimento di altri paesi africani di transito come Niger e Ciad che potrebbero fungere da filtro. Oltre naturalmente ad aiuti diretti alla Libia. Assegni milionari destinati a una migliore gestione delle frontiere ad esempio.

      Ma è davvero così semplice? E come la mettiamo con le violenze e le torture subite dai migranti nei centri di detenzione? Perché proprio ora l’Europa sembra svegliarsi? Cosa si cela dietro questa competizione soprattutto tra Roma e Parigi nel trovare intese con Tripoli?

      http://www.rsi.ch/rete-uno/programmi/informazione/modem/A-PATTI-CON-LA-LIBIA-9426001.html

    • Le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique adopte un programme de soutien à la gestion intégrée des migrations et des frontières en Libye d’un montant de 46 millions d’euros

      À la suite du plan d’action de la Commission pour soutenir l’Italie, présenté le 4 juillet, le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique a adopté ce jour un programme doté d’une enveloppe de 46 millions d’euros pour renforcer les capacités des autorités libyennes en matière de gestion intégrée des migrations et des frontières.

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-2187_fr.htm

    • L’Europe va verser 200 millions d’euros à la Libye pour stopper les migrants

      Les dirigeants européens se retrouvent ce vendredi à Malte pour convaincre la Libye de freiner les traversées de migrants en Méditerranée. Ils devraient proposer d’équiper et former ses gardes-côtes. Le projet d’ouvrir des camps en Afrique refait surface.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/020217/leurope-va-verser-200-millions-deuros-la-libye-pour-stopper-les-migrants

      –-> pour archivage...

    • Persécutés en Libye : l’Europe est complice

      L’Union européenne dans son ensemble, et l’Italie en particulier, sont complices des violations des droits humains commises contre les réfugiés et les migrants en Libye. Enquête.

      https://www.amnesty.fr/refugies-et-migrants/actualites/refugies-et-migrants-persecutes-en-libye-leurope-est-complice

      #complicité

      Et l’utilisation du mot « persécutés » n’est évidemment pas été choisi au hasard...
      –-> ça renvoie à la polémique de qui est #réfugié... et du fait que l’UE essaie de dire que les migrants en Libye sont des #migrants_économiques et non pas des réfugiés (comme ceux qui sont en Turquie et/ou en Grèce, qui sont des syriens, donc des réfugiés)...
      Du coup, utiliser le concept de #persécution signifie faire une lien direct avec la Convention sur les réfugiés et admettre que les migrants en Libye sont potentiellement des réfugiés...

      La position de l’UE :

      #Mogherini was questioned about the EU’s strategy of outsourcing the migration crisis to foreign countries such as Libya and Turkey, which received billions to prevent Syrian refugees from crossing to Greece.

      She said the situation was different on two counts: first, the migrants stranded in Libya were not legitimate asylum seekers like those fleeing the war in Syria. And second, different international bodies were in charge.

      “When it comes to Turkey, it is mainly refugees from Syria; when it comes to Libya, it is mainly migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and the relevant international laws apply in different manners and the relevant UN agencies are different – the UNHC

      https://www.euractiv.com/section/development-policy/news/libya-human-bondage-risks-overshadowing-africa-eu-summit
      voir ici : http://seen.li/dqtt

      Du coup, @sinehebdo, « #persécutés » serait aussi un mot à ajouter à ta longue liste...

    • v. aussi:
      Libya: Libya’s dark web of collusion: Abuses against Europe-bound refugees and migrants

      In recent years, hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants have braved the journey across Africa to Libya and often on to Europe. In response, the Libyan authorities have used mass indefinite detention as their primary migration management tool. Regrettably, the European Union and Italy in particular, have decided to reinforce the capacity of Libyan authorities to intercept refugees and migrants at sea and transfer them to detention centres. It is essential that the aims and nature of this co-operation be rethought; that the focus shift from preventing arrivals in Europe to protecting the rights of refugees and migrants.

      https://www.amnesty.org/fr/documents/document/?indexNumber=mde19%2f7561%2f2017&language=en
      #rapport

    • Amnesty France : « L’Union Européenne est complice des violations de droits de l’homme en Libye »

      Jean-François Dubost est responsable du Programme Protection des Populations (réfugiés, civils dans les conflits, discriminations) chez Amnesty France. L’ONG publie un rapport sur la responsabilité des gouvernements européens dans les violations des droits humains des réfugiés et des migrants en Libye.

      https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-invite-de-6h20/l-invite-de-6h20-12-decembre-2017
      #responsabilité

    • Accordi e crimini contro l’umanità in un rapporto di Amnesty International

      La Rotta del Mediterraneo centrale, dal Corno d’Africa, dall’Africa subsahariana, al Niger al Ciad ed alla Libia costituisce ormai l’unica via di fuga da paesi in guerra o precipitati in crisi economiche che mettono a repentaglio la vita dei loro abitanti, senza alcuna possibile distinzione tra migranti economici e richiedenti asilo. Anche perché in Africa, ed in Libia in particolare, la possibilità concreta di chiedere asilo ed ottenere un permesso di soggiorno o un visto, oltre al riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato da parte dell’UNHCR, è praticamente nulla. Le poche persone trasferite in altri paesi europei dai campi libici (resettlement), come i rimpatri volontari ampiamente pubblicizzati, sono soltanto l’ennesima foglia di fico che si sta utilizzando per nascondere le condizioni disumane in cui centinaia di migliaia di persone vengono trattenute sotto sequestro nei centri di detenzione libici , ufficiali o informali. In tutti gravissime violazioni dei diritti umani, anche subito dopo la visita dei rappresentanti dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM, come dichiarano alcuni testimoni.

      https://www.a-dif.org/2017/12/12/accordi-e-crimini-contro-lumanita-in-un-rapporto-di-amnesty-international

    • Bundestag study: Cooperation with Libyan coastguard infringes international conventions

      “Libya is unable to nominate a Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC), and so rescue missions outside its territorial waters are coordinated by the Italian MRCC in Rome. More and more often the Libyan coastguard is being tasked to lead these missions as on-scene-commander. Since refugees are subsequently brought to Libya, the MRCC in Rome may be infringing the prohibition of refoulement contained in the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. This, indeed, was also the conclusion reached in a study produced by the Bundestag Research Service. The European Union and its member states must therefore press for an immediate end to this cooperation with the Libyan coastguard”, says Andrej Hunko, European policy spokesman for the Left Party.

      The Italian Navy is intercepting refugees in the Mediterranean and arranging for them to be picked up by Libyan coastguard vessels. The Bundestag study therefore suspects an infringement of the European Human Rights Convention of the Council of Europe. The rights enshrined in the Convention also apply on the high seas.

      Andrej Hunko goes on to say, “For two years the Libyan coastguard has regularly been using force against sea rescuers, and many refugees have drowned during these power games. As part of the EUNAVFOR MED military mission, the Bundeswehr has also been cooperating with the Libyan coastguard and allegedly trained them in sea rescue. I regard that as a pretext to arm Libya for the prevention of migration. This cooperation must be the subject of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, because the people who are being forcibly returned with the assistance of the EU are being inhumanely treated, tortured or killed.

      The study also emphasises that the acts of aggression against private rescue ships violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Nothing in that Convention prescribes that sea rescues must be undertaken by a single vessel. On the contrary, masters of other ships even have a duty to render assistance if they cannot be sure that all of the persons in distress will be quickly rescued. This is undoubtedly the case with the brutal operations of the Libyan coastguard.

      The Libyan Navy might soon have its own MRCC, which would then be attached to the EU surveillance system. The European Commission examined this option in a feasibility study, and Italy is now establishing a coordination centre for this purpose in Tripoli. A Libyan MRCC would encourage the Libyan coastguard to throw its weight about even more. The result would be further violations of international conventions and even more deaths.”

      https://andrej-hunko.de/presse/3946-bundestag-study-cooperation-with-libyan-coastguard-infringes-inter

      v. aussi l’étude:
      https://andrej-hunko.de/start/download/dokumente/1109-bundestag-research-services-maritime-rescue-in-the-mediterranean/file

    • Migrants : « La nasse libyenne a été en partie tissée par la France et l’Union européenne »

      Dans une tribune publiée dans « Le Monde », Thierry Allafort-Duverger, le directeur général de Médecins Sans Frontières, juge hypocrite la posture de la France, qui favorise l’interception de migrants par les garde-côtes libyens et dénonce leurs conditions de détention sur place.

      https://www.msf.fr/actualite/articles/migrants-nasse-libyenne-ete-en-partie-tissee-france-et-union-europeenne
      #hypocrisie

    • Libye : derrière l’arbre de « l’esclavage »
      Par Ali Bensaâd, Professeur à l’Institut français de géopolitique, Paris-VIII — 30 novembre 2017 à 17:56

      L’émotion suscitée par les crimes abjectes révélés par CNN ne doit pas occulter un phénomène bien plus vaste et ancien : celui de centaines de milliers de migrants africains qui vivent et travaillent depuis des décennies, en Libye et au Maghreb, dans des conditions extrêmes d’exploitation et d’atteinte à leur dignité.

      L’onde de choc créée par la diffusion de la vidéo de CNN sur la « vente » de migrants en Libye, ne doit pas se perdre en indignations. Et il ne faut pas que les crimes révélés occultent un malheur encore plus vaste, celui de centaines de milliers de migrants africains qui vivent et travaillent depuis des décennies, en Libye et au Maghreb, dans des conditions extrêmes d’exploitation et d’atteinte à leur dignité. Par ailleurs, ces véritables crimes contre l’humanité ne sont, hélas, pas spécifiques de la Libye. A titre d’exemple, les bédouins égyptiens ou israéliens - supplétifs sécuritaires de leurs armées - ont précédé les milices libyennes dans ces pratiques qu’ils poursuivent toujours et qui ont été largement documentées.

      Ces crimes contre l’humanité, en raison de leur caractère particulièrement abject, méritent d’être justement qualifiés. Il faut s’interroger si le qualificatif « esclavage », au-delà du juste opprobre dont il faut entourer ces pratiques, est le plus scientifiquement approprié pour comprendre et combattre ces pratiques d’autant que l’esclavage a été une réalité qui a structuré pendant un millénaire le rapport entre le Maghreb et l’Afrique subsaharienne. Il demeure le non-dit des inconscients culturels des sociétés de part et d’autre du Sahara, une sorte de « bombe à retardement ». « Mal nommer un objet, c’est ajouter au malheur de ce monde » (1) disait Camus. Et la Libye est un condensé des malheurs du monde des migrations. Il faut donc les saisir par-delà le raccourci de l’émotion.

      D’abord, ils ne sont nullement le produit du contexte actuel de chaos du pays, même si celui-ci les aggrave. Depuis des décennies, chercheurs et journalistes ont documenté la difficile condition des migrants en Libye qui, depuis les années 60, font tourner pour l’essentiel l’économie de ce pays rentier. Leur nombre a pu atteindre certaines années jusqu’à un million pour une population qui pouvait alors compter à peine cinq millions d’habitants. C’est dire leur importance dans le paysage économique et social de ce pays. Mais loin de favoriser leur intégration, l’importance de leur nombre a été conjurée par une précarisation systématique et violente comme l’illustrent les expulsions massives et violentes de migrants qui ont jalonné l’histoire du pays notamment en 1979, 1981, 1985, 1995, 2000 et 2007. Expulsions qui servaient tout à la fois à installer cette immigration dans une réversibilité mais aussi à pénaliser ou gratifier les pays dont ils sont originaires pour les vassaliser. Peut-être contraints, les dirigeants africains alors restaient sourds aux interpellations de leurs migrants pour ne pas contrarier la générosité du « guide » dont ils étaient les fidèles clients. Ils se tairont également quand, en 2000, Moussa Koussa, l’ancien responsable des services libyens, aujourd’hui luxueusement réfugié à Londres, a organisé un véritable pogrom où périrent 500 migrants africains assassinés dans des « émeutes populaires » instrumentalisées. Leur but était cyniquement de faire avaliser, par ricochet, la nouvelle orientation du régime favorable à la normalisation et l’ouverture à l’Europe et cela en attisant un sentiment anti-africain pour déstabiliser la partie de la vieille garde qui y était rétive. Cette normalisation, faite en partie sur le cadavre de migrants africains, se soldera par l’intronisation de Kadhafi comme gardien des frontières européennes. Les migrants interceptés et ceux que l’Italie refoule, en violation des lois européennes, sont emprisonnés, parfois dans les mêmes lieux aujourd’hui, et soumis aux mêmes traitements dégradants.

