organization:eu commission

  • ICC submission calls for prosecution of EU over migrant deaths

    Member states should face punitive action over deaths in Mediterranean, say lawyers.

    The EU and member states should be prosecuted for the deaths of thousands of migrants who drowned in the Mediterranean fleeing Libya, according to a detailed legal submission to the international criminal court (ICC).

    The 245-page document calls for punitive action over the EU’s deterrence-based migration policy after 2014, which allegedly “intended to sacrifice the lives of migrants in distress at sea, with the sole objective of dissuading others in similar situation from seeking safe haven in Europe”.

    The indictment is aimed at the EU and the member states that played a prominent role in the refugee crisis: Italy, Germany and France.

    The stark accusation, that officials and politicians knowingly created the “world’s deadliest migration route” resulting in more than 12,000 people losing their lives, is made by experienced international lawyers.

    The two main authors of the submission are Juan Branco, who formerly worked at the ICC as well as at France’s foreign affairs ministry, and Omer Shatz, an Israeli lawyer who teaches at Sciences Po university in Paris.
    Most refugees in Libyan detention centres at risk – UN
    Read more

    The allegation of “crimes against humanity” draws partially on internal papers from Frontex, the EU organisation charged with protecting the EU’s external borders, which, the lawyers say, warned that moving from the successful Italian rescue policy of Mare Nostrum could result in a “higher number of fatalities”.

    The submission states that: “In order to stem migration flows from Libya at all costs … and in lieu of operating safe rescue and disembarkation as the law commands, the EU is orchestrating a policy of forced transfer to concentration camps-like detention facilities [in Libya] where atrocious crimes are committed.”

    The switch from Mare Nostrum to a new policy from 2014, known as Triton (named after the Greek messenger god of the sea), is identified as a crucial moment “establishing undisputed mens rea [mental intention] for the alleged offences”.

    It is claimed that the evidence in the dossier establishes criminal liability within the jurisdiction of the ICC for “causing the death of thousands of human beings per year, the refoulement [forcible return] of tens of thousands migrants attempting to flee Libya and the subsequent commission of murder, deportation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution and other inhuman acts against them”.

    The Triton policy introduced the “most lethal and organised attack against civilian population the ICC had jurisdiction over in its entire history,” the legal document asserts. “European Union and Member States’ officials had foreknowledge and full awareness of the lethal consequences of their conduct.”

    The submission does not single out individual politicians or officials for specific responsibility but does quote diplomatic cables and comments from national leaders, including Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.

    The office of the prosecutor at the ICC is already investigating crimes in Libya but the main focus has been on the Libyan civil war, which erupted in 2011 and led to the removal of Muammar Gaddafi. Fatou Bensouda, the ICC prosecutor, has, however, already mentioned inquiries into “alleged crimes against migrants transiting through Libya”.

    The Mare Nostrum search and rescue policy launched in October 2013, the submission says, was “in many ways hugely successful, rescuing 150,810 migrants over a 364-day period”.

    Criticism of the policy began in mid-2014 on the grounds, it is said, that it was not having a sufficient humanitarian impact and that there was a desire to move from assistance at sea to assistance on land.

    “EU officials sought to end Mare Nostrum to allegedly reduce the number of crossings and deaths,” the lawyers maintain. “However, these reasons should not be considered valid as the crossings were not reduced. And the death toll was 30-fold higher.”

    The subsequent policy, Triton, only covered an “area up to 30 nautical miles from the Italian coastline of Lampedusa, leaving around 40 nautical miles of key distress area off the coast of Libya uncovered,” the submission states. It also deployed fewer vessels.

    It is alleged EU officials “did not shy away from acknowledging that Triton was an inadequate replacement for Mare Nostrum”. An internal Frontex report from 28 August 2014, quoted by the lawyers, acknowledged that “the withdrawal of naval assets from the area, if not properly planned and announced well in advance – would likely result in a higher number of fatalities.”

    The first mass drownings cited came on 22 January and 8 February 2015, which resulted in 365 deaths nearer to the Libyan coast. It is alleged that in one case, 29 of the deaths occurred from hypothermia during the 12-hour-long transport back to the Italian island of Lampedusa. During the “black week” of 12 to 18 April 2015, the submission says, two successive shipwrecks led to the deaths of 1,200 migrants.

    As well as drownings, the forced return of an estimated 40,000 refugees allegedly left them at risk of “executions, torture and other systematic rights abuses” in militia-controlled camps in Libya.

    “European Union officials were fully aware of the treatment of the migrants by the Libyan Coastguard and the fact that migrants would be taken ... to an unsafe port in Libya, where they would face immediate detention in the detention centers, a form of unlawful imprisonment in which murder, sexual assault, torture and other crimes were known by the European Union agents and officials to be common,” the submission states.

    Overall, EU migration policies caused the deaths of “thousands civilians per year in the past five years and produced about 40,000 victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court in the past three years”, the report states.

    The submission will be handed in to the ICC on Monday 3 June.

    An EU spokesperson said the union could not comment on “non-existing” legal actions but added: “Our priority has always been and will continue to be protecting lives and ensuring humane and dignified treatment of everyone throughout the migratory routes. It’s a task where no single actor can ensure decisive change alone.

    “All our action is based on international and European law. The European Union dialogue with Libyan authorities focuses on the respect for human rights of migrants and refugees, on promoting the work of UNHCR and IOM on the ground, and on pushing for the development of alternatives to detention, such as the setting up of safe spaces, to end the systematic and arbitrary detention system of migrants and refugees in Libya.

    “Search and Rescue operations in the Mediterranean need to follow international law, and responsibility depends on where they take place. EU operations cannot enter Libya waters, they operate in international waters. SAR operations in Libyan territorial waters are Libyan responsibility.”

    The spokesperson added that the EU has “pushed Libyan authorities to put in place mechanisms improving the treatment of the migrants rescued by the Libyan Coast Guard.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/03/icc-submission-calls-for-prosecution-of-eu-over-migrant-deaths
    #justice #décès #CPI #mourir_en_mer #CPI #cour_pénale_internationale

    ping @reka @isskein @karine4

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur les sauvetages en Méditerranée :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/706177

    • L’Union Européenne devra-t-elle un jour répondre de « crimes contre l’Humanité » devant la Cour Pénale Internationale ?

      #Crimes_contre_l'humanité, et #responsabilité dans la mort de 14 000 migrants en 5 années : voilà ce dont il est question dans cette enquête menée par plusieurs avocats internationaux spécialisés dans les Droits de l’homme, déposée aujourd’hui à la CPI de la Haye, et qui pourrait donc donner lieu à des #poursuites contre des responsables actuels des institutions européennes.

