• Plus d’un millier de syndicalistes et d’activistes assassinés en #Colombie depuis l’accord de #Paix
    https://www.cetri.be/Plus-d-un-millier-de-syndicalistes

    Il y a quatre ans, le 26 septembre 2016, était signé un accord de paix entre les autorités colombiennes et les Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie (FARC), censé mettre fin à cinquante-deux ans de conflit armé. Mais la paix, les Colombiens et Colombiennes l’attendent toujours. Une analyse du chercheur Frédéric Thomas (CETRI), parue dans Bastamag. Contrairement à ses deux grands voisins, le Venezuela et le Brésil, la Colombie n’occupe guère de place dans nos médias. À croire que, longtemps coincé (...) #Le_regard_du_CETRI

    / Colombie, Paix, Basta !, #Homepage_-_Actualités_à_la_une, #Le_Sud_en_mouvement, Le regard du (...)

    #Basta_ ! #Le_regard_du_CETRI

  • #Colombie : en attendant la #Paix ?
    https://www.cetri.be/Colombie-en-attendant-la-paix

    Il y a quatre ans, le 26 septembre 2016 était signé un accord de paix entre les autorités colombiennes et les Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie (FARC), devant mettre fin à cinquante-deux ans de conflit armé. Mais la paix ressemble, pour les Colombiens et Colombiennes, à Godot dans la fameuse pièce de Samuel Becket ; celle que l’on attend et dont on ne cesse de parler, et qui n’arrive jamais. Contrairement à ses deux grands voisins, le Venezuela et le Brésil, la Colombie n’occupe guère de place (...) #Le_regard_du_CETRI

    / Colombie, Paix, Basta !, #Homepage_-_Actualités_à_la_une, #Le_Sud_en_mouvement, Le regard du (...)

    #Basta_ ! #Le_regard_du_CETRI

  • Refugee protection at risk

    Two of the words that we should try to avoid when writing about refugees are “unprecedented” and “crisis.” They are used far too often and with far too little thought by many people working in the humanitarian sector. Even so, and without using those words, there is evidence to suggest that the risks confronting refugees are perhaps greater today than at any other time in the past three decades.

    First, as the UN Secretary-General has pointed out on many occasions, we are currently witnessing a failure of global governance. When Antonio Guterres took office in 2017, he promised to launch what he called “a surge in diplomacy for peace.” But over the past three years, the UN Security Council has become increasingly dysfunctional and deadlocked, and as a result is unable to play its intended role of preventing the armed conflicts that force people to leave their homes and seek refuge elsewhere. Nor can the Security Council bring such conflicts to an end, thereby allowing refugees to return to their country of origin.

    It is alarming to note, for example, that four of the five Permanent Members of that body, which has a mandate to uphold international peace and security, have been militarily involved in the Syrian armed conflict, a war that has displaced more people than any other in recent years. Similarly, and largely as a result of the blocking tactics employed by Russia and the US, the Secretary-General struggled to get Security Council backing for a global ceasefire that would support the international community’s efforts to fight the Coronavirus pandemic

    Second, the humanitarian principles that are supposed to regulate the behavior of states and other parties to armed conflicts, thereby minimizing the harm done to civilian populations, are under attack from a variety of different actors. In countries such as Burkina Faso, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia, those principles have been flouted by extremist groups who make deliberate use of death and destruction to displace populations and extend the areas under their control.

    In states such as Myanmar and Syria, the armed forces have acted without any kind of constraint, persecuting and expelling anyone who is deemed to be insufficiently loyal to the regime or who come from an unwanted part of society. And in Central America, violent gangs and ruthless cartels are acting with growing impunity, making life so hazardous for other citizens that they feel obliged to move and look for safety elsewhere.

    Third, there is mounting evidence to suggest that governments are prepared to disregard international refugee law and have a respect a declining commitment to the principle of asylum. It is now common practice for states to refuse entry to refugees, whether by building new walls, deploying military and militia forces, or intercepting and returning asylum seekers who are travelling by sea.

    In the Global North, the refugee policies of the industrialized increasingly take the form of ‘externalization’, whereby the task of obstructing the movement of refugees is outsourced to transit states in the Global South. The EU has been especially active in the use of this strategy, forging dodgy deals with countries such as Libya, Niger, Sudan and Turkey. Similarly, the US has increasingly sought to contain northward-bound refugees in Mexico, and to return asylum seekers there should they succeed in reaching America’s southern border.