      En 2006, ce n’était pas 260 migrants marocains qui croupissaient comme aujourd’hui dans les prisons libyennes, ceux dont la vidéo a ému l’opinion, mais 3 000 et dans des conditions tout aussi inhumaines. Kadhafi a signé toutes les conventions que les Européens ont voulues, sachant qu’il n’allait pas les appliquer. Mais lorsque le HCR a essayé de prendre langue avec le pouvoir libyen au sujet de la convention de Genève sur les réfugiés, Kadhafi ferma les bureaux du HCR et expulsa, en les humiliant, ses dirigeants le 9 juin 2010. Le même jour, débutait un nouveau round de négociations en vue d’un accord de partenariat entre la Libye et l’Union européenne et le lendemain, 10 juin, Kadhafi était accueilli en Italie. Une année plus tard, alors même que le CNT n’avait pas encore établi son autorité sur le pays et que Kadhafi et ses troupes continuaient à résister, le CNT a été contraint de signer avec l’Italie un accord sur les migrations dont un volet sur la réadmission des migrants transitant par son territoire. Hier, comme aujourd’hui, c’est à la demande expresse et explicite de l’UE que les autorités libyennes mènent une politique de répression et de rétention de migrants. Et peut-on ignorer qu’aujourd’hui traiter avec les pouvoirs libyens, notamment sur les questions sécuritaires, c’est traiter de fait avec des milices dont dépendent ces pouvoirs eux-mêmes pour leur propre sécurité ? Faut-il s’étonner après cela de voir des milices gérer des centres de rétention demandés par l’UE ?

      Alors que peine à émerger une autorité centrale en Libye, les pays occidentaux n’ont pas cessé de multiplier les exigences à l’égard des fragiles centres d’un pouvoir balbutiant pour leur faire prendre en charge leur protection contre les migrations et le terrorisme au risque de les fragiliser comme l’a montré l’exemple des milices de Misrata. Acteur important de la réconciliation et de la lutte contre les extrémistes, elles ont été poussées, à Syrte, à combattre Daech quasiment seules. Elles en sont sorties exsangues, rongées par le doute et fragilisées face à leurs propres extrémistes. Les rackets, les kidnappings et le travail forcé pour ceux qui ne peuvent pas payer, sont aussi le lot des Libyens, notamment ceux appartenant au camp des vaincus, détenus dans ce que les Libyens nomment « prisons clandestines ». Libyens, mais plus souvent migrants qui ne peuvent payer, sont mis au travail forcé pour les propres besoins des miliciens en étant « loués » ponctuellement le temps d’une captivité qui dure de quelques semaines à quelques mois pour des sommes dérisoires.

      Dans la vidéo de CNN, les sommes évoquées, autour de 400 dinars libyens, sont faussement traduites par les journalistes, selon le taux officiel fictif, en 400 dollars. En réalité, sur le marché réel, la valeur est dix fois inférieure, un dollar valant dix dinars libyens et un euro, douze. Faire transiter un homme, même sur la seule portion saharienne du territoire, rapporte 15 fois plus (500 euros) aux trafiquants et miliciens. C’est par défaut que les milices se rabattent sur l’exploitation, un temps, de migrants désargentés mais par ailleurs encombrants.

      La scène filmée par CNN est abjecte et relève du crime contre l’humanité. Mais il s’agit de transactions sur du travail forcé et de corvées. Il ne s’agit pas de vente d’hommes. Ce n’est pas relativiser ou diminuer ce qui est un véritable crime contre l’humanité, mais il faut justement qualifier les objets. Il s’agit de pratiques criminelles de guerre et de banditisme qui exploitent les failles de politiques migratoires globales. On n’assiste pas à une résurgence de l’esclavage. Il ne faut pas démonétiser l’indignation et la vigilance en recourant rapidement aux catégories historiques qui mobilisent l’émotion. Celle-ci retombe toujours. Et pendant que le débat s’enflamme sur « l’esclavage », la même semaine, des centaines d’hommes « libres » sont morts, noyés en Méditerranée, s’ajoutant à des dizaines de milliers qui les avaient précédés.

      (1) C’est la véritable expression utilisée par Camus dans un essai de 1944, paru dans Poésie 44, (Sur une philosophie de l’expression), substantiellement très différente, en termes philosophiques, de ce qui sera reporté par la suite : « Mal nommer les choses, c’est ajouter aux malheurs du monde. »

      http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2017/11/30/libye-derriere-l-arbre-de-l-esclavage_1613662

    • Quand l’Union européenne veut bloquer les exilé-e-s en Libye

      L’Union européenne renforce les capacités des garde-côtes Libyens pour qu’ils interceptent les bateaux d’exilé-e-s dans les eaux territoriales et les ramènent en Libye. Des navires de l’#OTAN patrouillent au large prétendument pour s’attaquer aux « bateaux de passeurs », ce qui veut dire que des moyens militaires sont mobilisés pour empêcher les exilé-e-s d’atteindre les côtes européennes. L’idée a été émise de faire le tri, entre les personnes qui relèveraient de l’asile et celles qui seraient des « migrants économiques » ayant « vocation » à être renvoyés, sur des bateaux ua large de la Libye plutôt que sur le sol italien, créant ainsi des « #hotspots_flottants« .

      https://lampedusauneile.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/quand-lunion-europeenne-veut-bloquer-les-exile-e-s-en-lib

    • Le milizie libiche catturano in mare centinaia di migranti in fuga verso l’Europa. E li richiudono in prigione. Intanto l’Unione Europea si prepara ad inviare istruttori per rafforzare le capacità di arresto da parte della polizia libica. Ma in Libia ci sono tante «guardie costiere» ed ognuna risponde ad un governo diverso.

      Sembra di ritornare al 2010, quando dopo i respingimenti collettivi in Libia eseguiti direttamente da mezzi della Guardia di finanza italiana a partire dal 7 maggio 2009, in base agli accordi tra Berlusconi e Gheddafi, si inviarono in Libia agenti della Guardia di finanza per istruire la Guardia Costiera libica nelle operazioni di blocco dei migranti che erano riusciti a fuggire imbarcandosi su mezzi sempre più fatiscenti.

      http://dirittiefrontiere.blogspot.ch/2016/05/le-milizie-libiche-catturano-in-mare.html?m=1

    • Merkel, Hollande Warn Libya May Be Next Big Migrant Staging Area

      The European Union may need an agreement with Libya to restrict refugee flows similar to one with Turkey as the North African country threatens to become the next gateway for migrants to Europe, the leaders of Germany and France said.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/merkel-hollande-warn-libya-may-be-next-big-migrant-staging-area
      #accord #Libye #migrations #réfugiés #asile #politique_migratoire #externalisation #UE #Europe

    • Le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique adopte un programme de 90 millions € pour la protection des migrants et l’amélioration de la gestion des migrations en Libye

      Dans le prolongement de la communication conjointe sur la route de la Méditerranée centrale et de la déclaration de Malte, le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique a adopté ce jour, sur proposition de la Commission européenne, un programme de 90 millions € visant à renforcer la protection des migrants et à améliorer la gestion des migrations en Libye.

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-951_fr.htm

    • L’Europa non può affidare alla Libia le vite dei migranti

      “Il rischio è che Italia ed Europa si rendano complici delle violazioni dei diritti umani commesse in Libia”, dice il direttore generale di Medici senza frontiere (Msf) Arjan Hehenkamp. Mentre le organizzazioni non governative che salvano i migranti nel Mediterraneo centrale sono al centro di un processo di criminalizzazione, l’Italia e l’Europa stanno cercando di delegare alle autorità libiche la soluzione del problema degli sbarchi.

      http://www.internazionale.it/video/2017/05/04/ong-libia-migranti

    • MSF accuses Libyan coastguard of endangering people’s lives during Mediterranean rescue

      During a rescue in the Mediterranean Sea on 23 May, the Libyan coastguard approached boats in distress, intimidated the passengers and then fired gunshots into the air, threatening people’s lives and creating mayhem, according to aid organisations Médecins Sans Frontières and SOS Méditerranée, whose teams witnessed the violent incident.

      http://www.msf.org/en/article/msf-accuses-libyan-coastguard-endangering-people%E2%80%99s-lives-during-mediter

    • Enquête. Le chaos libyen est en train de déborder en Méditerranée

      Pour qu’ils bloquent les flux migratoires, l’Italie, appuyée par l’UE, a scellé un accord avec les gardes-côtes libyens. Mais ils ne sont que l’une des très nombreuses forces en présence dans cet État en lambeaux. Désormais la Méditerranée devient dangereuse pour la marine italienne, les migrants, et les pêcheurs.


      http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/enquete-le-chaos-libyen-est-en-train-de-deborder-en-mediterra

    • Architect of EU-Turkey refugee pact pushes for West Africa deal

      “Every migrant from West Africa who survives the dangerous journey from Libya to Italy remains in Europe for years afterwards — regardless of the outcome of his or her asylum application,” Knaus said in an interview.

      To accelerate the deportations of rejected asylum seekers to West African countries that are considered safe, the EU needs to forge agreements with their governments, he said.

      http://www.politico.eu/article/migration-italy-libya-architect-of-eu-turkey-refugee-pact-pushes-for-west-a
      cc @i_s_

      Avec ce commentaire de Francesca Spinelli :

    • Pour 20 milliards, la Libye pourrait bloquer les migrants à sa frontière sud

      L’homme fort de l’Est libyen, Khalifa Haftar, estime à « 20 milliards de dollars sur 20 ou 25 ans » l’effort européen nécessaire pour aider à bloquer les flux de migrants à la frontière sud du pays.

      https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/8837947-pour-20-milliards-la-libye-pourrait-bloquer-les-migrants-a-sa-frontiere-

    • Bruxelles offre 200 millions d’euros à la Libye pour freiner l’immigration

      La Commission européenne a mis sur la table de nouvelles mesures pour freiner l’arrivée de migrants via la mer méditerranée, dont 200 millions d’euros pour la Libye. Un article de notre partenaire Euroefe.

      http://www.euractiv.fr/section/l-europe-dans-le-monde/news/bruxelles-offre-200-millions-deuros-a-la-libye-pour-freiner-limmigration/?nl_ref=29858390

      #Libye #asile #migrations #accord #deal #réfugiés #externalisation
      cc @reka

    • Stuck in Libya. Migrants and (Our) Political Responsibilities

      Fighting at Tripoli’s international airport was still under way when, in July 2014, the diplomatic missions of European countries, the United States and Canada were shut down. At that time Italy decided to maintain a pied-à-terre in place in order to preserve the precarious balance of its assets in the two-headed country, strengthening security at its local headquarters on Tripoli’s seafront. On the one hand there was no forsaking the Mellitah Oil & Gas compound, controlled by Eni and based west of Tripoli. On the other, the Libyan coast also had to be protected to assist the Italian forces deployed in Libyan waters and engaged in the Mare Nostrum operation to dismantle the human smuggling network between Libya and Italy, as per the official mandate. But the escalation of the civil war and the consequent deterioration of security conditions led Rome to leave as well, in February 2015.

      http://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/stuck-libya-migrants-and-our-political-responsibilities-16294

    • Libia: diritto d’asilo cercasi, smarrito fra Bruxelles e Tripoli (passando per Roma)

      La recente Comunicazione congiunta della Commissione e dell’Alto rappresentante per la politica estera dell’UE, il Memorandum Italia-Libia firmato il 2 febbraio e la Dichiarazione uscita dal Consiglio europeo di venerdì 3 alla Valletta hanno delineato un progetto di chiusura della “rotta” del Mediterraneo centrale che rischia di seppellire, di fatto, il diritto d’asilo nel Paese e ai suoi confini.

      http://viedifuga.org/libia-diritto-d-asilo-cercasi-smarrito-fra-bruxelles-e-tripoli

    • Immigration : l’Union européenne veut aider la Libye

      L’Union européenne veut mettre fin à ces traversées entre la Libye et l’Italie. Leur plan passe par une aide financière aux autorités libyennes.

      http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/19h30/video/immigration-lunion-europeenne-veut-aider-la-libye?id=8360849

      Dans ce bref reportage, la RTS demande l’opinion d’Etienne Piguet (prof en géographie des migrations à l’Université de Neuchâtel) :
      « L’Union européenne veut absolument limiter les arrivées, mais en même temps on ne peut pas simplement refouler les gens. C’est pas acceptable du point de vue des droits humains. Donc l’UE essaie de mettre en place un système qui tient les gens à distance tout en leur offrant des conditions acceptables d’accueil » (en Libye, entend-il)
      Je m’abstiens de tout commentaire.