      La démarche fait l’objet d’articles coordonnés ce matin aussi bien dans le Spiegel Allemand (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-in-libyen-rechtsanwaelte-zeigen-eu-in-den-haag-an-a-1270301.htm), The Washington Post aux Etats-Unis (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-in-libyen-rechtsanwaelte-zeigen-eu-in-den-haag-an-a-1270301.htm), El Pais en Espagne (https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/06/02/actualidad/1559497654_560556.html), The Guardian en Grande-Bretagne, et le Monde, cet après-midi en France... bref, ce qui se fait de plus retentissant dans la presse mondiale.

      Les auteurs de ce #plaidoyer, parmi lesquels on retrouve le français #Juan_Branco ou l’israélien #Omer_Shatz, affirment que Bruxelles, Paris, Berlin et Rome ont pris des décisions qui ont mené directement, et en connaissance de cause, à la mort de milliers de personnes. En #Méditerrannée, bien sûr, mais aussi en #Libye, où la politique migratoire concertée des 28 est accusée d’avoir « cautionné l’existence de centres de détention, de lieux de tortures, et d’une politique de la terreur, du viol et de l’esclavagisme généralisé » contre ceux qui traversaient la Libye pour tenter ensuite de rejoindre l’Europe.

      Aucun dirigeant européen n’est directement nommé par ce réquisitoire, mais le rapport des avocats cite des discours entre autres d’#Emmanuel_Macron, d’#Angela_Merkel. Il évoque aussi, selon The Guardian, des alertes qui auraient été clairement formulées, en interne par l’agence #Frontex en particulier, sur le fait que le changement de politique européenne en 2014 en Méditerranée « allait conduire à une augmentation des décès en mer ». C’est ce qui s’est passé : 2014, c’est l’année-bascule, celle où le plan Mare Nostrum qui consistait à organiser les secours en mer autour de l’Italie, a été remplacé par ce partenariat UE-Libye qui, selon les auteurs de l’enquête, a ouvert la voix aux exactions que l’on sait, et qui ont été documentées par Der Spiegel dans son reportage publié début mai, et titré « Libye : l’enfer sur terre ».

      A présent, dit Juan Branco dans The Washington Post (et dans ce style qui lui vaut tant d’ennemis en France), c’est aux procureurs de la CPI de dire « s’ils oseront ou non » remonter aux sommet des responsabilités européennes. J’en terminerai pour ma part sur les doutes de cet expert en droit européen cité par El Pais et qui « ne prédit pas un grand succès devant la Cour » à cette action.

      https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/revue-de-presse-internationale/la-revue-de-presse-internationale-emission-du-lundi-03-juin-2019


      #UE #Europe #EU #droits_humains

    • Submission to ICC condemns EU for ‘crimes against humanity’

      EU Commission migration spokesperson Natasha Bertaud gave an official statement regarding a recently submitted 245-page document to the International Criminal Court by human rights lawyers Juan Branco and Omer Shatz on June 3, 2019. The case claimed the EU and its member states should face punitive action for Libyan migrant deaths in the Mediterranean. The EU says these deaths are not a result of EU camps, rather the dangerous and cruel routes on which smugglers take immigrants. Bertaud said the EU’s track record on saving lives “has been our top priority, and we have been working relentlessly to this end.” Bertaud said an increase in EU operations in the Mediterranean have resulted in a decrease in deaths in the past 4 years. The accusation claims that EU member states created the “world’s deadliest migration route,” which has led to more than 12,000 migrant deaths since its inception. Branco and Shatz wrote that the forcible return of migrants to Libyan camps and the “subsequent commission of murder, deportation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution and other inhuman acts against them,” are the grounds for this indictment. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron were named specifically as those knowingly supporting these refugee camps, which the lawyers explicitly condemned in their report. The EU intends to maintain its presence on the Libyan coast and aims to create safer alternatives to detention centers.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=AMGaKDNxcDg

    • Migration in the Mediterranean: why it’s time to put European leaders on trial

      In June this year two lawyers filed a complaint at the International Criminal Court (ICC) naming European Union member states’ migration policies in the Mediterranean as crimes against humanity.

      The court’s Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, must decide whether she wants to open a preliminary investigation into the criminality of Europe’s treatment of migrants.

      The challenge against the EU’s Mediterranean migrant policy is set out in a 245-page document prepared by Juan Branco and Omer Shatz, two lawyer-activists working and teaching in Paris. They argue that EU migration policy is founded in deterrence and that drowned migrants are a deliberate element of this policy. The international law that they allege has been violated – crimes against humanity – applies to state policies practiced even outside of armed conflict.

      Doctrinally and juridically, the ICC can proceed. The question that remains is political: can and should the ICC come after its founders on their own turf?

      There are two reasons why the answer is emphatically yes. First, the complaint addresses what has become a rights impasse in the EU. By taking on an area stymying other supranational courts, the ICC can fulfil its role as a judicial institution of last resort. Second, by turning its sights on its founders (and funders), the ICC can redress the charges of neocolonialism in and around Africa that have dogged it for the past decade.
      ICC legitimacy

      The ICC is the world’s first permanent international criminal court. Founded in 2002, it currently has 122 member states.

      So far, it has only prosecuted Africans. This has led to persistent critiques that it is a neocolonial institution that “only chases Africans” and only tries rebels. In turn, this has led to pushback against the court from powerful actors like the African Union, which urges its members to leave the court.

      The first departure from the court occurred in 2017, when Burundi left. The Philippines followed suit in March of this year. Both countries are currently under investigation by the ICC for state sponsored atrocities. South Africa threatened withdrawal, but this seems to have blown over.

      In this climate, many cheered the news of the ICC Prosecutor’s 2017 request to investigate crimes committed in Afghanistan. As a member of the ICC, Afghanistan is within the ICC’s jurisdiction. The investigation included atrocities committed by the Taliban and foreign military forces active in Afghanistan, including members of the US armed forces.

      The US, which is not a member of the ICC, violently opposes any possibility that its military personnel might be caught up in ICC charges. In April 2019 the ICC announced that a pre-trial chamber had shut down the investigation because US opposition made ICC action impossible.

      Court watchers reacted with frustration and disgust.
      EU migration

      An estimated 30,000 migrants have drowned in the Mediterranean in the past three decades. International attention was drawn to their plight during the migration surge of 2015, when the image of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi face-down on a Turkish beach circulated the globe. More than one million people entered Europe that year. This led the EU and its member states to close land and sea borders in the east by erecting fences and completing a Euro 3 billion deal with Turkey to keep migrants there. NATO ships were posted in the Aegean to catch and return migrants.