    In developing countries themselves, where some 85 per cent of the world’s refugees are to be found, governments are increasingly prepared to flout the principle that refugee repatriation should only take place in a voluntary manner. While they rarely use overt force to induce premature returns, they have many other tools at their disposal: confining refugees to inhospitable camps, limiting the food that they receive, denying them access to the internet, and placing restrictions on humanitarian organizations that are trying to meet their needs.

    Fourth, the COVID-19 pandemic of the past nine months constitutes a very direct threat to the lives of refugees, and at the same time seems certain to divert scarce resources from other humanitarian programmes, including those that support displaced people. The Coronavirus has also provided a very convenient alibi for governments that wish to close their borders to people who are seeking safety on their territory.

    Responding to this problem, UNHCR has provided governments with recommendations as to how they might uphold the principle of asylum while managing their borders effectively and minimizing any health risks associated with the cross-border movement of people. But it does not seem likely that states will be ready to adopt such an approach, and will prefer instead to introduce more restrictive refugee and migration policies.

    Even if the virus is brought under some kind of control, it may prove difficult to convince states to remove the restrictions that they have introduced during the COVD-19 emergency. And the likelihood of that outcome is reinforced by the fear that the climate crisis will in the years to come prompt very large numbers of people to look for a future beyond the borders of their own state.

    Fifth, the state-based international refugee regime does not appear well placed to resist these negative trends. At the broadest level, the very notions of multilateralism, international cooperation and the rule of law are being challenged by a variety of powerful states in different parts of the world: Brazil, China, Russia, Turkey and the USA, to name just five. Such countries also share a common disdain for human rights and the protection of minorities – indigenous people, Uyghur Muslims, members of the LGBT community, the Kurds and African-Americans respectively.

    The USA, which has traditionally acted as a mainstay of the international refugee regime, has in recent years set a particularly negative example to the rest of the world by slashing its refugee resettlement quota, by making it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to claim refugee status on American territory, by entirely defunding the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency and by refusing to endorse the Global Compact on Refugees. Indeed, while many commentators predicted that the election of President Trump would not be good news for refugees, the speed at which he has dismantled America’s commitment to the refugee regime has taken many by surprise.

    In this toxic international environment, UNHCR appears to have become an increasingly self-protective organization, as indicated by the enormous amount of effort it devotes to marketing, branding and celebrity endorsement. For reasons that remain somewhat unclear, rather than stressing its internationally recognized mandate for refugee protection and solutions, UNHCR increasingly presents itself as an all-purpose humanitarian agency, delivering emergency assistance to many different groups of needy people, both outside and within their own country. Perhaps this relief-oriented approach is thought to win the favour of the organization’s key donors, an impression reinforced by the cautious tone of the advocacy that UNHCR undertakes in relation to the restrictive asylum policies of the EU and USA.

    UNHCR has, to its credit, made a concerted effort to revitalize the international refugee regime, most notably through the Global Compact on Refugees, the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework and the Global Refugee Forum. But will these initiatives really have the ‘game-changing’ impact that UNHCR has prematurely attributed to them?

    The Global Compact on Refugees, for example, has a number of important limitations. It is non-binding and does not impose any specific obligations on the countries that have endorsed it, especially in the domain of responsibility-sharing. The Compact makes numerous references to the need for long-term and developmental approaches to the refugee problem that also bring benefits to host states and communities. But it is much more reticent on fundamental protection principles such as the right to seek asylum and the notion of non-refoulement. The Compact also makes hardly any reference to the issue of internal displacement, despite the fact that there are twice as many IDPs as there are refugees under UNHCR’s mandate.

    So far, the picture painted by this article has been unremittingly bleak. But just as one can identify five very negative trends in relation to refugee protection, a similar number of positive developments also warrant recognition.

    First, the refugee policies pursued by states are not uniformly bad. Countries such as Canada, Germany and Uganda, for example, have all contributed, in their own way, to the task of providing refugees with the security that they need and the rights to which they are entitled. In their initial stages at least, the countries of South America and the Middle East responded very generously to the massive movements of refugees out of Venezuela and Syria.