    • New EU Partnerships in North Africa: Potential to Backfire?

      As European leaders meet in Malta to receive a progress report on the EU flagship migration partnership framework, the European Union finds itself in much the same position as two years earlier, with hundreds of desperate individuals cramming into flimsy boats and setting off each week from the Libyan coast in hope of finding swift rescue and passage in Europe. Options to reduce flows unilaterally are limited. Barred by EU law from “pushing back” vessels encountered in the Mediterranean, the European Union is faced with no alternative but to rescue and transfer passengers to European territory, where the full framework of European asylum law applies. Member States are thus looking more closely at the role transit countries along the North African coastline might play in managing these flows across the Central Mediterranean. Specifically, they are examining the possibility of reallocating responsibility for search and rescue to Southern partners, thereby decoupling the rescue missions from territorial access to international protection in Europe.

      http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/new-eu-partnerships-north-africa-potential-backfire

    • Migration: MSF warns EU about inhumane approach to migration management

      As European Union (EU) leaders meet in Malta today to discuss migration, with a view to “close down the route from Libya to Italy” by stepping up cooperation with the Libyan authorities, we want to raise grave concerns about the fate of people trapped in Libya or returned to the country. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has been providing medical care to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers detained in Tripoli and the surrounding area since July 2016 and people are detained arbitrarily in inhumane and unsanitary conditions, often without enough food and clean water and with a lack of access to medical care.

      http://www.msf.org/en/article/migration-msf-warns-eu-about-inhumane-approach-migration-management

    • EU and Italy migration deal with Libya draws sharp criticism from Libyan NGOs

      Twelve Libyan non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have issued a joint statement criticising the EU’s latest migrant policy as set out at the Malta summit a week ago as well as the Italy-Libya deal signed earlier which agreed that migrants should be sent back to Libya and repartiated voluntarily from there. Both represented a fundamental “immoral and inhumane attitude” towards migrants, they said. International human rights and calls had to be respected.

      https://www.libyaherald.com/2017/02/10/eu-and-italy-migration-deal-with-libya-draws-sharp-criticism-from-libya

    • Libya is not Turkey: why the EU plan to stop Mediterranean migration is a human rights concern

      EU leaders have agreed to a plan that will provide Libya’s UN-backed government €200 million for dealing with migration. This includes an increase in funding for the Libyan coastguard, with an overall aim to stop migrant boats crossing the Mediterranean to Italy.

      https://theconversation.com/libya-is-not-turkey-why-the-eu-plan-to-stop-mediterranean-migration

    • EU aims to step up help to Libya coastguards on migrant patrols

      TUNIS (Reuters) - The European Union wants to rapidly expand training of Libyan coastguards to stem migrant flows to Italy and reduce deaths at sea, an EU naval mission said on Thursday, signaling a renewed push to support a force struggling to patrol its own coasts.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-libya/eu-aims-to-step-up-help-to-libya-coastguards-on-migrant-patrols-idUSKCN1GR3

      #UE #EU

    • Why Cooperating With Libya on Migration Could Damage the EU’s Standing

      Italy and the Netherlands began training Libyan coast guard and navy officers on Italian and Dutch navy ships in the Mediterranean earlier in October. The training is part of the European Union’s anti-smuggling operation in the central Mediterranean with the goal of enhancing Libya’s “capability to disrupt smuggling and trafficking… and to perform search-and-rescue activities.”

      http://europe.newsweek.com/why-cooperating-libya-migration-could-damage-eus-standing-516099?rm
      #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Europe #UE #EU #Libye #coopération #externalisation #Méditerranée #Italie #Pays-Bas #gardes-côtes

    • Les migrants paient le prix fort de la coopération entre l’UE et les garde-côtes libyens

      Nombre de dirigeants européens appellent à une « coopération » renforcée avec les garde-côtes libyens. Mais une fois interceptés en mer, ces migrants sont renvoyés dans des centres de détention indignes et risquent de retomber aux mains de trafiquants.

      C’est un peu la bouée de sauvetage des dirigeants européens. La « coopération » avec la Libye et ses légions de garde-côtes reste l’une des dernières politiques à faire consensus dans les capitales de l’UE, s’agissant des migrants. Initiée en 2016 pour favoriser l’interception d’embarcations avant leur entrée dans les eaux à responsabilité italienne ou maltaise, elle a fait chuter le nombre d’arrivées en Europe.

      Emmanuel Macron en particulier s’en est félicité, mardi 26 juin, depuis le Vatican : « La capacité à fermer cette route [entre la Libye et l’Italie, ndlr] est la réponse la plus efficace » au défi migratoire. Selon lui, ce serait même « la plus humaine ». Alors qu’un Conseil européen crucial s’ouvre ce jeudi 28 juin, le président français appelle donc à « renforcer » cette coopération avec Tripoli.

      Convaincu qu’il faut laisser les Libyens travailler, il s’en est même pris, mardi, aux bateaux humanitaires et en particulier au Lifeline, le navire affrété par une ONG allemande qui a débarqué 233 migrants mercredi soir à Malte (après une semaine d’attente en mer et un blocus de l’Italie), l’accusant d’être « intervenu en contravention de toutes les règles et des garde-côtes libyens ». Lancé, Emmanuel Macron est allé jusqu’à reprocher aux bateaux des ONG de faire « le jeu des passeurs ».

      Inédite dans sa bouche (mais entendue mille fois dans les diatribes de l’extrême droite transalpine), cette sentence fait depuis bondir les organisations humanitaires les unes après les autres, au point que Médecins sans frontières (qui affrète l’Aquarius avec SOS Méditerranée), Amnesty International France, La Cimade et Médecins du monde réclament désormais un rendez-vous à l’Élysée, se disant « consternées ».

      Ravi, lui, le ministre de l’intérieur italien et leader d’extrême droite, Matteo Salvini, en a profité pour annoncer mercredi un don exceptionnel en faveur des garde-côtes de Tripoli, auxquels il avait rendu visite l’avant-veille : 12 navires de patrouille, une véritable petite flotte.

      En deux ans, la coopération avec ce pays de furie qu’est la Libye post-Kadhafi semble ainsi devenue la solution miracle, « la plus humaine » même, que l’UE ait dénichée face au défi migratoire en Méditerranée centrale. Comment en est-on arrivé là ? Jusqu’où va cette « coopération » qualifiée de « complicité » par certaines ONG ? Quels sont ses résultats ?

      • Déjà 8 100 interceptions en mer
      À ce jour, en 2018, environ 16 000 migrants ont réussi à traverser jusqu’en Italie, soit une baisse de 77 % par rapport à l’an dernier. Sur ce point, Emmanuel Macron a raison : « Nous avons réduit les flux. » Les raisons, en réalité, sont diverses. Mais de fait, plus de 8 100 personnes parties de Libye ont déjà été rattrapées par les garde-côtes du pays cette année et ramenées à terre, d’après le Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés (le HCR). Contre 800 en 2015.

      Dans les écrits de cette agence de l’ONU, ces migrants sont dits « sauvés/interceptés », sans qu’il soit tranché entre ces deux termes, ces deux réalités. À lui seul, ce « / » révèle toute l’ambiguïté des politiques de coopération de l’UE : si Bruxelles aime penser que ces vies sont sauvées, les ONG soulignent qu’elles sont surtout ramenées en enfer. Certains, d’ailleurs, préfèrent sauter de leur bateau pneumatique en pleine mer plutôt que retourner en arrière.

      • En Libye, l’« abominable » sort des migrants (source officielle)
      Pour comprendre les critiques des ONG, il faut rappeler les conditions inhumaines dans lesquelles les exilés survivent dans cet « État tampon », aujourd’hui dirigé par un gouvernement d’union nationale ultra contesté (basé à Tripoli), sans contrôle sur des parts entières du territoire. « Ce que nous entendons dépasse l’entendement, rapporte l’un des infirmiers de l’Aquarius, qui fut du voyage jusqu’à Valence. Les migrants subsahariens sont affamés, assoiffés, torturés. » Parmi les 630 passagers débarqués en Espagne, l’une de ses collègues raconte avoir identifié de nombreux « survivants de violences sexuelles », « des femmes et des hommes à la fois, qui ont vécu le viol et la torture sexuelle comme méthodes d’extorsion de fonds », les familles étant souvent soumises au chantage par téléphone. Un diagnostic dicté par l’émotion ? Des exagérations de rescapés ?

      Le même constat a été officiellement dressé, dès janvier 2017, par le Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l’homme de l’ONU. « Les migrants se trouvant sur le sol libyen sont victimes de détention arbitraire dans des conditions inhumaines, d’actes de torture, notamment de violence sexuelle, d’enlèvements visant à obtenir une rançon, de racket, de travail forcé et de meurtre », peut-on lire dans son rapport, où l’on distingue les centres de détention officiels dirigés par le Service de lutte contre la migration illégale (relevant du ministère de l’intérieur) et les prisons clandestines tenues par des milices armées.

      Même dans les centres gouvernementaux, les exilés « sont détenus arbitrairement sans la moindre procédure judiciaire, en violation du droit libyen et des normes internationales des droits de l’homme. (…) Ils sont souvent placés dans des entrepôts dont les conditions sont abominables (…). Des surveillants refusent aux migrants l’accès aux toilettes, les obligeant à uriner et à déféquer [là où ils sont]. Dans certains cas, les migrants souffrent de malnutrition grave [environ un tiers de la ration calorique quotidienne minimale]. Des sources nombreuses et concordantes [évoquent] la commission d’actes de torture, notamment des passages à tabac, des violences sexuelles et du travail forcé ».

      Sachant qu’il y a pire à côté : « Des groupes armés et des trafiquants détiennent d’autres migrants dans des lieux non officiels. » Certaines de ces milices, d’ailleurs, « opèrent pour le compte de l’État » ou pour « des agents de l’État », pointe le rapport. Le marché du kidnapping, de la vente et de la revente, est florissant. C’est l’enfer sans même Lucifer pour l’administrer.

      En mai dernier, par exemple, une centaine de migrants a réussi à s’évader d’une prison clandestine de la région de Bani Walid, où MSF gère une clinique de jour. « Parmi les survivants que nous avons soignés, des jeunes de 16 à 18 ans en majorité, certains souffrent de blessures par balles, de fractures multiples, de brûlures, témoigne Christophe Biteau, chef de mission de l’ONG en Libye. Certains nous racontent avoir été baladés, détenus, revendus, etc., pendant trois ans. » Parfois, MSF recueille aussi des migrants relâchés « spontanément » par leurs trafiquants : « Un mec qui commence à tousser par exemple, ils n’en veulent plus à cause des craintes de tuberculose. Pareil en cas d’infections graves. Il y a comme ça des migrants, sur lesquels ils avaient investi, qu’ils passent par “pertes et profits”, si j’ose dire. »

      Depuis 2017, et surtout les images d’un marché aux esclaves diffusées sur CNN, les pressions de l’ONU comme de l’UE se sont toutefois multipliées sur le gouvernement de Tripoli, afin qu’il s’efforce de vider les centres officiels les plus honteux – 18 ont été fermés, d’après un bilan de mars dernier. Mais dans un rapport récent, daté de mai 2018, le secrétaire général de l’ONU persiste : « Les migrants continuent d’être sujets (…) à la torture, à du rançonnement, à du travail forcé et à des meurtres », dans des « centres officiels et non officiels ». Les auteurs ? « Des agents de l’État, des groupes armés, des trafiquants, des gangs criminels », encore et encore.