      Migrant-saving projects, such as the Italian Mare Nostrum programme that collected 150,000 migrants in 2013-2014, were replaced by border guarding projects. Political pressure designed to reduce the number of migrants who made it to European shores led to the revocation and non-renewal of licenses for boats registered to NGOs whose purpose was to rescue migrants at sea. This has led to the current situation, where there is only one boat patrolling the Mediterranean.

      The EU has handed search and rescue duties over to the Libyan coast guard, which has been accused repeatedly of atrocities against migrants. European countries now negotiate Mediterranean migrant reception on a case-by-case basis.
      A rights impasse

      International and supranational law applies to migrants, but so far it has inadequately protected them. The law of the sea mandates that ships collect people in need. A series of refusals to allow ships to disembark collected migrants has imperilled this international doctrine.

      In the EU, the Court of Justice oversees migration and refugee policies. Such oversight now includes a two-year-old deal with Libya that some claim is tantamount to “sentencing migrants to death.”

      For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has established itself as “no friend to migrants.” Although the court’s 2012 decision in Hirsi was celebrated for a progressive stance regarding the rights of migrants at sea, it is unclear how expansively that ruling applies.

      European courts are being invoked and making rulings, yet the journey for migrants has only grown more desperate and deadly over the past few years. Existing European mechanisms, policies, and international rights commitments are not producing change.

      In this rights impasse, the introduction of a new legal paradigm is essential.
      Fulfilling its role

      A foundational element of ICC procedure is complementarity. This holds that the court only intervenes when states cannot or will not act on their own.

      Complementarity has played an unexpectedly central role in the cases before the ICC to date, as African states have self-referred defendants claiming that they do not have the resources to try them themselves. This has greatly contributed to the ICC’s political failure in Africa, as rights-abusing governments have handed over political adversaries to the ICC for prosecution in bad faith, enjoying the benefits of a domestic political sphere relieved of these adversaries while simultaneously complaining of ICC meddling in domestic affairs.

      This isn’t how complementarity was supposed to work.

      The present rights impasse in the EU regarding migration showcases what complementarity was intended to do – granting sovereign states primacy over law enforcement and stepping in only when states both violate humanitarian law and refuse to act. The past decade of deadly migration coupled with a deliberately wastrel refugee policy in Europe qualifies as just such a situation.

      Would-be migrants don’t vote and cannot garner political representation in the EU. This leaves only human rights norms, and the international commitments in which they are enshrined, to protect them. These norms are not being enforced, in part because questions of citizenship and border security have remained largely the domain of sovereign states. Those policies are resulting in an ongoing crime against humanity.

      The ICC may be the only institution capable of breaking the current impasse by threatening to bring Europe’s leaders to criminal account. This is the work of last resort for which international criminal law is designed. The ICC should embrace the progressive ideals that drove its construction, and engage.

      https://theconversation.com/migration-in-the-mediterranean-why-its-time-to-put-european-leaders
      #procès

    • Naufrages en Méditerranée : l’UE coupable de #crimes_contre_l’humanité ?

      Deux avocats – #Omer_Shatz membre de l’ONG #Global_Legal_Action_Network et #Juan_Branco, dont le livre Crépuscule a récemment créé la polémique en France – ont déposé une plainte auprès de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) à Paris le 3 juin dernier.

      Cette plainte qualifie de crimes contre l’humanité les politiques migratoires des États membres de l’Union européenne (UE) en Méditerranée.

      Selon le journal Le Monde :
      Pour les deux avocats, en permettant le refoulement des migrants en Libye, les responsables de l’UE se seraient rendus complices « d’expulsion, de meurtre, d’emprisonnement, d’asservissement, de torture, de viol, de persécution et d’autres actes inhumains, [commis] dans des camps de détention et les centres de torture libyens ».

      Les deux avocats ont transmis un rapport d’enquête (https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Europe/Deces-migrants-Mediterranee-lUnion-europeenne-poursuivie-crimes-contre-lhu) de 245 pages sur la politique méditerranéenne de l’UE en matière de migration, à la procureure de la Cour, Fatou Bensouda, qui doit décider si elle souhaite ouvrir une enquête préliminaire sur la criminalité liée au traitement des migrants en Europe.

      Ils démontrent que la politique migratoire de l’UE est fondée sur la dissuasion et que les migrants noyés sont un élément délibéré de cette politique. Le droit international qu’ils allèguent avoir été violé – les crimes contre l’humanité – s’applique aux politiques étatiques pratiquées même en dehors des conflits armés.

      Sur les plans doctrinal et juridique, la CPI peut agir. La question qui demeure est politique : la CPI peut-elle et doit-elle s’en prendre à ses fondateurs sur leurs propres territoires ?

      Il y a deux raisons pour lesquelles la réponse est catégoriquement oui. Premièrement, la plainte porte sur ce qui est devenu une impasse en matière de droits au sein de l’UE. En s’attaquant à un domaine qui paralyse d’autres cours supranationales, la CPI peut remplir son rôle d’institution judiciaire de dernier ressort. Deuxièmement, en se tournant vers ses fondateurs (et ses bailleurs de fonds), la CPI peut répliquer à ses détracteurs qui l’accusent d’avoir adopté une posture néocolonialiste vis-à-vis du continent africain, une image qui la poursuit depuis au moins la dernière décennie.
      La légitimité de la cour pénale

      La CPI est la première cour pénale internationale permanente au monde. Fondée en 2002, elle compte actuellement 122 états membres.

      Jusqu’à présent, la cour n’a poursuivi que des ressortissants issus de pays africains. Cela a conduit à des critiques persistantes selon lesquelles il s’agit d’une institution néocoloniale qui « ne poursuit que les Africains », ne jugeant que les adversaires politiques de certains leaders ayant fait appel à la CPI.

      En retour, cela a conduit à des pressions à l’encontre de la cour de la part d’acteurs puissants comme l’Union africaine, qui exhorte ses membres à quitter la cour.

      Le premier départ du tribunal a eu lieu en 2017, avec le Burundi. Les Philippines en est sorti en mars 2019.

      Les deux états font actuellement l’objet d’enquêtes au sein de la CPI : respectivement au sujet d’exactions commises au Burundi depuis 2015 et aux Philippines concernant la campagne de lutte contre la drogue menée par le président Duterte. L’Afrique du Sud avait menacé de se retirer, avant de faire machine arrière.

      C’est dans ce contexte sensible que le procureur de la CPI avait décidé en 2017 d’enquêter sur les exactions commises en Afghanistan par les talibans, mais aussi par les forces militaires étrangères actives en Afghanistan, y compris les forces armées américaines. Si l’acte avait été alors salué, le projet n’a pu aboutir.