    And while some analysts, including the current author, have felt that there was a very real risk of large-scale refugee expulsions from countries such as Bangladesh, Kenya and Lebanon, those fears have so far proved to be unfounded. While there is certainly a need for abusive states to be named and shamed, recognition should also be given to those that seek to uphold the principles of refugee protection.

    Second, the humanitarian response to refugee situations has become steadily more effective and equitable. Twenty years ago, it was the norm for refugees to be confined to camps, dependent on the distribution of food and other emergency relief items and unable to establish their own livelihoods. Today, it is far more common for refugees to be found in cities, towns or informal settlements, earning their own living and/or receiving support in the more useful, dignified and efficient form of cash transfers. Much greater attention is now given to the issues of age, gender and diversity in refugee contexts, and there is a growing recognition of the role that locally-based and refugee-led organizations can play in humanitarian programmes.

    Third, after decades of discussion, recent years have witnessed a much greater engagement with refugee and displacement issues by development and financial actors, especially the World Bank. While there are certainly some risks associated with this engagement (namely a lack of attention to protection issues and an excessive focus on market-led solutions) a more developmental approach promises to allow better long-term planning for refugee populations, while also addressing more systematically the needs of host populations.

    Fourth, there has been a surge of civil society interest in the refugee issue, compensating to some extent for the failings of states and the large international humanitarian agencies. Volunteer groups, for example, have played a critical role in responding to the refugee situation in the Mediterranean. The Refugees Welcome movement, a largely spontaneous and unstructured phenomenon, has captured the attention and allegiance of many people, especially but not exclusively the younger generation.

    And as has been seen in the UK this year, when governments attempt to demonize refugees, question their need for protection and violate their rights, there are many concerned citizens, community associations, solidarity groups and faith-based organizations that are ready to make their voice heard. Indeed, while the national asylum policies pursued by the UK and other countries have been deeply disappointing, local activism on behalf of refugees has never been stronger.

    Finally, recent events in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and Europe have raised the question as to whether refugees could be spared the trauma and hardship of making dangerous journeys from one country and continent to another by providing them with safe and legal routes. These might include initiatives such as Canada’s community-sponsored refugee resettlement programme, the ‘humanitarian corridors’ programme established by the Italian churches, family reunion projects of the type championed in the UK and France by Lord Alf Dubs, and the notion of labour mobility programmes for skilled refugee such as that promoted by the NGO Talent Beyond Boundaries.

    Such initiatives do not provide a panacea to the refugee issue, and in their early stages at least, might not provide a solution for large numbers of displaced people. But in a world where refugee protection is at such serious risk, they deserve our full support.

    http://www.against-inhumanity.org/2020/09/08/refugee-protection-at-risk

    #réfugiés #asile #migrations #protection #Jeff_Crisp #crise #crise_migratoire #crise_des_réfugiés #gouvernance #gouvernance_globale #paix #Nations_unies #ONU #conflits #guerres #conseil_de_sécurité #principes_humanitaires #géopolitique #externalisation #sanctuarisation #rapatriement #covid-19 #coronavirus #frontières #fermeture_des_frontières #liberté_de_mouvement #liberté_de_circulation #droits_humains #Global_Compact_on_Refugees #Comprehensive_Refugee_Response_Framework #Global_Refugee_Forum #camps_de_réfugiés #urban_refugees #réfugiés_urbains #banque_mondiale #société_civile #refugees_welcome #solidarité #voies_légales #corridors_humanitaires #Talent_Beyond_Boundaries #Alf_Dubs

    via @isskein
    ping @karine4 @thomas_lacroix @_kg_ @rhoumour

    –—
    Ajouté à la métaliste sur le global compact :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/739556