      Au 21 juin, plus de 5 800 personnes étaient toujours détenues dans les centres officiels. « Nous en avons répertorié 33, dont 4 où nous avons des difficultés d’accès », précise l’envoyé spécial du HCR pour la situation en Méditerranée centrale, Vincent Cochetel, qui glisse au passage : « Il est arrivé que des gens disparaissent après nous avoir parlé. » Surtout, ces derniers jours, avec la fin du ramadan et les encouragements des dirigeants européens adressés aux garde-côtes libyens, ces centres de détention se remplissent à nouveau.

      • Un retour automatique en détention
      Car c’est bien là, dans ces bâtiments gérés par le ministère de l’intérieur, que sont théoriquement renvoyés les migrants « sauvés/interceptés » en mer. Déjà difficile, cette réalité en cache toutefois une autre. « Les embarcations des migrants décollent en général de Libye en pleine nuit, raconte Christophe Biteau, de MSF. Donc les interceptions par les garde-côtes se font vers 2 h ou 3 h du matin et les débarquements vers 6 h. Là, avant l’arrivée des services du ministère de l’intérieur libyen et du HCR (dont la présence est autorisée sur la douzaine de plateformes de débarquement utilisées), il y a un laps de temps critique. » Où tout peut arriver.

      L’arrivée à Malte, mercredi 27 juin 2018, des migrants sauvés par le navire humanitaire « Lifeline » © Reuters
      Certains migrants de la Corne de l’Afrique (Érythrée, Somalie, etc.), réputés plus « solvables » que d’autres parce qu’ils auraient des proches en Europe jouissant déjà du statut de réfugiés, racontent avoir été rachetés à des garde-côtes par des trafiquants. Ces derniers répercuteraient ensuite le prix d’achat de leur « marchandise » sur le tarif de la traversée, plus chère à la seconde tentative… Si Christophe Biteau ne peut témoigner directement d’une telle corruption de garde-côtes, il déclare sans hésiter : « Une personne ramenée en Libye peut très bien se retrouver à nouveau dans les mains de trafiquants. »

      Au début du mois de juin, le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU (rien de moins) a voté des sanctions à l’égard de six trafiquants de migrants (gel de comptes bancaires, interdiction de voyager, etc.), dont le chef d’une unité de… garde-côtes. D’autres de ses collègues ont été suspectés par les ONG de laisser passer les embarcations siglées par tel ou tel trafiquant, contre rémunération.

      En tout cas, parmi les migrants interceptés et ramenés à terre, « il y a des gens qui disparaissent dans les transferts vers les centres de détention », confirme Vincent Cochetel, l’envoyé spécial du HCR. « Sur les plateformes de débarquement, on aimerait donc mettre en place un système d’enregistrement biométrique, pour essayer de retrouver ensuite les migrants dans les centres, pour protéger les gens. Pour l’instant, on n’a réussi à convaincre personne. » Les « kits médicaux » distribués sur place, financés par l’UE, certes utiles, ne sont pas à la hauteur de l’enjeu.

      • Des entraînements financés par l’UE
      Dans le cadre de l’opération Sophia (théoriquement destinée à lutter contre les passeurs et trafiquants dans les eaux internationales de la Méditerranée), Bruxelles a surtout décidé, en juin 2016, d’initier un programme de formation des garde-côtes libyens, qui a démarré l’an dernier et déjà bénéficié à 213 personnes. C’est que, souligne-t-on à Bruxelles, les marines européennes ne sauraient intervenir elles-mêmes dans les eaux libyennes.

      Il s’agit à la fois d’entraînements pratiques et opérationnels (l’abordage de canots, par exemple) visant à réduire les risques de pertes humaines durant les interventions, et d’un enseignement juridique (droit maritimes, droits humains, etc.), notamment à destination de la hiérarchie. D’après la commission européenne, tous les garde-côtes bénéficiaires subissent un « check de sécurité » avec vérifications auprès d’Interpol et Europol, voire des services de renseignement des États membres, pour écarter les individus les plus douteux.

      Il faut dire que les besoins de « formation » sont – pour le moins – criants. À plusieurs reprises, des navires humanitaires ont été témoins d’interceptions violentes, sinon criminelles. Sur une vidéo filmée depuis le Sea Watch (ONG allemande) en novembre dernier, on a vu des garde-côtes frapper certains des migrants repêchés, puis redémarrer alors qu’un homme restait suspendu à l’échelle de bâbord, sans qu’aucun Zodiac de secours ne soit jamais mis à l’eau. « Ils étaient cassés », ont répondu les Libyens.

      Un « sauvetage » effectué en novembre 2017 par des garde-côtes Libyens © Extrait d’une vidéo publiée par l’ONG allemande Sea Watch
      Interrogée sur le coût global de ces formations, la commission indique qu’il est impossible à chiffrer, Frontex (l’agence de garde-côtes européenne) pouvant participer aux sessions, tel État membre fournir un bateau, tel autre un avion pour trimballer les garde-côtes, etc.

      • La fourniture d’équipements en direct
      En décembre, un autre programme a démarré, plus touffu, financé cette fois via le « Fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique » (le fonds d’urgence européen mis en place en 2015 censément pour prévenir les causes profondes des migrations irrégulières et prendre le problème à la racine). Cette fois, il s’agit non plus seulement de « formation », mais de « renforcement des capacités opérationnelles » des garde-côtes libyens, avec des aides directes à l’équipement de bateaux (gilets, canots pneumatiques, appareils de communication, etc.), à l’entretien des navires, mais aussi à l’équipement des salles de contrôle à terre, avec un objectif clair en ligne de mire : aider la Libye à créer un « centre de coordination de sauvetage maritime » en bonne et due forme, pour mieux proclamer une « zone de recherche et sauvetage » officielle, au-delà de ses seules eaux territoriales actuelles. La priorité, selon la commission à Bruxelles, reste de « sauver des vies ».

      Budget annoncé : 46 millions d’euros avec un co-financement de l’Italie, chargée de la mise en œuvre. À la marge, les garde-côtes libyens peuvent d’ailleurs profiter d’autres programmes européens, tel « Seahorse », pour de l’entraînement à l’utilisation de radars.

      L’Italie, elle, va encore plus loin. D’abord, elle fournit des bateaux aux garde-côtes. Surtout, en 2017, le ministre de l’intérieur transalpin a rencontré les maires d’une dizaine de villes libyennes en leur faisant miroiter l’accès au Fonds fiduciaire pour l’Afrique de l’UE, en contrepartie d’un coup de main contre le trafic de migrants. Et selon diverses enquêtes (notamment des agences de presse Reuters et AP), un deal financier secret aurait été conclu à l’été 2017 entre l’Italie et des représentants de milices, à l’époque maîtresses des départs d’embarcations dans la région de Sabratha. Rome a toujours démenti, mais les appareillages dans ce coin ont brutalement cessé pour redémarrer un peu plus loin. Au bénéfice d’autres milices.

      • L’aide à l’exfiltration de migrants
      En même temps, comme personne ne conteste plus l’enfer des conditions de détention et que tout le monde s’efforce officiellement de vider les centres du régime en urgence, l’UE travaille aussi à la « réinstallation » en Europe des exilés accessibles au statut de réfugié, ainsi qu’au rapatriement dans leur pays d’origine des migrants dits « économiques » (sur la base du volontariat en théorie). Dans le premier cas, l’UE vient en soutien du HCR ; dans le second cas, en renfort de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM).

      L’objectif affiché est limpide : épargner des prises de risque en mer inutiles aux réfugiés putatifs (Érythréens, Somaliens, etc.), comme à ceux dont la demande à toutes les chances d’être déboutée une fois parvenus en Europe, comme les Ivoiriens par exemple. Derrière les éléments de langage, que disent les chiffres ?

      Selon le HCR, seuls 1 730 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile prioritaires ont pu être évacués depuis novembre 2017, quelques-uns directement de la Libye vers l’Italie (312) et la Roumanie (10), mais l’essentiel vers le Niger voisin, où les autorités ont accepté d’accueillir une plateforme d’évacuations de 1 500 places en échange de promesses de « réinstallations » rapides derrière, dans certains pays de l’UE.

      Et c’est là que le bât blesse. Paris, par exemple, s’est engagé à faire venir 3 000 réfugiés de Niamey (Niger), mais n’a pas tenu un vingtième de sa promesse. L’Allemagne ? Zéro.

      « On a l’impression qu’une fois qu’on a évacué de Libye, la notion d’urgence se perd », regrette Vincent Cochetel, du HCR. Une centaine de migrants, surtout des femmes et des enfants, ont encore été sortis de Libye le 19 juin par avion. « Mais on va arrêter puisqu’on n’a plus de places [à Niamey], pointe le représentant du HCR. L’heure de vérité approche. On ne peut pas demander au Niger de jouer ce rôle si on n’est pas sérieux derrière, en termes de réinstallations. Je rappelle que le Niger a plus de réfugiés sur son territoire que la France par exemple, qui fait quand même des efforts, c’est vrai. Mais on aimerait que ça aille beaucoup plus vite. » Le HCR discute d’ailleurs avec d’autres États africains pour créer une seconde « plateforme d’évacuation » de Libye, mais l’exemple du Niger, embourbé, ne fait pas envie.

      Quant aux rapatriements vers les pays d’origine des migrants dits « économiques », mis en œuvre avec l’OIM (autre agence onusienne), les chiffres atteignaient 8 546 à la mi-juin. « On peut questionner le caractère volontaire de certains de ces rapatriements, complète Christophe Biteau, de MSF. Parce que vu les conditions de détention en Libye, quand on te dit : “Tu veux que je te sorte de là et que je te ramène chez toi ?”… Ce n’est pas vraiment un choix. » D’ailleurs, d’après l’OIM, les rapatriés de Libye sont d’abord Nigérians, puis Soudanais, alors même que les ressortissants du Soudan accèdent à une protection de la France dans 75 % des cas lorsqu’ils ont l’opportunité de voir leur demande d’asile examinée.
      En résumé, sur le terrain, la priorité des États de l’UE va clairement au renforcement du mur de la Méditerranée et de ses Cerbère, tandis que l’extraction de réfugiés, elle, reste cosmétique. Pour Amnesty International, cette attitude de l’Union, et de l’Italie au premier chef, serait scandaleuse : « Dans la mesure où ils ont joué un rôle dans l’interception des réfugiés et des migrants, et dans la politique visant à les contenir en Libye, ils partagent avec celle-ci la responsabilité des détentions arbitraires, de la torture et autres mauvais traitements infligés », tance un rapport de l’association publié en décembre dernier.

      Pour le réseau Migreurop (regroupant chercheurs et associations spécialisés), « confier le contrôle des frontières maritimes de l’Europe à un État non signataire de la Convention de Genève [sur les droits des réfugiés, ndlr] s’apparente à une politique délibérée de contournement des textes internationaux et à une sous-traitance des pires violences à l’encontre des personnes exerçant leur droit à émigrer ». Pas sûr que les conclusions du conseil européen de jeudi et vendredi donnent, à ces organisations, la moindre satisfaction.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/280618/les-migrants-paient-le-prix-fort-de-la-cooperation-entre-lue-et-les-garde-

    • Au Niger, l’Europe finance plusieurs projets pour réduire le flux de migrants

      L’Union européenne a invité des entreprises du vieux continent au Niger afin qu’elles investissent pour améliorer les conditions de vie des habitants. Objectif : réduire le nombre de candidats au départ vers l’Europe.