      Les États-Unis, qui ne sont pas membres de la CPI, se sont violemment opposés à toute possibilité d’investigation. En avril 2019, la CPI a annoncé qu’une chambre préliminaire avait mis fin à l’enquête car l’opposition américaine rendait toute action de la CPI impossible. Une décision qui a suscité de vives réactions et beaucoup de frustrations au sein des organisations internationales.

      La CPI connaît une période de forte turbulence et de crise de légitimité face à des états récalcitrants. Un autre scénario est-il envisageable dans un contexte où les états mis en cause sont des états membres de l’Union européenne ?
      Migrations vers l’Union européene

      On estime que plus de 30 000 personnes migrantes se sont noyées en Méditerranée au cours des trois dernières décennies. L’attention internationale s’est attardée sur leur sort lors de la vague migratoire de 2015, lorsque l’image du jeune Alan Kurdi, 3 ans, face contre terre sur une plage turque, a circulé dans le monde.

      Plus d’un million de personnes sont entrées en Europe cette année-là. Cela a conduit l’UE et ses États membres à fermer les frontières terrestres et maritimes à l’Est en érigeant des clôtures et en concluant un accord de 3 milliards d’euros avec la Turquie pour y maintenir les migrants. Des navires de l’OTAN ont été positionnés dans la mer Égée pour capturer et rapatrier les migrants.

      Les projets de sauvetage des migrants, tels que le programme italien Mare Nostrum – qui a permis de sauver 150 000 migrants en 2013-2014,- ont été remplacés par des projets de garde-frontières. Les pressions politiques visant à réduire le nombre de migrants qui ont atteint les côtes européennes ont conduit à la révocation et non-renouvellement des licences pour les bateaux enregistrés auprès d’ONG dont l’objectif était de sauver les migrants en mer. Cela a conduit à la situation actuelle, où il n’y a qu’un seul bateau de patrouille la Méditerranée.

      L’UE a confié des missions de recherche et de sauvetage aux garde-côtes libyens, qui ont été accusés à plusieurs reprises d’atrocités contre les migrants. Les pays européens négocient désormais l’accueil des migrants méditerranéens au cas par cas et s’appuyant sur des réseaux associatifs et bénévoles.

      Une impasse juridique

      Le droit international et supranational s’applique aux migrants, mais jusqu’à présent, il ne les a pas suffisamment protégés. Le droit de la mer est par ailleurs régulièrement invoqué.

      Il exige que les navires recueillent les personnes dans le besoin.

      Une série de refus d’autoriser les navires à débarquer des migrants sauvés en mer a mis en péril cette doctrine internationale.

      Au sein de l’UE, la Cour de justice supervise les politiques relatives aux migrations et aux réfugiés.

      Mais cette responsabilité semble avoir été écartée au profit d’un accord conclu il y a déjà deux ans avec la Libye. Cet accord est pour certains une dont certains l’équivalent d’une « condamnation à morts » vis-à-vis des migrants.

      De son côté, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a été perçue comme une institution ne soutenant pas spécialement la cause des migrants.

      Certes, en 2012 ce tribunal avait mis en avant la situation de ressortissants somaliens et érythréens. Interceptés en mer par les autorités italiennes, ils avaient été forcés avec 200 autres à retourner en Libye où leurs droits civiques et physiques n’étaient pas respectés, et leurs vies en danger. Portée par des organisations humanitaires, l’affaire avait conduit à un jugement de la cour stipulant :

      « que quand des individus sont interceptés dans des eaux internationales, les autorités gouvernementales sont obligées de s’aligner sur les lois internationales régulant les droits de l’Homme. »

      Cette position avait été célébrée dans ce qui semblait constituer une avancée pour les droits des migrants en mer. Il n’est cependant pas clair dans quelle mesure cette affaire peut s’appliquer dans d’autres cas et faire jurisprudence.

      Si les tribunaux européens sont invoqués et rendent leurs avis, le contexte migratoire empire, or les mécanismes, les politiques et les engagements européens et internationaux existants en matière de droits ne produisent pas de changement.

      Dans cette impasse juridique, l’introduction d’un nouveau paradigme semble essentielle.
      Remplir pleinement son rôle

      Dans ce contexte complexe, un élément fondateur de la CPI peut jouer un rôle : le principe de complémentarité.

      Elle [la complémentarité] crée une relation inédite entre les juridictions nationales et la Cour permettant un équilibre entre leurs compétences respectives.

      Cela signifie que le tribunal n’intervient que lorsque les États ne peuvent ou ne veulent pas agir de leur propre chef.

      Jusqu’à présent, la complémentarité a joué un rôle central inattendu dans les affaires dont la CPI a été saisie jusqu’à présent, les États africains s’étant autoproclamés incompétents, invoquant le manque de ressources (notamment juridiques) nécessaires.

      Cela a cependant grandement contribué à l’échec politique de la CPI sur le continent africain. Des gouvernements abusifs ont ainsi profité de ce système pour remettre à la CPI des adversaires politiques tout en se plaignant simultanément de l’ingérence de la CPI dans leurs affaires internes.

      Ce n’est pas ainsi que la complémentarité devait fonctionner.
      Le refus d’action de l’UE doit pousser la CPI à agir

      L’impasse dans laquelle se trouve actuellement l’UE en ce qui concerne les droits en matière de migration montre ce que la complémentarité est censée faire – accorder la primauté aux États souverains sur l’application de la loi et intervenir uniquement lorsque les États violent le droit humanitaire et refusent d’agir.

      La dernière décennie de migrations meurtrières, conjuguée à une politique de réfugiés délibérément délaissée en Europe, constitue une telle situation.

      Les migrants potentiels ne votent pas et ne peuvent pas être représentés politiquement dans l’UE.

      Leur protection ne dépend donc que des normes relatives aux droits de l’Homme et des engagements internationaux qui les entérinent. Ces normes ne sont pas appliquées, en partie parce que les questions de citoyenneté et de sécurité des frontières sont restées largement du ressort des États souverains. Ces politiques se traduisent aujourd’hui par un « crime contre l’humanité » continu.

      La CPI est peut-être l’institution qui sera capable de dénouer la situation complexe et l’impasse actuelle en menaçant de traduire les dirigeants européens en justice, faisant ainsi écho avec les idéaux progressistes qui ont nourri sa construction.

      https://theconversation.com/naufrages-en-mediterranee-lue-coupable-de-crimes-contre-lhumanite-1

  • The far right determine Europe’s refugee policy - World Socialist Web Site

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/15/anti-j15.html

    The far right determine Europe’s refugee policy
    By Peter Schwarz
    15 June 2018

    The European Union (EU) Commission plans to nearly treble its spending on migration in the next six-year financial period, from 13 to 35 billion euros ($US 15 to 40.5 billion).