  • #Guerre et #paix... et #écologie. Les risques de #militarisation durable

    La militarisation du monde est la cause principale de la détérioration de nos environnements, sur terre, en mer et dans l’espace. Notre planète, qui mérite des soins intensifs, est de plus en plus abîmée par ceux-là mêmes qui s’en font les défenseurs auto-proclamés : les #forces_armées. Limiter les dégâts des #armes de tout calibre. Contrer la démesure, dans la répartition internationale de la menace de mort du #complexe_militaro-industriel, un complexe qui détourne nos ressources vitales, accapare nos territoires et militarise nos esprits. Intégrer le mot d’ordre de « #Halte_à_la_Croissance » dans le domaine de l’armement, à une époque où les écosystèmes sont victimes de reconfigurations stratégiques sur fond de dérèglement et manipulation climatiques. Concevoir la #sécurité_écologique en neutralisant la nocivité des préparatifs de guerre en temps de paix. Tout cela dépendra de la façon dont agiront en tandem écologistes et pacifistes, sans chercher à savoir qui est le mieux placé ou le mieux armé pour « sauver » la planète

    https://www.souffledor.fr/ecologie/1268-guerre-et-paix-et-ecologie-9782364290556.html
    #livre #Ben_Cramer #pacifisme

    ping @karine4

  • #EU #Development #Cooperation with #Sub-Saharan #Africa 2013-2018: Policies, funding, results

    How have EU overall development policies and the EU’s overall policies vis-à-vis Sub-Saharan Africa in particular evolved in the period 2013-2018 and what explains the developments that have taken place?2. How has EU development spending in Sub-Saharan Africa developed in the period 2013-2018 and what explains these developments?3.What is known of the results accomplished by EU development aid in Sub-Saharan Africa and what explains these accomplishments?

    This study analyses these questions on the basis of a comprehensive desk review of key EU policy documents, data on EU development cooperation as well as available evaluation material of the EU institutionson EU external assistance. While broad in coverage, the study pays particular attention to EU policies and development spending in specific areas that are priority themes for the Dutch government as communicated to the parliament.

    Authors: Alexei Jones, Niels Keijzer, Ina Friesen and Pauline Veron, study for the evaluation department (IOB) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, May 2020

    = https://ecdpm.org/publications/eu-development-cooperation-sub-saharan-africa-2013-2018-policies-funding-resu

  • Tag der Befreiung : Wann stellt Berlin ein Denkmal für Nikolai Bersarin auf ?
    https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/kultur-vergnuegen/wann-stellt-berlin-ein-denkmal-fuer-nikolai-bersarin-auf-li.82701

    Pour la première fois ce 8 mai 2020 est un jour férié à Berlin, mais il ne le sera pas dans l’avenir. Malheureusement on lui a préféré le 8 mars quand le parlement der la ville a décidé sur l’introdution d’un jour libre supplémentaire. Quels radins, ce députés !

    8.5.2020 von Ingeborg Ruthe - Zum 75. Jahrestag der Befreiung kann die Bildhauerin Anna Franziska Schwarzbach mit Skulpturen-Entwürfen zur Erinnerung an den legendären Stadtkommandanten beitragen.

    Vor 17 Jahren bekam Generaloberst Nikolai Erastowitsch Bersarin (1905–1945) postum seine Würde zurück, als Mensch, als Russe, als Offizier einer Befreiungsarmee. Berlin sprach ihm, nach heftigen Debatten, den 1975 vom Ostberliner Magistrat verliehenen Ehrenbürger-Titel wieder zu. Den hatte die Berliner CDU-Regierung 1992 – noch ganz in Kalter-Krieg-Manier – dem legendären ersten Stadtkommandanten Berlins, der vom 28. April bis zum 16. Juni 1945 im Amt war, abgesprochen. Erfundene Anschuldigungen, ein hoher Offizier dieses Namens sei 1940 für Deportationen von Balten in Lettland verantwortlich gewesen, wurden 1999 von der Forschung widerlegt: Nikolai Bersarin war nachweislich zu besagter Zeit im fernen Sibirien stationiert.

    Seit 18 Jahren steht im Pankower Atelier der Bildhauerin Anna Franziska Schwarzbach ein Denkmalsentwurf, inspiriert durch den kühnen Plan einer Bersarin-Initiative um Götz Aly, Historiker und Autor der Berliner Zeitung. Die Künstlerin ist bekannt für gern aus der strengen preußischen Denkmalstradition fallende Eisenguss- und Bronzegestalten. Sie kommen ohne Pathos und Monumentalanspruch daher, dafür mit lebhaft oxidierenden Oberflächen und ambivalentem Ausdruck für Lebendigkeit und zugleich Schmerz. Anna Franziska Schwarzbach formte, um an Bersarin zu erinnern, ein Motorrad.