      Le Niger est un pays stratégique pour les Européens. C’est par là que transitent la plupart des migrants qui veulent rejoindre l’Europe. Pour réduire le flux, l’Union européenne finance depuis 2015 plusieurs projets et veut désormais créer un tissu économique au Niger pour dissuader les candidats au départ. Le président du Parlement européen, Antonio Tajani, était, la semaine dernière dans la capitale nigérienne à Niamey, accompagné d’une trentaine de chefs d’entreprise européens à la recherche d’opportunités d’investissements.
      Baisse du nombre de départ de 90% en deux ans

      Le nombre de migrants qui a quitté le Niger pour rejoindre la Libye avant de tenter la traversée vers l’Europe a été réduit de plus de 90% ces deux dernières années. Notamment grâce aux efforts menés par le gouvernement nigérien avec le soutien de l’Europe pour mieux contrôler la frontière entre le Niger et la Libye. Mais cela ne suffit pas selon le président du Parlement européen, Antonio Tajani. « En 2050, nous aurons deux milliards cinq cents millions d’Africains, nous ne pourrons pas bloquer avec la police et l’armée l’immigration, donc voilà pourquoi il faut intervenir tout de suite ». Selon le président du Parlement européen, il faut donc améliorer les conditions de vie des Nigériens pour les dissuader de venir en Europe.
      Des entreprises françaises vont investir au Niger

      La société française #Sunna_Design, travaille dans le secteur de l’éclairage public solaire et souhaite s’implanter au Niger. Pourtant les difficultés sont nombreuses, notamment la concurrence chinoise, l’insécurité, ou encore la mauvaise gouvernance. Stéphane Redon, le responsable export de l’entreprise, y voit pourtant un bon moyen d’améliorer la vie des habitants. « D’abord la sécurité qui permet à des gens de pouvoir penser à avoir une vie sociale, nocturne, et une activité économique. Et avec ces nouvelles technologies, on aspire à ce que ces projets créent du travail localement, au niveau des installations, de la maintenance, et de la fabrication. »
      Le Niger salue l’initiative

      Pour Mahamadou Issoufou, le président du Niger, l’implantation d’entreprises européennes sur le territoire nigérien est indispensable pour faire face au défi de son pays notamment démographique. Le Niger est le pays avec le taux de natalité le plus élevé au monde, avec huit enfants par femme. « Nous avons tous décidé de nous attaquer aux causes profondes de la migration clandestine, et l’une des causes profondes, c’est la #pauvreté. Il est donc important qu’une lutte énergique soit menée. Certes, il y a les ressources publiques nationales, il y a l’#aide_publique_au_développement, mais tout cela n’est pas suffisant. il faut nécessairement un investissement massif du secteur privé », explique Mahamadou Issoufou. Cette initiative doit être élargie à l’ensemble des pays du Sahel, selon les autorités nigériennes et européennes.

      https://mobile.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/en-direct-du-monde/en-direct-du-monde-au-niger-l-europe-finance-plusieurs-projets-p
      #investissements #développement #APD

    • In die Rebellion getrieben

      Die Flüchtlingsabwehr der EU führt zu neuen Spannungen in Niger und droht womöglich gar eine Rebellion im Norden des Landes auszulösen. Wie Berichte aus der Region bestätigen, hat die von Brüssel erzwungene Illegalisierung des traditionellen Migrationsgeschäfts besonders in der Stadt Agadez, dem Tor zur nigrischen Sahara, Zehntausenden die Lebensgrundlage genommen. Großspurig angekündigte Ersatzprogramme der EU haben lediglich einem kleinen Teil der Betroffenen wieder zu einem Job verholfen. Lokale Beobachter warnen, die Bereitschaft zum Aufstand sowie zum Anschluss an Jihadisten nehme zu. Niger ist ohnehin Schauplatz wachsenden jihadistischen Terrors wie auch gesteigerter westlicher „Anti-Terror“-Operationen: Während Berlin und die EU vor allem eine neue Eingreiftruppe der Staatengruppe „G5 Sahel“ fördern - deutsche Soldaten dürfen dabei auch im Niger eingesetzt werden -, haben die Vereinigten Staaten ihre Präsenz in dem Land ausgebaut. Die US-Streitkräfte errichten zur Zeit eine Drohnenbasis in Agadez, die neue Spannungen auslöst.
      Das Ende der Reisefreiheit

      Niger ist für Menschen, die sich aus den Staaten Afrikas südlich der Sahara auf den Weg zum Mittelmeer und weiter nach Europa machen, stets das wohl wichtigste Transitland gewesen. Nach dem Zerfall Libyens im Anschluss an den Krieg des Westens zum Sturz von Muammar al Gaddafi hatten zeitweise drei Viertel aller Flüchtlinge, die von Libyens Küste mit Ziel Italien in See stachen, zuvor das Land durchquert. Als kaum zu vermeidendes Nadelöhr zwischen den dichter besiedelten Gebieten Nigers und der Wüste fungiert die 120.000-Einwohner-Stadt Agadez, von deren Familien bis 2015 rund die Hälfte ihr Einkommen aus der traditionell legalen Migration zog: Niger gehört dem westafrikanischen Staatenbund ECOWAS an, in dem volle Reisefreiheit gilt. Im Jahr 2015 ist die Reisefreiheit in Niger allerdings durch ein Gesetz eingeschränkt worden, das, wie der Innenminister des Landes bestätigt, nachdrücklich von der EU gefordert worden war.[1] Mit seinem Inkrafttreten ist das Migrationsgeschäft in Agadez illegalisiert worden; das hatte zur Folge, dass zahlreiche Einwohner der Stadt ihren Erwerb verloren. Die EU hat zwar Hilfe zugesagt, doch ihre Maßnahmen sind allenfalls ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein: Von den 7.000 Menschen, die offiziell ihre Arbeit in der nun verbotenen Transitreisebranche aufgaben, hat Brüssel mit einem großspurig aufgelegten, acht Millionen Euro umfassenden Programm weniger als 400 in Lohn und Brot gebracht.
      Ohne Lebensgrundlage

      Entsprechend hat sich die Stimmung in Agadez in den vergangenen zwei Jahren systematisch verschlechtert, heißt es in einem aktuellen Bericht über die derzeitige Lage in der Stadt, den das Nachrichtenportal IRIN Ende Juni publiziert hat.[2] Rangiert Niger auf dem Human Development Index der Vereinten Nationen ohnehin auf Platz 187 von 188, so haben die Verdienstmöglichkeiten in Agadez mit dem Ende des legalen Reisegeschäfts nicht nur stark abgenommen; selbst wer mit Hilfe der EU einen neuen Job gefunden hat, verdient meist erheblich weniger als zuvor. Zwar werden weiterhin Flüchtlinge durch die Wüste in Richtung Norden transportiert - jetzt eben illegal -, doch wachsen die Spannungen, und sie drohen bei jeder neuen EU-Maßnahme zur Abriegelung der nigrisch-libyschen Grenze weiter zu steigen. Das Verbot des Migrationsgeschäfts werde auf lange Sicht „die Leute in die Rebellion treiben“, warnt gegenüber IRIN ein Bewohner von Agadez stellvertretend für eine wachsende Zahl weiterer Bürger der Stadt. Als Reiseunternehmer für Flüchtlinge haben vor allem Tuareg gearbeitet, die bereits von 1990 bis 1995, dann erneut im Jahr 2007 einen bewaffneten Aufstand gegen die Regierung in Niamey unternommen hatten. Hinzu kommt laut einem örtlichen Würdenträger, dass die Umtriebe von Jihadisten im Sahel zunehmend als Widerstand begriffen und für jüngere, in wachsendem Maße aufstandsbereite Bewohner der Region Agadez immer häufiger zum Vorbild würden.
      Anti-Terror-Krieg im Sahel

      Jihadisten haben ihre Aktivitäten in Niger in den vergangenen Jahren bereits intensiviert, nicht nur im Südosten des Landes an der Grenze zu Nigeria, wo die nigrischen Streitkräfte im Krieg gegen Boko Haram stehen, sondern inzwischen auch an der Grenze zu Mali, von wo der dort seit 2012 schwelende Krieg immer mehr übergreift. Internationale Medien berichteten erstmals in größerem Umfang darüber, als am 4. Oktober 2017 eine US-Einheit, darunter Angehörige der Spezialtruppe Green Berets, nahe der nigrischen Ortschaft Tongo Tongo unweit der Grenze zu Mali in einen Hinterhalt gerieten und vier von ihnen von Jihadisten, die dem IS-Anführer Abu Bakr al Baghdadi die Treue geschworen hatten, getötet wurden.[3] In der Tat hat die Beobachtung, dass Jihadisten in Niger neuen Zulauf erhalten, die Vereinigten Staaten veranlasst, 800 Militärs in dem Land zu stationieren, die offiziell nigrische Soldaten trainieren, mutmaßlich aber auch Kommandoaktionen durchführen. Darüber hinaus beteiligt sich Niger auf Druck der EU an der Eingreiftruppe der „G5 Sahel“ [4], die im gesamten Sahel - auch in Niger - am Krieg gegen Jihadisten teilnimmt und auf lange Sicht nach Möglichkeit die französischen Kampftruppen der Opération Barkhane ersetzen soll. Um die „G5 Sahel“-Eingreiftruppe jederzeit und überall unterstützen zu können, hat der Bundestag im Frühjahr das Mandat für die deutschen Soldaten, die in die UN-Truppe MINUSMA entsandt werden, auf alle Sahelstaaten ausgedehnt - darunter auch Niger. Deutsche Soldaten sind darüber hinaus bereits am Flughafen der Hauptstadt Niamey stationiert. Der sogenannte Anti-Terror-Krieg des Westens, der in anderen Ländern wegen seiner Brutalität den Jihadisten oft mehr Kämpfer zugeführt als genommen hat, weitet sich zunehmend auf nigrisches Territorium aus.
      Zunehmend gewaltbereit

      Zusätzliche Folgen haben könnte dabei die Tatsache, dass die Vereinigten Staaten gegenwärtig für den Anti-Terror-Krieg eine 110 Millionen US-Dollar teure Drohnenbasis errichten - am Flughafen Agadez. Niger scheint sich damit dauerhaft zum zweitwichtigsten afrikanischen Standort von US-Truppen nach Djibouti mit seinem strategisch bedeutenden Hafen zu entwickeln. Washington errichtet die Drohnenbasis, obwohl eine vorab durchgeführte Umfrage des U.S. Africa Command und des State Department ergeben hat, dass die Bevölkerung die US-Militäraktivitäten im Land zunehmend kritisch sieht und eine starke Minderheit Gewalt gegen Personen oder Organisationen aus Europa und Nordamerika für legitim hält.[5] Mittlerweile dürfen sich, wie berichtet wird, US-Botschaftsangehörige außerhalb der Hauptstadt Niamey nur noch in Konvois in Begleitung von nigrischem Sicherheitspersonal bewegen. Die Drohnenbasis, die ohne die von der nigrischen Verfassung vorgesehene Zustimmung des Parlaments errichtet wird und daher mutmaßlich illegal ist, droht den Unmut noch weiter zu verschärfen. Beobachter halten es für nicht unwahrscheinlich, dass sie Angriffe auf sich zieht - und damit Niger noch weiter destabilisiert.[6]
      Flüchtlingslager

      Hinzu kommt, dass die EU Niger in zunehmendem Maß als Plattform nutzt, um Flüchtlinge, die in libyschen Lagern interniert waren, unterzubringen, bevor sie entweder in die EU geflogen oder in ihre Herkunftsländer abgeschoben werden. Allein von Ende November bis Mitte Mai sind 1.152 Flüchtlinge aus Libyen nach Niger gebracht worden; dazu wurden 17 „Transitzentren“ in Niamey, sechs in Agadez eingerichtet. Niger gilt inzwischen außerdem als möglicher Standort für die EU-"Ausschiffungsplattformen" [7] - Lager, in die Flüchtlinge verlegt werden sollen, die auf dem Mittelmeer beim Versuch, nach Europa zu reisen, aufgegriffen wurden. Damit erhielte Niger einen weiteren potenziellen Destabilisierungsfaktor - im Auftrag und unter dem Druck der EU. Ob und, wenn ja, wie das Land die durch all dies drohenden Erschütterungen überstehen wird, das ist völlig ungewiss.

      [1], [2] Eric Reidy: Destination Europe: Frustration. irinnews.org 28.06.2018.

      [3] Eric Schmitt: 3 Special Forces Troops Killed and 2 Are Wounded in an Ambush in Niger. nytimes.com 04.10.2017.[4] S. dazu Die Militarisierung des Sahel (IV).

      [5] Nick Turse: U.S. Military Surveys Found Local Distrust in Niger. Then the Air Force Built a $100 Million Drone Base. theintercept.com 03.07.2018.

      [6] Joe Penney: A Massive U.S. Drone Base Could Destabilize Niger - And May Even Be Illegal Under its Constitution. theintercept.com 18.02.2018.