    This money will not be spent on supporting and integrating refugees, but rather on sealing off Europe’s external borders, deporting refugees en masse, as well as on other measures aimed at deterring refugees from entering. The EU border protection authority Frontex is to be increased from its present staff of 1,000 to 10,000 officials and expanded into a high-tech, up-to-date, military-style border police.

    With its plans, the EU Commission is reacting to the failure of its previous efforts to distribute refugees through the 28 member European states based on a quota system. Right-wing, nationalist governments—such as the Hungarian, Polish and Czech—had refused to accept even a single refugee. The dispute over the refugees and the sealing off of internal European borders threatened to blow up the EU.

    #extrême-droite #europe

  • EU wants to require platforms to filter uploaded content (including code) | The GitHub Blog
    https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filters-code

    The EU is considering a copyright proposal that would require code-sharing platforms to monitor all content that users upload for potential copyright infringement (see the EU Commission’s proposed Article 13 of the Copyright Directive). The proposal is aimed at music and videos on streaming platforms, based on a theory of a “value gap” between the profits those platforms make from uploaded works and what copyright holders of some uploaded works receive. However, the way it’s written captures many other types of content, including code.

    We’d like to make sure developers in the EU who understand that automated filtering of code would make software less reliable and more expensive—and can explain this to EU policymakers—participate in the conversation.

  • Europe’s quiet offensive against people helping refugees – EURACTIV.com
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opinion/europes-quiet-offensive-against-people-helping-refugees

    Three years ago today (31 October), EU pressure on Italy forced the end of one of the EU’s most successful humanitarian missions, ‘Mare Nostrum’, a search-and-rescue operation that in just one year brought 130,000 refugees safely to Europe’s shores. Ben Hayes and Frank Barat look back on three years since the end of Operation Mare Nostrum.

    Frank Barat is coordinator of the War and Pacification program at the Transnational Institute. He has edited several books, the latest being Freedom is a Constant Struggle with Angela Davis. Ben Hayes is a fellow of the Transnational Institute and an independent researcher.

    As the death toll mounted in the wake of this decision, including 1,200 victims at sea five months later, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) stepped into the breach, launching their own rescue missions in a desperate attempt to save lives. Their efforts were part of a wave of compassion across Europe that year, as people organised convoys to refugee reception centers, warmly greeted arrivals at German train stations and lined highways to provide food and water to those making the arduous trek from war-torn regions of Syria and elsewhere.

    As European politicians retreated from their humanitarian obligations, its citizens demonstrated Europe’s tradition of compassion, solidarity and commitment to the Geneva Conventions.

    In his first State of the Union address, EU Commission President Juncker had even praised the volunteers as representative of the kind of “Europe I want to live in”. Yet just a few short years later, the Union looks very different, and Juncker is silent as those very same activists are now being treated as criminals rather than heroes.

  • Entreprises : Un site cartographie les sanctions de l’UE - Économie - 24heures.ch

    http://www.24heures.newsnetz.ch/economie/site-cartographie-sanctions-ue/story/24679661`

    EU Sanctions Map
    http://vm.ee/en/eu-sanctions-map

    The Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has developed a new digital tool – the EU Sanctions Map. The EU Sanctions Map will be launched end of September. It will then be publicly available for everyone. After Estonia’s EU Presidency, the tool will be handed over to the EU Commission that will then start maintaining it.

    https://vimeo.com/232642521

    L’Union européenne (UE) lance vendredi un site cartographiant ses différents régimes de sanctions. Les mesures s’afficheront après un simple clic sur le pays ciblé ou grâce à des filtres thématiques (embargo sur les armes, pétrolier, etc.) afin d’aider les entreprises européennes à s’y retrouver.

    Cette base de donnée intitulée « EU Sanctions Map » (La carte des sanctions de l’UE) a été conçue par l’Estonie qui préside l’Union jusqu’en décembre. Elle sera mise en ligne à l’occasion d’un sommet « numérique » des dirigeants européens à Tallinn.

    #cartographie_des_sanctions #EU_sanction_map #eu #europe #sanctions #embargos #armes #armement

  • FREEWAT | Free Open Source Softwatr Tools for Water Resource Managment
    http://www.freewat.eu

    FREEWAT (FREE and open source software tools for WATer resource management) is an HORIZON 2020 project financed by the EU Commission under the call WATER INNOVATION: BOOSTING ITS VALUE FOR EUROPE.

    FREEWAT main result is an open source and public domain GIS integrated modelling environment (the FREEWAT platform) for the simulation of water quantity and quality in surface water and groundwater with an integrated water management and planning module.

    [....]
    Source code : https://gitlab.com/iaborsi/freewat

  • Routes, Corridors, And Spaces Of Exception | Near Futures

    http://nearfuturesonline.org/routes-corridors-and-spaces-of-exception-governing-migration-and-

    puisque @isskein ne le fait pas je le fais à sa place. Je signale cette formidable vision.

    Pedion tou Areos

    When arriving in Athens at the beginning of August 2015, I was still thinking about the Euro-crisis and the developments in Greece. Just about a month before, an overwhelming majority of the Greek population had rejected the measures proposed by the EU Commission, and just a few days later, the Syriza-ANEL-government conceded to an agreement, which followed from the notorious marathon-summit in Brussels and which imposed even harsher measures than those rejected by the referendum. The roller-coaster ride of the last six months – from the election victory of Syriza in January 2015 via the preliminary agreement on February 20, when both the Greek state’s finances and the perceived window of opportunity were rapidly shrinking, up to the referendum and the imposition of the third memorandum – had come to a crashing halt. It seemed like an utter defeat of a left and democratic project in, and for Europe. I expected the social movements to be apathetic and paralysed.

    #balkans #migrations #asile #migrations #routes #corridors #grèce

  • 10 everyday things on the web the EU Commission wants to make illegal : Oettinger’s legacy
    https://juliareda.eu/2016/12/10-illegal-things

    In a few days, scandal-prone Günther Oettinger will stop being Europe’s top internet policy maker – he’s being promoted to oversee the EU budget. But before leaving, the outgoing Digital Commissioner submitted dangerous plans that undermine two core foundations of the internet : Links and file uploads. While Oettinger is going away, his lobby-dictated proposals are here to stay. These proposals are pandering to the demands of some news publishers to charge search engines and social networks (...)