    Der von Marschall Schukow zum Berliner Stadtkommandanten beförderte Offizier der 5. Stoßarmee organisierte die Lebensmittelvergabe, brachte „Trinkwasser und Brot statt Rache“. Hart griff er durch gegen Soldaten, die vergewaltigten und plünderten. Er ließ Theater und Orchester spielen, und auch den Rundfunk wieder senden. Er ordnete Schulöffnungen an, gab Religionsunterricht und Gottesdienste frei, ließ Kulturschaffenden und Intellektuellen die Lebensmittelkarte 1 aushändigen.

    Dann, am 16. Juni 1945, geschah das Unglück: Bersarin prallte mit einem Motorrad an der Ecke Am Tierpark/Alfred-Kowalke-Straße in Friedrichsfelde gegen einen sowjetischen Militärkonvoi. Der 41-Jährige war sofort tot, die Unfallursache blieb ungeklärt: Übermüdung? Übermut? Die Zündapp mit Seitenwagen aus Wehrmachtsbestand hatte Bersarin am Tag zuvor von Offizieren übergeben bekommen. Er war als leidenschaftlicher Motorradfahrer bekannt. Doch das Modell Zündapp lenkte er zum ersten Mal. Der Verlust des charismatischen Kommandanten war ein Schlag für die Versorgung und das wiedererwachte Geistesleben der Stadt.

    Ein Krad, das sich wie ein wildes Pferd aufbäumt, sollte, so der freche Plan der Bildhauerin und der Initiatoren, als eine Metall-Skulptur Unter den Linden, Fahrtrichtung West, aufgestellt werden. Die Idee sorgte für Interesse in den hiesigen Medien und für viel Zuspruch bei geschichtsbewussten Berlinern. Dann aber hatte der Senat veritable Haushaltssorgen. Das damalige Modell für das Bersarin-Denkmal steht seither als Zeichen einer unerfüllten zeithistorischen Aufgabe in einer Ecke des Schwarzbach-Ateliers in Pankow.

    Nun, zum 75. Jahrestag der Befreiung vom Nationalsozialismus und zum Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs, wo mit 15 000 Rosen Nikolai Bersarins und mit noch viel mehr Blumen der in der Schlacht um Berlin gefallenen Rotarmisten gedacht werden soll, meldet sich die Pankower Bildhauerin abermals mit einem Entwurf. Sie hat sich der historischen Figur Bersarins in Sandstein, in Ton und in Bronze genähert. In einer Form, die gut an einer Berliner Magistrale Platz finden könnte, wenn der Senat es für diesen Ehrenbürger nur wollte. Initiator Götz Aly denkt sogar an einen Platz vor dem Schloss, dem Humboldt-Forum.

    Und weil die Bildhauerin bei ihren Entwürfen immer erst mit Formen spielt, hat sie einen Bersarin-Kopf aus Reinhardsdorfer Sandstein gehauen, taufte ihn humorig „Locke im Wind“ . Dies sei, sagt sie, für sie nur Formenspiel gewesen. Danach knetete sie aus Gips und Ton „Budjonny“ – als Vorarbeit für einen Bronzeguss, nach einem Kinderfoto von Bersarin. „Letztes Jahr“, erzählt die 70-Jährige, „fand ich die alte Aufnahme von Bersarin. Als Knabe trug er eine Budjonnymütze. Und weil meine Enkel auch mit solchen fotogenen Mützen rumrennen, hab ich den Generaloberst Bersarin als Junge, als Budjonnymützen-Porträt modelliert.“

    Der Bronzeguss steht nun in einer Böhmischen Gießerei und ist wegen der Corona-Sperre aus Tschechien momentan nicht herzutransportieren. Es werde wohl noch so manch weiteren Entwurf, ganz ohne Auftrag, geben, sagt Schwarzbach.

    Bersarin lässt diese Bildhauerin nicht los. Inzwischen ist ihre „Bersarin-Birke“, eine russische Hängebirke, die sie mit Freunden zum 60. Jahrestag der Befreiung am Ort von Bersarins Unfall an der Ecke Am Tierpark/Ecke Kowalkestraße gepflanzt hat, ein lebendes Denkmal. Aus dem Bäumchen, das stets sorgsam gegossen wird, ist ein stattlicher Baum geworden.