      [7] S. dazu Libysche Lager.

      https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/7673

      –-> Commentaire reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      La politique d’externalisation de l’UE crée de nouvelles tensions au Niger et risque de déclencher une rebellion dans le nord du pays. Plusieurs rapports de la région confirment que le fait que Bruxelle ait rendu illégal la migration traditionnelle et de fait détruit l’économie qui tournait autour, particulièrement dans la ville d’Agadez, porte d’entrée du Sahara nigérien, a privé de revenus des dizaines de milliers de personnes. Les programmes de développement annoncés par l’UE n’ont pu aider qu’une infime partie de ceux qui ont été affectés par la mesure. Les observateurs locaux constatent que une augmentation des volontés à se rebeller et/ou à rejoindre les djihadistes. Le Niger est déja la scène d’attaques terroristes djihadistes ainsi que d’opérations occidentales « anti-terreur » : alors que Berlin et l’UE soutiennent une intervention des forces du G5 Sahel - les soldats allemands pourraient être déployés au Niger - les Etats Unis ont étendu leur présence sur le territoire. Les forces US sont en train de construire une base de #drones à Agadez, ce qui a déclenché de nouvelles tensions.

      #déstabilisation

    • Libya: EU’s patchwork policy has failed to protect the human rights of refugees and migrants

      A year after the emergence of shocking footage of migrants apparently being sold as merchandise in Libya prompted frantic deliberations over the EU’s migration policy, a series of quick fixes and promises has not improved the situation for refugees and migrants, Amnesty International said today. In fact, conditions for refugees and migrants have largely deteriorated over the past year and armed clashes in Tripoli that took place between August and September this year have only exacerbated the situation further.

      https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde19/9391/2018/en
      #droits_humains

      Pour télécharger le rapport:
      https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1993912018ENGLISH.pdf

    • New #LNCG Training module in Croatia

      A new training module in favour of Libyan Coastguard and Navy started in Split (Croatia) on November the 12.
      Last Monday, November the 12th, a new training module managed by operation Sophia and focused on “Ship’s Divers Basic Course” was launched in the Croatian Navy Training Centre in Split (Croatia).

      The trainees had been selected by the competent Libyan authorities and underwent a thorough vetting process carried out in different phases by EUNAVFOR Med, security agencies of EU Member States participating in the Operation and international organizations.

      After the accurate vetting process, including all the necessary medical checks for this specific activity, 5 Libyan military personnel were admitted to start the course.

      The course, hosted by the Croatian Navy, will last 5 weeks, and it will provide knowledge and training in diving procedures, specifically related techniques and lessons focused on Human Rights, Basic First Aid and Gender Policy.

      The end of the course is scheduled for the 14 of December 2018.

      Additionally, with the positive conclusion of this course, the threshold of more than 300 Libyan Coastguard and Navy personnel trained by #EUNAVFOR_Med will be reached.

      EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia continues at sea its operation focused on disrupting the business model of migrant smugglers and human traffickers, contributing to EU efforts for the return of stability and security in Libya and the training and capacity building of the Libyan Navy and Coastguard.


      https://www.operationsophia.eu/new-lncg-training-module-in-croatia

    • EU Council adopts decision expanding EUBAM Libya’s mandate to include actively supporting Libyan authorities in disrupting networks involved in smuggling migrants, human trafficking and terrorism

      The Council adopted a decision mandating the #EU_integrated_border_management_assistance_mission in Libya (#EUBAM_Libya) to actively support the Libyan authorities in contributing to efforts to disrupt organised criminal networks involved in smuggling migrants, human trafficking and terrorism. The mission was previously mandated to plan for a future EU civilian mission while engaging with the Libyan authorities.

      The mission’s revised mandate will run until 30 June 2020. The Council also allocated a budget of € 61.6 million for the period from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2020.

      In order to achieve its objectives EUBAM Libya provides capacity-building in the areas of border management, law enforcement and criminal justice. The mission advises the Libyan authorities on the development of a national integrated border management strategy and supports capacity building, strategic planning and coordination among relevant Libyan authorities. The mission will also manage as well as coordinate projects related to its mandate.

      EUBAM Libya responds to a request by the Libyan authorities and is part of the EU’s comprehensive approach to support the transition to a democratic, stable and prosperous Libya. The civilian mission co-operates closely with, and contributes to, the efforts of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya.

      The mission’s headquarters are located in Tripoli and the Head of Mission is Vincenzo Tagliaferri (from Italy). EUBAM Libya.

      https://migrantsatsea.org/2018/12/18/eu-council-adopts-decision-expanding-eubam-libyas-mandate-to-include-

      EUBAM Libya :
      Mission de l’UE d’assistance aux frontières (EUBAM) en Libye


      https://eeas.europa.eu/csdp-missions-operations/eubam-libya_fr

    • Comment l’UE a fermé la route migratoire entre la Libye et l’Italie

      Les Européens coopèrent avec un Etat failli, malgré les mises en garde sur le sort des migrants dans le pays

      L’une des principales voies d’entrée en Europe s’est tarie. Un peu plus de 1 100 personnes migrantes sont arrivées en Italie et à Malte par la mer Méditerranée sur les cinq premiers mois de l’année. Un chiffre en fort recul, comparé aux 650 000 migrants qui ont emprunté cette voie maritime ces cinq dernières années. Le résultat, notamment, d’une coopération intense entre l’Union européenne, ses Etats membres et la Libye.

      En 2014, alors que le pays est plongé dans une guerre civile depuis la chute du régime de Kadhafi, plus de 140 000 migrants quittent ses côtes en direction de l’Italie, contre quelque 42 000 l’année précédente pour toute la rive sud de la Méditerranée centrale. Cette dernière devient, deux ans plus tard, la principale porte d’entrée sur le continent européen.

      Inquiète de cette recrudescence, l’Italie relance en mars 2016 ses relations bilatérales avec la Libye – interrompues depuis la chute de Kadhafi –, à peine le fragile gouvernement d’union nationale (GNA) de Faïez Sarraj installé à Tripoli sous l’égide de l’ONU. Emboîtant le pas à Rome, l’UE modifie le mandat de son opération militaire « Sophia ». Jusque-là cantonnée à la lutte contre le trafic de migrants en Méditerranée, celle-ci doit désormais accompagner le rétablissement et la montée en puissance des gardes-côtes libyens.

      Dans cette optique, dès juillet 2016, l’UE mandate les gardes-côtes italiens pour « assumer une responsabilité de premier plan » dans le projet de mise en place d’un centre de coordination de sauvetage maritime (MRCC) à Tripoli et d’une zone de sauvetage à responsabilité libyenne dans les eaux internationales. C’est une étape majeure dans le changement du paysage en Méditerranée centrale. Jusque-là, compte tenu de la défaillance de Tripoli, la coordination des sauvetages au large de la Libye était assumée par le MRCC de Rome. Les migrants secourus étaient donc ramenés sur la rive européenne de la Méditerranée. Si Tripoli prend la main sur ces opérations, alors ses gardes-côtes ramèneront les migrants en Libye, même ceux interceptés dans les eaux internationales. Une manière de « contourner l’interdiction en droit international de refouler un réfugié vers un pays où sa vie ou sa liberté sont menacées », résume Hassiba Hadj-Sahraoui, conseillère aux affaires humanitaires de Médecins sans frontières (MSF).

      Les premières formations de gardes-côtes débutent en octobre 2016, et les agences de l’ONU sont mises à contribution pour sensibiliser les personnels au respect des droits de l’homme. « C’est difficile d’en mesurer l’impact, mais nous pensons que notre présence limite les risques pour les réfugiés », estime Roberto Mignone, l’ancien représentant du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés en Libye.

      Au sein de l’UE, tous les outils sont mobilisés. Même les équipes du Bureau européen d’appui à l’asile sont sollicitées. Un fonctionnaire européen se souvient du malaise en interne. « Le Conseil a fait pression pour nous faire participer, rapporte-t-il. On n’était clairement pas emballés. C’était nous compromettre un peu aussi dans ce qui ressemble à une relation de sous-traitance et à un blanc-seing donné à des pratiques problématiques. »
      Le travail des ONG entravé

      Le pays est alors dans une situation chaotique, et les migrants en particulier y encourent de graves violences telles que le travail forcé, l’exploitation sexuelle, le racket et la torture.

      Mais l’Europe poursuit son plan et continue de s’appuyer sur l’Italie. Le 2 février 2017, le gouvernement de gauche de Paolo Gentiloni (Parti démocrate) réactive un traité d’amitié de 2008 entre Rome et Tripoli, avec l’approbation du Conseil européen dès le lendemain. Des moyens du Fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique sont fléchés vers les enjeux migratoires en Libye – 338 millions d’euros jusqu’à aujourd’hui –, bien que l’Union fasse état de « préoccupations sur une collusion possible entre les bénéficiaires de l’action et les activités de contrebande et de traite ».

      A cette époque, les Nations unies dénoncent l’implication des gardes-côtes de Zaouïa (à 50 km à l’ouest de Tripoli) dans le trafic de migrants. En mai 2017, Marco Minniti, ministre italien de l’intérieur (Parti démocrate), remet quatre bateaux patrouilleurs à la Libye. Trois mois plus tard, Tripoli déclare auprès de l’Organisation maritime internationale (OMI) qu’elle devient compétente pour coordonner les sauvetages jusqu’à 94 milles nautiques au large de ses côtes.

      Le travail des ONG, lui, est de plus en plus entravé par l’Italie, qui les accuse de collaborer avec les passeurs et leur impose un « code de conduite ». S’ensuivront des saisies de bateaux, des retraits de pavillon et autres procédures judiciaires. L’immense majorité d’entre elles vont jeter l’éponge.

      Un tournant s’opère en Méditerranée centrale. Les gardes-côtes libyens deviennent à l’automne 2017 les premiers acteurs du sauvetage dans la zone. Ils ramènent cette année-là 18 900 migrants sur leur rive, presque quarante fois plus qu’en 2015.

      Leur autonomie semble pourtant toute relative. C’est Rome qui transmet à Tripoli « la majorité des appels de détresse », note un rapport de l’ONU. C’est Rome encore qui dépose en décembre 2017, auprès de l’OMI, le projet de centre libyen de coordination des sauvetages maritimes financé par la Commission européenne. Un bilan d’étape interne à l’opération « Sophia », de mars 2018, décrit d’ailleurs l’impréparation de Tripoli à assumer seule ses nouvelles responsabilités. La salle d’opération depuis laquelle les sauvetages doivent être coordonnés se trouve dans « une situation infrastructurelle critique »liée à des défauts d’électricité, de connexion Internet, de téléphones et d’ordinateurs. Les personnels ne parlent pas anglais.

      Un sauvetage, le 6 novembre 2017, illustre le dangereux imbroglio que deviennent les opérations de secours. Ce jour-là, dans les eaux internationales, à 30 milles nautiques au nord de Tripoli, au moins 20 personnes seraient mortes. Une plainte a depuis été déposée contre l’Italie devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Des rescapés accusent Rome de s’être défaussé sur les gardes-côtes libyens.« Un appel de détresse avait été envoyé à tous les bateaux par le MRCC Rome, relate Violeta Moreno-Lax, juriste qui a participé au recours. L’ONG allemande Sea-Watch est arrivée sur place quelques minutes après les gardes-côtes libyens. C’est Rome qui a demandé aux Libyens d’intervenir et à Sea-Watch de rester éloignée. »

      Les gardes-côtes présents – certains formés par l’UE – n’ont alors ni gilets ni canot de sauvetage. Sur les vidéos de l’événement, on peut voir l’embarcation des migrants se coincer sous la coque de leur patrouilleur. Des gens tombent à l’eau et se noient. On entend aussi les Libyens menacer l’équipage du Sea-Watch de représailles, puis quitter les lieux en charriant dans l’eau un migrant accroché à une échelle.

      Tout en ayant connaissance de ce drame, et bien qu’elle reconnaisse un suivi très limité du travail des gardes-côtes en mer, la force navale « Sophia » se félicite, dans son bilan d’étape de mars 2018, du « modèle opérationnel durable » qu’elle finance.