    #web #surveillance #copyright

  • Gun lobby diluting new EU gun control law | Germany | DW.COM | 21.10.2016
    http://www.dw.com/en/gun-lobby-diluting-new-eu-gun-control-law/a-36116139

    Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union is among the parties diluting the EU’s new gun control law, devised in the aftermath of the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. Semi-automatic weapons are likely to remain legal.

    The European Commission’s attempts to ban the most dangerous semi-automatic weapons, such as AK-47 assault rifles, are being watered down thanks to pressure from a pan-European alliance of gun associations, according to documents leaked to “Der Spiegel” magazine.

    The Commission’s proposal, drawn up in the wake of last year’s terrorist attacks at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, is due to be finalized over the coming weeks by the European Parliament, the Commission, and the European Council. But France, Italy, and some Eastern European states are against re-categorizing semi-automatic guns from “license required” to “banned,” according to “Der Spiegel.”

    Similarly, the proposed limit on the number of rounds allowed in a semi-automatic magazine was raised from six to 21 when the draft was revised in April, the magazine reported.

    Major European gun-makers like Germany’s Sig Sauer and Heckler & Koch (who did not respond to a DW request for comment), Austria’s Glock, and Italy’s Beretta, are all said to be involved in lobbying parliamentarians to water down the proposals, as are gun clubs in various countries.
    Frankreich Satirezeitschrift Charlie Hebdo (picture-alliance/dpa/G. Roth)

    Guns bought on the black market were used in the Charlie Hebdo massacre

    Legal market feeding illegal market

    They appear to have been successful: among political parties apparently won over by the gun lobby is Germany’s governing conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), one of whose European parliamentarians, Hermann Winkler, wrote to the German Shooting and Archery Federation (DSB) in June this year to reassure them that “legal gun-owners would not be punished for their social engagement by the directive.”

    Asked to respond by DW, the EU Commission would not condemn the lobbying directly, but urged legislators to pass the proposal quickly “and support the Commission’s high level of ambition ... in particular with regard to the assault weapons ban.”

    The proposal is “imperative” for “ensuring the security of our citizens,” industry policy spokesperson Lucia Caudet told DW in an email. “Once agreed, our proposal will make it harder to acquire firearms in the European Union, allow better tracking of legally held firearms, thus reducing the risk of diversion into illegal markets, and strengthen cooperation between Member States.”

    But pro-gun associations, such as the DSB and the Austrian IWÖ, argue that new regulation will only burden legal gun-owners and do nothing to hinder terrorists, who buy their guns on the black market anyway.

    And CDU politicians agree with them. “From our point of view, the biggest problem in the spread of weapons is the still-uncontrollable spread of illegal weapons,” CDU MEP Andreas Schwab told DW. “And the Commission hasn’t made any suggestions on that. The idea that we can ban all the semi-automatic weapons and the world would be a better place, that’s not an idea that’s close to reality.”

    But as far as German peace activist Jürgen Grässlin is concerned, this oversimplifies the problem. “If you look at different shootings, they always get their guns from completely different sources,” he told DW.

    The Islamist attackers in Paris, both at the Charlie Hebdo offices in January 2015 and later in November that year, did indeed get their assault rifles on the black market. But Anders Breivik, the far-right extremist who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, had a gun license and bought a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun legally.

    Germany has comparatively tight gun laws, in part because of restrictions brought in following school shootings in Erfurt in 2002 and Winnenden in 2009 - in both cases, the guns used were licensed and used in sports clubs. “Sports shooters, who have the necessary technical knowledge and reliability, they now have to make sure that only they have access to them,” Schwab explained. “That’s why we tightened the storage responsibilities.”
    Norwegen Anders Behring Breivik im Gericht (picture-alliance/dpa/I. Aserud)

    Breivik bought his semi-automatic weapons legally

    But regulations could still be tightened further - for instance, by not allowing ammunition to be stored in private homes, or by introducing biometrically secured “smart” guns, which can only be unlocked with the thumbprint of their legal owners.

    Sluggish politicians

    “But these are only measures that treat the symptoms, not the root of the problem,” said Grässlin. “There’s this unbelievably phony pseudo-concern that breaks out after every shooting. The politicians say, ’Right, now we’re going to tighten the laws.’ ... And then a few months go by ... It’s been a year since the massacre in Paris and the politicians have turned to other issues, and suddenly they’re open to the pressure from the gun associations and shooting clubs.”

    Schwab was loathed to accept that the gun associations had “lobbied” him. “The sports clubs explained that they want to practice their sports and accepted the regulations about the storage of weapons,” he said. “For us it was important that the clubs that look after their weapons carefully don’t fall under a general suspicion.”

    “There’s no doubt that the approach taken by the EU Commission was going in the right direction,” said Grässlin. “But if the pressure of the ’weapons lobby,’ ... is suddenly brought to bear, then we have a comparable situation to the one in the US, where the National Rifle Association defines what politics can do. And that’s unacceptable, when you see what’s going on around the world with school-shootings and terrorism.”

  • Asylum: EU list of safe countries of origin to replace national lists in 3 years

    The future EU common list of safe countries of origin, which should help member states to process certain asylum applications faster and more consistently, should replace today’s national lists after a three-year transition period, Civil Liberties Committee MEPs agreed on Thursday. The EU Commission will assess which countries should be included, removed or temporarily suspended from the list.

    http://rightsinexile.tumblr.com/post/149771635547/asylum-eu-list-of-safe-countries-of-origin-to
    #pays_sûrs #liste #UE #EU #Union_européenne #politique_d'asile #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • Moscovici: pas d’amende pour l’Espagne, pour «éviter un sentiment d’humiliation»
    http://www.latribune.fr/economie/union-europeenne/moscovici-pas-d-amende-pour-l-espagne-pour-eviter-un-sentiment-d-humiliati

    La Commission européenne a renoncé à infliger une amende pour déficit excessif à l’Espagne et au Portugal pour éviter « un sentiment d’humiliation », affirme dimanche dans le quotidien espagnol El Pais le commissaire aux Affaires économiques, Pierre Moscovici. « Imposer des amendes aurait généré un sentiment anti-européen et une perception d’humiliation dans un pays comme l’Espagne, qui a fait énormément de sacrifices ces derniers temps », affirme le Français Pierre Moscovici, après que la Commission a renoncé à sanctionner l’Espagne et le Portugal pour dérapage budgétaire.

    Did Germany Just Blink? | naked capitalism
    By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at Wolf Street. Originally published at Wolf Street
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/did-germany-just-blink.html

    Of Europe’s 27 commissioners, only four voted in favor of applying the fines; the other 23 voted against. According to El País, the deciding factor in the decision was an impromptu phone call from German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble to some of the more conservative commissioners, giving them the green light to forego the fine.