    Entwurf für ein Besarin-Denkmal von 2002 : Wie ein wildes Pferd bäumt sich das Motorrad auf, mit dem der Stadtkommandant am 16. Juni 1945 tödlich verunglückte.

    #antifascime #guerre #paix #armée_rouge #nazis #Berlin Allemagne #URSS

  • Vers des jours heureux... | Le Club de Mediapart

    https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/les-invites-de-mediapart/article/280420/vers-des-jours-heureux

    Un virus inconnu circule autour de la planète depuis le début de l’année. Péril mortel et invisible, nous obligeant à nous écarter les uns des autres comme si nous étions dangereux les uns pour les autres, il a retourné les tréfonds des sociétés comme on retourne un gant et il a mis au grand jour ce que l’on tentait jusqu’ici de masquer. Sans doute provoque-t-il un nombre important de morts et met-il sous une lumière crue les limites des systèmes de santé des pays développés, y compris les plus riches d’entre eux. Sans doute, ailleurs, expose-t-il les populations de pays plus pauvres à un extrême danger, les contraignant pour se protéger à accomplir une obligation impossible, le confinement. Mais ceci n’est que la surface des choses.

    Le gant retourné donne à voir la voie périlleuse dans laquelle le monde se trouve engagé depuis des décennies. En mettant les services hospitaliers sous contrainte budgétaire, là où ils étaient développés, et en les négligeant là où ils sont insuffisants, les responsables politiques affolés se sont trouvés pris de court devant l’arrivée de la pandémie. En France, l’impréparation criante à ce type d’évènements, la liquidation coupable de la réserve de masques, la délocalisation de l’industrie pharmaceutique avec pour seule raison la recherche de profits plus grands, la faiblesse des moyens de la recherche scientifique, mettent le gouvernement en situation d’improvisation. En prenant le chemin du confinement dont il ne sait comment sortir, il s’est engagé dans la voie d’une mise en cause radicale des libertés publiques. S’étant privé des autres moyens de protection de la population, il bénéficie d’un acquiescement forcé de cette dernière. Pour le cas où cet acquiescement manquerait, un discours moralisateur et culpabilisant se déploie. Et pourtant, partout, d’innombrables initiatives contredisent l’individualisme entretenu par le modèle économique et social et témoignent de la permanence de la fraternité entre les humains.

    Mais le gant retourné fait apparaître aussi, au moins aux yeux les plus lucides, que la réponse aux enjeux auxquels l’humanité dans son ensemble est en ce moment confrontée, ne saurait être une addition de politiques nationales, encore moins si ces politiques tentent de se mener en vase clos. Il y manquera toujours une part, celle de la communauté des humains qui ne peut refuser plus longtemps de se voir pour ce qu’elle est : une communauté de destin, ce qu’Hannah Arendt nommait une association politique d’hommes libres.

    Ainsi, derrière la crise sanitaire qui est au premier plan, avec la crise économique qui s’amorce et la catastrophe écologique en cours, c’est une crise de civilisation qui émerge enfin. Le monde entièrement dominé par le système capitaliste qui ne cesse de creuser les inégalités et de détruire la nature, est aujourd’hui un bateau ivre qui n’a d’autre horizon que son naufrage à travers des violences insoupçonnées.

    S’il est encore temps de reprendre les commandes, alors ce séisme inédit est l’occasion que le monde doit saisir pour rompre enfin avec sa destruction largement amorcée et inventer une société entièrement différente. Ainsi, ayant conjuré la terreur de l’inconnu, les peuples danseront de joie sur les décombres du vieux monde qui menaçait de les emporter.

    Pour cela, il faut :

    – ne pas tricher avec les constats qu’il y a lieu de faire ;
    – mesurer les risques d’une sortie de crise orientée à un retour à la situation antérieure ou à d’autres dérives ;
    – saisir cette opportunité pour poser les fondements radicalement différents d’une société mondiale juste et viable.