      L’année 2018 confirme le succès de cette stratégie. Les arrivées en Italie ont chuté de 80 %, ce qui n’empêche pas le ministre de l’intérieur, Matteo Salvini (extrême droite), d’annoncer à l’été la fermeture de ses ports aux navires humanitaires.
      « Esclavage » et « torture »

      L’ONU rappelle régulièrement que la Libye ne doit pas être considérée comme un « port sûr » pour débarquer les migrants interceptés en mer. Les personnes en situation irrégulière y sont systématiquement placées en détention, dans des centres sous la responsabilité du gouvernement où de nombreux abus sont documentés, tels que des « exécutions extrajudiciaires, l’esclavage, les actes de torture, les viols, le trafic d’être humains et la sous-alimentation ».

      La dangerosité des traversées, elle, a explosé : le taux de mortalité sur la route de la Méditerranée centrale est passé de 2,6 % en 2017 à 13,8 % en 2019.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/05/07/comment-l-ue-a-ferme-la-route-entre-la-libye-et-l-italie_5459242_3210.html

  • La Cimade | Les causes de la baisse des arrivées de personnes migrantes en Méditerranée centrale
    https://asile.ch/2018/03/15/cimade-causes-de-baisse-arrivees-de-personnes-migrantes-mediterranee-centrale

    Les États membres de l’Union européenne se félicitent depuis quelques mois de la baisse des arrivées sur les côtes européennes et de celle du nombre de personnes migrantes mortes ou disparues en Méditerranée. Mais que cache cette chute spectaculaire ? La Cimade évoque quelques facteurs pour saisir cette réalité : politique répressive et soutien financier des […]

    • Juncker : « les États membres contribuent trop peu au fonds pour l’Afrique »

      Après un premier tour de négociations lors du premier jour du Conseil, le président de la Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, a prévenu devant la presse que l’action extérieure de l’UE atteignait ses limites à cause d’un manque de financement.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/juncker-member-states-committed-too-little-for-africa-fund
      #fonds_pour_l'afrique

    • “EU-Africa migration funds were used on Libya’s coast guard patrol vessels »

      Genoa - EU international cooperation funding destined for development projects in Africa was used to refurbish patrol boats for Libya’s coast guard, and handed over to Libyan militia units who practice torture and extrajudicial killings, in violation of Libyan and international standards.

      http://www.themeditelegraph.com/en/markets/finance-and-politics/2017/11/16/africa-migration-funds-were-used-libya-coast-guard-patrol-vessels-ZxeIfzI2rMZYW6ixGchHKP/index.html

      #Libye #gardes-côtes_libyens #externalisation #développement #aide_au_développement

      –-> je ne sais pas si le fonds dans lequel il est question ici c’est aussi celui qui est mentionné dans le premier article de la liste... @isskein : tu en sais plus ?

    • Europe’s Plan to Close Its Sea Borders Relies on Libya’s Coast Guard Doing Its Dirty Work, Abusing Migrants

      When a Libyan coast guard officer raised his hands and pointed, as if holding a rifle, Thomas Schaible wasn’t too worried. It wasn’t his first violent encounter with the Libyan coast guard, but this time, with a helicopter from the Italian navy overhead and Italian and French warships nearby, Schaible knew it was an empty threat.

      https://theintercept.com/2017/11/25/libya-coast-guard-europe-refugees

    • Libya human bondage risks overshadowing Africa-EU summit

      #Mogherini was questioned about the EU’s strategy of outsourcing the migration crisis to foreign countries such as Libya and Turkey, which received billions to prevent Syrian refugees from crossing to Greece.

      She said the situation was different on two counts: first, the migrants stranded in Libya were not legitimate asylum seekers like those fleeing the war in Syria. And second, different international bodies were in charge.

      “When it comes to Turkey, it is mainly refugees from Syria; when it comes to Libya, it is mainly migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and the relevant international laws apply in different manners and the relevant UN agencies are different – the UNHCR on one side, especially in Turkey, and the IOM especially in Libya.”

      https://www.euractiv.com/section/development-policy/news/libya-human-bondage-risks-overshadowing-africa-eu-summit
      #IOM #OIM #HCR #Libye #Turquie #migrants_économiques #réfugiés #tri #catégorisation

      En lien avec cela, lire:
      http://seen.li/dn2v
      #mixed_migrations

    • Commission européenne - Fond fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique - Nouveaux programmes

      Trois nouveaux programmes d’un montant de 29,6 millions d’euros ont été adoptés dans le cadre du Fonds fiduciaire d’urgence de l’UE pour l’Afrique. Ces programmes complètent l’action de l’UE visant à relever les défis de la migration en Méditerranée. Ces nouveaux programmes intensifieront le travail en cours de l’UE pour renforcer la protection des migrants, soutenir leur réintégration durable et permettre une augmentation du nombre de retours volontairement assistés depuis la Libye. Ils contribueront également à la lutte contre les réseaux criminels dans la région.

      Three new programmes worth €29.6 million have been adopted in the framework of the EU Trust Fund for Africa as part of EU work in addressing migration challenges in the Mediterranean. A set of priorities for 2018 have also been agreed.

      These new programmes will step up the EU’s ongoing work to strengthening protection of migrants, support sustainable reintegration and provide assisted voluntary returns. The programmes will also contribute to fight criminal networks across the region.

      High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini said: “Last week we established a joint EU/AU/UN Task Force to accelerate our work to protect migrants and refugees and fight the criminal networks. With these new programmes, we will step up our commitments, save lives, guarantee the respect of human rights and of international standards, provide alternatives to those wishing to return to their homes and support to host communities. We already assisted over 14,000 people stranded in Libya to return and will support an additional 15,000 returns by February 2018. And we will support our partners to counter traffickers and smugglers, assisting them in bringing peace and security to the region.”

      Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn said: “The current challenges in the Mediterranean Sea remain a top priority for the European Union. The EU Trust Fund for Africa continues to take action to tackle the root causes of irregular migration and to defend the rights of people who risk falling into the hands of traffickers and smugglers. With our new programmes, we will help dismantle criminal networks in North of Africa, support migrants who wish to return to their home countries and facilitate access for migrants to legal advice. We will also promote socio-economic integration in Morocco and will foster socio-economic development of the Libyan Municipalities”.

      Regional programme - Facility for Migrant Protection and Reintegration in North Africa, €10 million

      This programme will be implemented by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and will further contribute to the ongoing efforts under the assistance voluntary return scheme. It will strengthen protection of migrants, support sustainable reintegration systems in North Africa and provide assisted voluntary return to migrants wishing to return to their home from Northern Africa. This Facility is conceived as a regional flexible mechanism able to adapt to the specific needs of the countries. This is yet another action towards enhancing support to stranded migrants as well as reinforcing national return and reintegration systems across the North of Africa region.

      Regional programme - Dismantling the criminal networks operating in North Africa and involved in migrant smuggling and human trafficking, €15 million

      This project will focus on regional dimension of fight against smugglers and traffickers. It will target the public sector of the countries in the region (in particular the Ministries of Interior, Justice, Finance, and Health). Under this programme, implemented by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), capacity-building as well as light equipment, such as IT and forensic tools, will be provided to actors dealing with law enforcement and criminal justice. The final beneficiaries will be the general public, victims of trafficking, smuggled migrants, and families of the latter two categories.

      Morocco - Legal Empowerment for migrants, €4.58 million

      This programme implemented by the Belgian Technical Cooperation will reinforce the protection and resilience of migrants and refugees, displaced persons and host communities in Morocco. Whilst strengthening awareness on their rights and access to legal counselling, the project will also contribute to promote the socio-economic integration of migrants and facilitate migrants’ integration in the Moroccan society. This is a new very specific action complementing the EU support to the implementation of the Moroccan National Strategy on Migration (SNIA). The programme will support actors who help migrants and refugees access to their rights, such as lawyers, students, civil society associations and justice staff. It will develop and create legal clinics in Rabat, Casablanca, Tanger and Oujda.

      Objectives for 2018

      The Commission also outlined the priorities of the EUTF/North of Africa window for 2018. The situation in Libya will remain a top priority, with on the one hand increased efforts for the protection of migrants and refugees, including through the support for additional assisted voluntary returns and support for evacuation of the most vulnerable ones (in line with the recent decision of the EU-African Union summit); and on the other hand support to host communities. More specifically, funding will be provided to the UNHCR’s evacuation mechanism through the EUTF and discussions with the IOM on additional measures under the assisted voluntary return scheme are being finalised. The Commission is also working together with Italy on a new initiative to be presented to the Operational Committee early in 2018, which is aimed at fostering the socio-economic development of the Libyan Municipalities, on the basis of needs of local authorities and in close coordination with the PC/Government of National Accord (GNA).

      http://www.europeanmigrationlaw.eu/fr/articles/actualites/commission-europeenne-fond-fiduciaire-d-urgence-pour-l-afrique-

    • Come viene usato il Fondo Fiduciario per l’Africa?

      “Vertice UE-Africa: l’Europa non paga”. Così titolava il settimanale tedesco Der Spiegel alla vigilia del Summit di Abidjan di fine novembre, evidenziando un problema crescente nell’approccio europeo al contenimento dei flussi migratori: come reperire le risorse con cui finanziare il Fondo fiduciario per l’Africa. Perché se da un lato aumentano obiettivi e programmi da finanziare, dall’altro non cresce il coinvolgimento economico dei governi europei.

      http://openmigration.org/analisi/come-viene-usato-il-fondo-fiduciario-per-lafrica

    • 2.12.2017 – Commission européenne - Fond fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique - Nouvelles actions pour renforcer la stabilité dans la corne de l’Afrique

      Le Comité opérationnel du Fond fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique a adopté une nouvelle série de 13 programmes d’un montant de 174,4 millions d’euros pour la région de la #Corne_de_l'Afrique

      http://www.europeanmigrationlaw.eu/fr/articles/actualites/commission-europeenne-fond-fiduciaire-d-urgence-pour-l-afrique-

    • Fondo Africa, quelle risorse destinate a progetti lontani dall’aiuto allo sviluppo

      Il dossier realizzato sugli atti di delibera e ottenuto grazie alla richiesta dell’Associazione per gli Studi giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) e sulla risposta del sottosegretario agli Esteri Della Vedova all’interrogazione del PD sull’utilizzo delle risorse stanziate. Risorse spese in Tunisia, Niger e Libia che pongono, secondo ActionAid, problemi di costituzionalità e trasparenza

      http://www.repubblica.it/solidarieta/cooperazione/2017/12/18/news/fondo_africa-184514509

    • A ‘blind spot’ in the migration debate? International responsibility of the EU and its Member States for cooperating with the Libyan coastguard and militias

      The discussion on the restrictive migration management policies of the European Union (EU) and its Member States (MS) has so far focused on the potential violation of the primary rules of international law that determine the conduct of subjects of international law. The question of applicability of the secondary rules of international responsibility that provide for the consequences of the commitment of a wrongful act has attracted less attention. The main question in the current context is whether the cooperation of the EU and its MS with the Libyan coastguard and militias with the view of stemming irregular migration flows to Europe generates international responsibility for the above actors. More specifically, it is asked whether there is an autonomous basis in the law of international responsibility for holding the EU and its the MS responsible for the violations of human rights occurring in Libya, even if they do not exercise directly jurisdiction over migrants. Three aspects of this theme will be developed here: first, the nature and scope of the cooperation of the EU and its MS, in particular Italy, with the Libyan authorities, coastguard and militias in view of restricting the access of migrants to the EU; second, the extent of human rights violations of migrants in Libya; and third, the alleged complicity and responsibility of the EU and MS for the violations of these rights.

      http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/a-blind-spot-in-the-migration-debate-international-responsibility

    • L’Europe affirme que la formation des gardes-côtes libyens avance

      La formation des gardes-côtes libyens, notamment pour le sauvetage de migrants, avance, a déclaré jeudi à Tunis le commandant de l’opération navale européenne Sophia, chargée de lutter contre les passeurs.

      « La formation se passe bien », a affirmé Enrico Credendino, commandant de la force navale européenne en Méditerranée (Sophia).

      « Les gardes-côtes libyens ont été très actifs, en particulier au cours du second semestre 2017. Ils ont secouru beaucoup de migrants, presque 18.000 alors qu’en 2015 par exemple, ils en avaient secouru seulement 800 », a-t-il précisé.

      Lancée en 2015 par l’UE, l’opération navale Sophia est chargée de lutter contre les passeurs et de former les gardes-côtes libyens.