    [...]

    For a taste of just how disastrous the political fallout would be for Italy’s embattled premier, Matteo Renzi, here’s an excerpt from a furious tirade given by Italian financial journalist Paolo Barnard on prime-time TV, addressing Renzi directly:

    You went to meet Mrs. Merkel to ask for a minor public funded bail-out of Italian banks and you got a sharp NO. But did anyone tell you that Germany from 2009 onwards bailed out its failing banks with public money?

    “Banks, that is, with holes in their balance sheets visible from the Moon. Germany bailed them out to the tune of 704 billion euros. It was all paid for by European taxpayers’ money, public funds that is.

    “It was done through the EU Commission of Mr Barroso and by Mr Mario Draghi at the ECB. Didn’t you know that Mr Renzi? Couldn’t you have barked this right into Ms Merkel’s face?”

    Barnard rounded off his rant with a rallying call for Italians to follow the UK’s example and demand an exit from the EU — a prospect that should be taken very seriously given that one of the manifesto pledges of Italy’s rising opposition party, the 5-Star Movement, is to call a referendum on Italy’s membership of the euro.

    Such a vote would be impossible since the Italian constitution expressly forbids referendums on international treaties such as those that hold the EU together. But as Reuters reports, 5 Star’s party leader Matteo Salvini and the party’s founder, Beppe Grillo, have vowed to pursue a legislative change to allow an ad-hoc exception to the Italian constitution.

    Whether or not a referendum on the euro takes place, one thing that’s clear is that a post-Renzi Italy will be a much more difficult, unpredictable force to deal with than the current Renzi-governed Italy. And if Italy ever did decide to leave the Union, whether in an orderly or disorderly fashion, it would be the end of the road for the European project.

    For that reason alone, the Commission and Germany will almost certainly end up granting further concessions to Italy and its Southern European neighbors, including a taxpayer-funded rescue of MPS. It may even include a bail-out top-up for Portugal’s crumbling financial system, which was left out of last week’s stress tests.

    The challenge for Merkel and other leaders of core euro zone nations will be trying to persuade their already disgruntled voters of the need for increased solidarity with their struggling neighbors to the South. That may well be a bridge too far. By Don Quijones, Raging Bull-Shit.

  • Visa liberalisation for Turkey: EU criteria must be met, say MEPs

    The EU should make sure that all its requirements are met before granting Turkey visa-free access to the Schengen area, stressed Civil Liberties Committee MEPs in a debate with the EU Commission on Monday. Most MEPs criticised the Commission for proposing a visa waiver for Turkish nationals even though the country has not yet fulfilled all the criteria. Turkey should not be discriminated, but neither should it receive preferential treatment, they agreed.

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160509IPR26368/Visa-liberalisation-for-Turkey-EU-criteria-must-be-met-say-MEPs
    #visas #Turquie #critères

  • La Commission dévoile ses pistes pour un « #Dublin_Plus »

    Bruxelles a présenté des propositions de réforme du système d’asile commun qui mettent l’accent sur la relocalisation automatique et obligatoire des réfugiés à travers l’Europe, aujourd’hui en panne.

    http://www.euractiv.fr/section/justice-affaires-interieures/news/commission-unveils-asylum-reform-plans
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #politique_migratoire #système_européen_commun_d'asile #politique_d'asile #Europe #UE #Dublin #règlement_Dublin

  • Bulgaria as an alternative Route? | Bordermonitoring Bulgaria

    http://bulgaria.bordermonitoring.eu/2016/03/11/bulgaria-as-an-alternative-route

    The complete closing of the humanitarian corridor caused a humanitarian emergency in the Greek village Idomeni. In the recent days Bulgaria’s politicians have expressed their fear, that an alternative humanitarian corridor could emerge via Bulgaria. The Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov warned about such developments and the Interior Minister Rumyana Bachvarova stated that the EU Commission was already asked by Bulgaria for help in order to boost the security at the Greek border. Bulgaria’s Defense Minister Nikolay Nenchev talked about the possibility of building a new fence between Greece and Bulgaria. Until now Nenchev did not see it as an important step, but rather as a ‚last resort‘. He mentioned that the army at the border will only be used in “emergency cases“. In the beginning of March 2016, a drill was held by Bulgarian authorities at the border crossing Kulata-Promachonas, which is located about 125 km away from Idomeni.

    #bulgarie #migtrations #Réfugiés #asile #balkans

  • European Union pushes for energy independence from Russia - World Socialist Web Site
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/17/nord-f17.html

    In the midst of growing conflicts over the expansion of the German-Russian Nord Stream pipeline, the European Union (EU) Commission has taken steps over the past week to reduce European dependence on Russian gas supplies. The Slovakian deputy President of the EU Commission Maroš Šefčovič indicated in an interview that the EU Commission intends to block the construction of the Nord Stream II pipeline. The EU Commission is thereby opposing the position adopted by the German and Austrian governments.

    With a 40 percent share, Russia controls by far the largest portion of the European energy market. While Germany imports a third of its gas from Russia, some Eastern European countries rely on Russian supplies for between 80 and 90 percent of their gas.

    #russie #europe #gaz #guerre_du_gaz #énergie

  • Greece Furious Over Schengen Suspension Plans

    Greece has responded furiously to proposals to modify the Schengen agreement which would see the country’s borders effectively sealed off from the rest of the continent.
    EU interior ministers meeting in Amsterdam on Monday discussed moving the southern frontier of the passport-free travel zone, which includes most of the EU, to the north, deploying joint police forces along the Macedonia-Greece border. Other European states piled pressure on Greece to do more to control the influx of migrants into Europe via its shores.

    http://europe.newsweek.com/greece-schengen-suspension-419590
    #Grèce #Schengen #asile #migrations #réfugiés #fermeture_des_frontières #contrôles_migratoires

  • Germany and #France urge more powers for #Frontex, report

    The interior ministers of Germany and France wrote to the EU Commission saying there needed to be urgent reforms enacted to protect the EU’s external borders and the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) if the Schengen visa-free travel zone was to continue to exist, according to a report in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.”

    http://m.dw.com/english/mobile.A-18897667-1433.html?maca=en-twitter_en_europe-4005-xml-mrss
    #Allemagne #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Europe #politique_migratoire

  • Tu n’as pas pu rater Guy Verhofstadt éructant contre Tsipras au Parlement européen il y a deux semaines :
    http://seenthis.net/messages/388227

    Portrait du type en mai 2014 : il est membre du conseil d’administration d’une multinationale qui veut profiter de la privatisation du service de l’eau en Grèce
    http://www.thepressproject.gr/details_en.php?aid=62406

    Guy Verhofstadt, candidate for EU Commission president, sits on the board of a multinational looking to gain from the privatization of water utilities in Greece.