    #covid-19 #le_monde_d_après

  • Patrick Le Lay, le patron qui a fait de TF1 la première chaîne de France, est mort à 77 ans
    https://www.lemonde.fr/disparitions/article/2020/03/19/patrick-le-lay-le-patron-qui-a-fait-de-tf1-la-premiere-chaine-de-france-est-


    Patrick Le Lay à Paris, en 2005.
    FRANCOIS GUILLOT / AFP

    Breton et revendiquant souvent sa fierté de l’être, dur en affaires, parfois brutal dans ses rapports professionnels, fidèle en amitié, Patrick Le Lay est mort mercredi 18 mars à l’âge de 77 ans. Entre la fin des années 1980 et le début des années 2000, ce fils de professeur de mathématiques de Saint-Brieuc (Côtes-d’Armor) aura régné sur le paysage audiovisuel français à la tête d’une chaîne, en l’occurrence TF1, qui dépassait parfois 40 % de part de marché. A l’annonce de son décès, Martin Bouygues, patron du groupe TF1, a réagi : « J’avais avec Patrick Le Lay des liens de confiance et d’amitié. C’est lui qui a été l’artisan de la privatisation de TF1. C’était un homme de conviction parfois rude mais toujours attentif aux autres. C’est quelqu’un que j’aimais profondément. »

    • Même le paysage de montagne du petit village où je vivais a été TFNisé en quelques années. C’est à dire que sans aucune nécessité les jolis chemins de terre bordés de murets et de figuiers ancestraux ont été recouverts de bitume, les pierres remplacés par des parpaings, les figuiers arrachés, les lampadaires alignés. Mais ça n’a pas suffit pour que ça ressemble au monde que TF1 instillait dans leurs têtes de bouseux qui devaient renoncer coûte que coûte à leur culture collective qui leur faisait faire les vendanges en commun, construire les maisons ensemble ou s’entraider, la télévision de Le Lay et Bouygues a été là pour leur faire comprendre qu’ils devaient renoncer à être des miséreux libres pour intégrer le nouvel ordre consumériste et égoïste.
      Marcelle, chère Marcelle, dont l’humour me réjouissait, me montrant les nouvelles maisons des fils du maire, construites au-dessus du village, au-dessus de la source (ce qui obligea à créer un pompage) avec l’accent, tu me montrais ces verrues qui défiguraient l’horizon « Hééé, ben, pichoune, tu as vu ces verrues là-haut, on diréé des block à hausss, c’est bizarre tout de même d’avoir fait ça dans not’ belle montagne »

      https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xx715

      #sale_type

  • L’UE veut multiplier les « #partenariats » avec les pays africains

    L’UE cherche à placer une série de « partenariats » de diverses thématiques politiques au cœur de sa #stratégie_UE-Afrique, qui sera officiellement lancée début mars, selon un document confidentiel.

    22 commissaires européens sur 27 doivent se retrouver jeudi à Addis Abeba en Ethiopie, pour le sommet de l’Union africaine. Le continent, dont la présidente de la commission a fait une priorité, doit faire l’objet d’une stratégie ad hoc. Dans une première version qu’Euractiv a pu consulter, la Commission assure qu’il faut « changer de discours et regarder l’Afrique sous l’angle de son devenir : la terre de la plus jeune population mondiale, la plus grande région commerciale depuis la création de l’OMC, un appétit pour l’intégration régionale, l’autonomisation des femmes, et tout ça créant d’immenses #opportunités_économiques. »

    L’ébauche de stratégie énonce aussi les domaines que l’UE couvrirait. Elle souhaite ainsi créer des partenariats pour la #croissance_durable et l’#emploi, pour une #transition_écologique, pour une #transformation_numérique, pour la #paix, la #sécurité, la #gouvernance et la #résilience, mais aussi pour la #migration et la #mobilité et enfin, le #multilatéralisme.

    L’accent mis sur les « partenariats » plutôt que sur le « #développement » y est clair. Il avait aussi marqué les premiers mois de la Commission #Von_der_Leyen.

    Le document de la Commission contient peu de substance sur les politiques mais montre la direction de la politique EU-Afrique dans l’un des documents clés donnant les orientations de la Commission « géopolitique » d’#Ursula_von_der_Leyen. Il devrait être dévoilé par l’exécutif le 4 mars sous la forme d’une communication, mais il est peu probable qu’il devienne une politique officielle avant le sommet UE/Union africaine en octobre à Bruxelles.