      Sa mission a été reconduite en juillet par le Conseil européen jusqu’en décembre 2018.

      Déchirée par les rivalités entre groupes armés et les autorités qui se disputent le pouvoir, la Libye a sombré dans le chaos depuis la chute du régime de Mouammar Kadhafi en 2011.

      Des centaines de milliers de migrants, certains fuyant des conflits, d’autres la pauvreté tentent de traverser la Méditerranée depuis la Libye pour rejoindre l’Europe. Depuis le début de l’année, au moins 337 d’entre eux sont morts ou disparus au large de la Libye, selon l’Organisation internationale des migrations.

      https://www.voaafrique.com/a/migrations-formations-de-garde-cotes-libyens-avance/4300524.html
      #Opération_sophia

      A mettre en lien avec cet article :
      La guardia costiera libica minaccia l’ong Proactiva Open Arms
      https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2018/03/16/guardia-costiera-libica-open-arms

    • Un film de #Andrea_Segre, à voir absolument. Il montre les manoeuvres italiennes en Libye :
      L’ordine delle cose (L’ordre des choses) :

      Rinaldi, policier italien de grande expérience, est envoyé par son gouvernement en Libye afin de négocier le maintien des migrants sur le sol africain. Sur place, il se heurte à la complexité des rapports tribaux libyens et à la puissance des trafiquants exploitant la détresse des réfugiés.
      Au cours de son enquête, il rencontre dans un centre de rétention, Swada, une jeune somalienne qui le supplie de l’aider. Habituellement froid et méthodique, Rinaldi va devoir faire un choix douloureux entre sa conscience et la raison d’Etat : est-il possible de renverser l’ordre des choses ?


      https://lordinedellecose.it

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b8mp4N4Blw

      Il est actuellement en salle à Grenoble...

      #film

    • Migranti, gli occhi della Libia sui radar europei nel Mediterraneo

      A dicembre 2016 un ufficiale di collegamento della guardia costiera libica è entrato nel cuore del #Sea_Horse_Mediterranean_Network, il sistema di monitoraggio dell’Unione per il controllo delle frontiere Sud del Mediterraneo e che vede in prima linea l’Italia. Ma il governo libico era ritenuto inaffidabile dalla Commissione Ue nel 2015 ed escluso dal progetto. Ora perché è coinvolto? E a quale titolo?

      Occhi elettronici. Radar potenti e sofisticati. Satelliti militari in grado di scansionare ogni centimetro quadrato del Mediterraneo centrale, quel pezzo di mare tra la Libia e l’Italia divenuto tomba per migliaia di migranti, morti mentre cercavano di fuggire alle guerre dei loro paesi e alle torture dei carcerieri libici. Mezzi straordinariamente potenti, soprattutto se messi in rete, formando un flusso di dati in grado di salvare vite – avvistando ogni piccolo gommone che tenta la traversata – e di bloccare i traffici. Non solo di esseri umani, ma anche di petrolio, droga, armi. Si chiama Sea Horse Mediterranean Network ed è l’asset più prezioso della rete di controllo della frontiera sud dell’Europa.

      Un progetto costato milioni di euro, promosso direttamente dall’Unione europea e che vede un ruolo da protagonista dell’Italia. Una rete che – stando a documenti consultati da Famiglia Cristiana – potrebbe però cadere in pessime mani. Quelle delle milizie libiche, ovvero le forze di Tripoli che compongono quella stessa Guardia costiera pronta ad usare le armi contro le Ong, accusata un anno fa dalle Nazioni Unite di essere stata complice in alcuni casi degli stessi trafficanti. Il progetto in origine riguardava l’area dell’Atlantico. La responsabilità, in quel caso, era stata affidata alla Guardia Civil spagnola e l’area interessata era sostanzialmente il tratto di mare a sud delle Canarie, una delle rotte delle migrazioni via mare attive fino a una decina di anni fa. Il sistema permette di «scambiare informazioni via satellite per combattere l’immigrazione irregolare via mare», si legge in un documento delle autorità spagnole che abbiamo consultato, creando dei punti di contatto in ogni paese coinvolto «per accedere a questa rete sicura».

      Le informazioni raccolte sono estremamente sensibili e costituiscono una base di conoscenza e di intelligence sicuramente strategica. Dopo l’avvio di una prima fase sulla zona atlantica, il progetto Sea Horse punta, dal 2015, al Mediterraneo. Tre i paesi del nord Africa coinvolti: l’Egitto, la Tunisia e la Libia. Nel novembre del 2015 il commissario europeo Dimitris Avramopoulos aveva risposto ad una interrogazione delle deputate europee Sabine Lösing e Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL), spiegando che il progetto era in una fase di stallo. Il problema principale riguardava proprio la Libia: «A causa della situazione d’insicurezza e alla mancanza di stabilità del governo nazionale libico – si legge nella risposta all’interrogazione pubblicata sul sito del Parlamento europeo – tutte le attività per installare il #National_Contact_Point in Libia sono sospese. Di conseguenza le autorità libiche interessate non sono collegate al #Mebocc, che sarà ospitato dal centro di coordinamento italiano per la sorveglianza delle frontiere».

      La sigla Mebocc sta per #Mediterranean_Border_Cooperation_Center, ed è il cuore della rete di controllo del mare tra Italia e Libia. La collocazione di questo centro, come ha spiegato il commissario europeo, è prevista nel nostro paese, con un backup a Malta. Tutto, però, sembrava fermo fino al novembre del 2015.

      Un ufficiale di collegamento libico era presente nel cuore della rete europea di sorveglianza delle frontiere marittime

      Alla fine del 2016, dopo il cambio ai vertici del ministero dell’Interno e l’arrivo di Marco Minniti, il progetto ha subito un’accelerazione. Nella “Relazione sulla performance per il 2016” del Viminale c’è un paragrafo dove si annuncia l’operatività del progetto: «L’infrastruttura satellitare», si legge nel documento, «è stata installata nel #Centro_Interforze_di_Gestione_e_Controllo (#CIGC) #SICRAL di Vigna di Valle, teleporto principale del Ministero della Difesa, mentre presso il Centro Nazionale di Coordinamento per l’immigrazione “Roberto Iavarone” – #EUROSUR, sede del MEBOCC, sono stati installati gli altri apparati funzionali alla rete di comunicazione. Al 31 dicembre 2016, quello dell’Italia risultava essere l’unico nodo realmente attivo e pronto per le comunicazioni».

      Tutto pronto, dunque, per operare. Pronto e operativo, a quanto sembra, era anche il governo libico, che solo un anno prima veniva definito instabile dalla Commissione europea. Si legge nel rapporto del Ministero dell’Interno, documento che Famiglia Cristiana ha consultato: «Si segnala inoltre che nel 2016, nell’ambito del progetto Sea Horse Mediterranean Network, quattro ufficiali della Guardia Costiera – Marina Militare Libica sono stati ospitati in Italia, in qualità di osservatori, uno presso l’#ICC - #International_Coordination_Center, altri due imbarcati sull’assetto spagnolo “#Rio_Segura” durante il mese di settembre e uno presso il Centro nazionale di coordinamento – EUROSUR della Direzione Centrale per l’Immigrazione dal 5 al 9 dicembre, con funzioni di collegamento con le autorità libiche e per migliorare/stimolare la cooperazione nella gestione degli eventi di immigrazione irregolare provenienti dalla Libia».

      Dunque un ufficiale di collegamento libico era presente nel cuore della rete europea di sorveglianza delle frontiere marittime del Mediterraneo poco più di un anno fa. Fatto che potrebbe avere come conseguenza la possibilità di accesso al sistema Sea Horse da parte del governo di Tripoli, impegnato, come abbiamo visto, nel respingimento in mare dei migranti che fuggono dal Nord Africa verso l’Europa. La sensibilità delle informazioni che il network raccoglie e gestisce è evidente. Un mese fa è stata presentata una seconda interrogazione al Parlamento europeo per capire se i libici già sono in grado di accedere ai dati dei satelliti che monitorano il Mediterraneo: «Dove, in Libia o in Italia, sono stati realizzati i Centri Operativi (ad esempio il Mebocc) e quali autorità o milizie sono coinvolte?», hanno chiesto i deputati Sabine Lösing e Cornelia Ernst. Al momento non hanno ottenuto nessuna risposta. La Libia è sempre più vicina.

      http://www.famigliacristiana.it/articolo/migranti-gli-occhi-della-libia-sui-radar-europei-nel-mediterraneo.
      #Egypte #Tunisie #Libye #images_satellitaires

    • Migranti, affidarne i soccorsi alla Libia significa respingerli

      Un verbale della riunione dell’ Organizzazione mondiale del mare del 30 ottobre scorso svela la contrarietà di creare un coordinamento libico dei salvataggi nel Mediterraneo. Ma giovedì scorso la nave della Ong spagnola Open Arms è stata affidata proprio alle motovedette di Tripoli come ha spiegato anche la Guardia Costiera italiana. Ora cominciano i respingimenti collettivi per conto terzi?

      http://m.famigliacristiana.it/articolo/migranti-affidarne-i-soccorsi-in-mare-alla-libia-significa-respi

    • EU Trust Fund for Africa: five new programmes adopted for the Sahel and Lake Chad region

      The European Commission has adopted five new programmes worth over €141 million under the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa.

      Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica said: "Our new EU programmes, worth €141 million, are particularly focusing on important opportunities for young people. They will furthermore support our #G5-Sahel partners to strengthen development and stability in border areas, as well as help us to save more lives and fight human traffickers, who take advantage of vulnerable people’s despair. We also continue our actions to support partner countries to better manage migration and to develop civil registries. Those needs do not decrease, and the resources from the EU Trust Fund are quickly depleting”

      At the regional level, two programmes totalling €75 million will seek to shore up stability and youth participation in the G5 #Sahel countries (#Burkina_Faso, Chad, #Mali, Mauritania and #Niger). A new €70 million Emergency programme will increase people’s access to social services in border areas. The programme was designed under the Sahel Alliance and responds directly to the needs voiced by the G5 Sahel countries under the #Priority_Investment_Programme. Another €5 million will ensure the implementation of the second phase of “#The_Voices_of_young_people_in_the_Sahel” programme, which was launched in 2017 and contributes to integrating youth organisations into the processes of designing and implementing development and social policies.

      A new €7.6 million programme in Niger will further boost migrant protection on migratory routes and support host communities. Also in Niger, the ongoing AJUSEN budget support programme in the justice, security and border management sectors will receive an additional €10 million to continue this work.

      In Senegal, a €9 million initiative will help tackle criminal networks that are linked to irregular migration, migrant smuggling and human trafficking, and enhance regional cooperation in this area.

      In #Côte_d'Ivoire, a new programme worth €30 million will support the country’s ongoing efforts to create a coherent and robust civil registry system that will help improve the management of public policies, enable people to exercise their fundamental rights and improve their access to public services, including the facilitation of voluntary return and the sustainable reintegration of migrants.

      Last but not least, the #Technical_Cooperation_Facility covering all Trust Fund regions and the Research and Evidence Facility covering the Sahel and Lake Chad and the North of Africa regions have been reinforced with an additional amount of €12 million. In line with the evidence-based approach under the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa to ensure strategic and efficient interventions, this additional funding will facilitate more studies and research, as well as technical support when necessary.

      The five programmes adopted today bring the total number of programmes adopted since December 2015 for the Sahel and Lake Chad region to 91, with a total value of €1.7 billion.

      Background

      The EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa was established in 2015 to address the root causes of instability, irregular migration and forced displacement. Resources currently allocated to this Trust Fund are €4.1 billion from EU institutions, European Member States and other donors.

      Today’s assistance adds to the 165 programmes already approved across the three regions (North of Africa, Sahel and Lake Chad region and Horn of Africa), worth a total of €3,157 million. These funds were divided up as follows: Sahel/Lake Chad €1,549 million (86 programmes); Horn of Africa €1,141.3 million (58 programmes); North of Africa €467.1 million (17 programmes). This amount includes 4 cross-region programmes (€145.1 million).

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6447_en.htm?locale=EN
      #Tchad #Mauritanie #jeunesse #Sénégal #réintégration #retours_volontaires #retour_volontaire