    […]

    Guy Verhofstadt, GDF Suez and the privatization of Greek water

    But there’s more to it. Sofina, according to its own statements, has a stake in the energy multinational, GDF Suez. Indeed its impact is so important that the fund has a seat on the board of Suez. Now, the plot thickens: Suez’s full subsidiary, Suez Environnement (in which Sofina also holds a stake ) is participating in one of the two consortia that in Greece have reached the final phase of the privatization of EYATH, the state-owned company that manages the water services for Thessaloniki, the second biggest Greek city.

    In its bid for the Greek water company, Suez is not alone. It is complemented by Aktor, one of the most powerful business groups in Greece, with a leading role in construction, highway concessions, waste management and… now water. Aktor is controlled by a Greek family with a pivotal role in the so called ‘triangle of power ’, a nexus of media, business and politics in Greece. By most forecasts the Suez - Aktor consortium is considered the favorite to win the bid.

    In Greece’s ’rotten’ politics we have a word for the conflict of interests that plagues the political world: ‘diaploki’, which literally means intertwined interests. How far from this definition does Mr Verhofstadt’s paradigm stand?

  • Une technologie français permet à La Commission Européenne de (tenter de) détecter les critiques et les sarcasme à son encontre sur internet :

    Spotter’s platform scans social media and other sources to create reputation reports for clients such as the EU Commission. As with most analytics packages that determine popular sentiment, the software parses semantics, heuristics and linguistics. However, automated data-analytics systems often have a difficult time with some of the more nuanced elements of human speech, such as sarcasm and irony—an issue that Spotter has apparently overcome to some degree, although company executives admit that their solution isn’t perfect.
    “One of our clients is Air France. If someone has a delayed flight, they will tweet, ‘Thanks Air France for getting us into London two hours late’—obviously they are not actually thanking them,” Spotter executive Richard May told the BBC. “We also have to be very specific to specific industries.”

    Voilà qui permettra de rationaliser utilement les subventions accordées aux bloggers pro-européens des vingt huit membres de l’Union, en leur désignant les objets de débat à adresser.

    http://slashdot.org/topic/bi/data-analytics-next-big-feat-sarcasm-detection

  • Smashborders

    No e-fortress Europe! Stop the creation of an electronic fortress Europe!

    Under the pretty-sounding title of “smart borders”, the European Union is constructing an electronic fortress. The EU Commission and the member states are pushing for the creation of an enormous database that will include all third country citizens travelling to the EU. The profiling of travellers is also intended. If this were not enough, drones and other surveillance technologies are envisaged for sealing off the EU external borders against refugees and migrants. This is unacceptable! We are against the creation of an e-fortress Europe!

    http://www.smashborders.eu/en

    #frontière #e-forteresse #smart_borders #frontière_intelligente #smashborders #drone #technologie #UE #Europe

  • GUNS, DEBT AND CORRUPTION
    http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/eu_milspending_crisis.pdf

    The debts caused by arms sales were often a result of corrupt deals between government officials but are being paid for by ordinary people facing savage cuts in social services.

    Investigations of an arms deal signed by Portugal in 2004 to buy two submarines for one billion euros, agreed by then-prime minister Manuel Barroso (now President of the EU Commission) have identified more than a dozen suspicious brokerage and consulting agreements that cost Portugal at least €34 million. Up to eight arms deals signed by the Greek government since the late 1990s are being investigated by judicial authorities for possible illegal bribes and kickbacks to state officials and politicians.

    According to the Economist, German businesses were reckoned in 1999 to pay “more than $3 billion a year all told to win contracts abroad”. In the international arms trade, “probably the world’s dirtiest legitimate business, one estimate reckons that roughly $2.5 billion a year is paid in bribes, nearly a tenth of turnover”.

    In 2011, German prosecutors succeeded in convicting two former managers of Ferrostaal for paying €62 million in bribes to key Greek and Portuguese officials in connection with the submarine deals.142 At the time Ferrostaal explicitly denied ever having paid bribes for the deals.143 The two former Ferrostaal managers were given quite lenient sentences, while Ferrostaal itself was fined €140 million for ‘obtaining an economic advantage’ through its two employees.

    Up to eight arms deals signed by the Greek government since
    the late 1990s are being investigated by judicial authorities
    for possible illegal bribes and kickbacks to state officials and
    politicians, according to the Greek newspaper Kathimerini.

    Among these is the purchase of US-made Patriot missiles and
    the German submarine deal. “Investigators are probing bank
    accounts and offshore companies in a bid to trace millions of
    euros received by senior state officials as sweeteners for the
    arms deals. Kathimerini understands that two cases involve
    possible offenses committed by two defense ministers who
    served before 2006.” Suspicious payments were reportedly
    made via Austria, the Caribbean, Liberia and Cyprus.

    Former defence minister Akis Tsochatzopoulos, his wife and
    17 others are to stand trial, from April 2013, for kickbacks
    from arms purchases. Tsochatzopoulos, a founding member
    of the PASOK socialist party, is alleged to have pocketed €20
    million in kickbacks between 1998 and 2001, including €8 million from Ferrostaal in the submarine deal.

    The submarine corruption scandals are not limited to Greece
    and Portugal. Questionable payments were also involved
    in the sale of German submarines to South Korea....

    Another case under scrutiny has been the €1.7 billion sale of
    170 Leopard tanks to Greece by Kassel-based KMW, which
    denied having paid bribes for the deal.161 The refusal of cooperation from the Virgin Islands, a key link in the money trail,
    has stymied this investigation however.

    Corruption in Greece is frequently singled out as a cause
    for waste but at the same time companies like Ferrostaal
    and Siemens are pioneers in the practice. A big part of our
    defence spending is bound up with bribes, black money
    that funds the [mainstream] political class in a nation
    where governments have got away with it by long playing
    on peoples’ fears.”16

  • Complaint against EU authorisation of genetically engineered soybeans with stacked genes | testbiotech
    http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/694

    Several organisations such as the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) are filing a complaint against a decision of the EU Commission to authorise a new genetically engineered Monsanto soybean. The soybeans will be mostly sold and grown in Brazil under the brand name Intacta, the harvest will be imported to the EU for use in food and feed. The new genetically engineered soybean expresses an insecticidal protein and is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup. The EU gave permission for use of the soybeans in food and feed at end of June. However, the European Food Safety Authority EFSA has not carried out the risk assessments for this product in the way as legally required.

    #OGM