    Le processus d’ébauche de la #stratégie a débuté avec une réunion des ministres européens du Développement le 13 février dernier. Ces derniers doivent maintenant adopter des conclusions lors d’un Conseil Affaires étrangères en avril ou mai, puis lors du sommet européen des 18 et 19 juin.

    La #politique_africaine est aussi portée par le gouvernement finlandais, qui détient la présidence tournante de l’UE jusqu’en juillet.

    « La #Finlande prépare aussi sa propre stratégie pour l’Afrique. Les deux stratégies visent à renforcer un #partenariat_stratégique entre égaux entre l’UE et l’Afrique, et à stimuler leurs relations commerciales et politiques », commente la ministre finlandaise du Développement, Ville Skinnari.

    La stratégie se concentrera probablement sur les manières d’accroître les #opportunités_commerciales et l’#investissement entre les deux continents. Elle promet aussi davantage de soutien de l’UE pour l’accord établissant la #zone_de_libre-échange continentale africaine, qui entrera en vigueur plus tard dans l’année.

    Il risque néanmoins d’être éclipsé par les lentes tractations autour du successeur de l’#accord_de_Cotonou, qui couvre les relations politiques et commerciales entre l’UE et l’Afrique, les Caraïbes et le Pacifique. L’accord de Cotonou expire en mars et pour l’instant pas l’ombre d’un nouvel accord à l’horizon.

    L’exécutif européen assure qu’il est sur la bonne voie pour verser les 44 milliards d’euros d’investissements dans le #secteur_privé promis dans le cadre du #Plan_extérieur_d’investissement lancé par la Commission Juncker. Reste à savoir si la nouvelle « stratégie » comprendra de nouveaux investissements ou outils d’investissement.

    La note confidentielle souligne seulement que la Commission se concentrera sur « la mobilisation de tous les moyens : l’#engagement_politique, l’#aide_publique_au_développement, la #sécurité, la mobilisation des #ressources_domestiques, le secteur privé, etc. »

    L’UE est loin d’être le seul acteur international en lice pour développer davantage de relations économiques et politiques avec l’Afrique. Le #Royaume-Uni, l’#Inde, la #Turquie, la #Russie et la #France ont organisé ou organisent des conférences sur l’investissement axées sur l’Afrique en 2020.

    L’administration américaine de Donald Trump a également commencé à étoffer sa nouvelle offre de #commerce et d’investissement aux dirigeants africains.

    Le secrétaire d’État américain, Mike Pompeo, s’est rendu au Sénégal, en Éthiopie et en Angola pour une tournée express du continent la semaine dernière. Il s’agissait de son premier voyage en Afrique subsaharienne depuis sa prise de fonction il y a deux ans.

    L’administration Trump a entamé des pourparlers sur un accord de libre-échange avec le #Kenya ce mois-ci. Selon elle, c’est le premier d’une série d’#accords_commerciaux_bilatéraux avec les nations africaines dans le cadre de sa nouvelle stratégie commerciale « #Prosper_Africa ».

    Dans le même temps, Washington veut que sa nouvelle #Société_internationale_financière_pour_le_développement rivalise avec les investissements chinois sur le continent africain.

    https://www.euractiv.fr/section/l-europe-dans-le-monde/news/partnerships-to-be-at-heart-of-eu-africa-strategy-leaked-paper-reveals
    #Afrique #accords #UE #EU #libre_échange #USA #Etats-Unis

    • A record number of College members travel to Addis Ababa for the 10th European Union-African Union Commission-to-Commission meeting

      The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, travels tomorrow to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for the 10th Commission-to-Commission meeting between the European Union and the African Union, accompanied by 20 Commissioners and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Discussions will focus on key issues such as growth, jobs, green transition, digital, peace, security and governance, and mobility and migration.

      Before departing Brussels, President von der Leyen, said: “Europe and Africa are natural partners. We have a historic bond and we share many of today’s challenges. One of our main objectives is to turn the green and digital transformation of our economies into opportunities for our youth.”

      This 10th Commission-to-Commission meeting marks a record participation on the EU side, a testament of the priority relations which Africa represents for the new European Commission and its aspiration to take them to a new level.

      Besides High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission Josep Borrell, Vice-Presidents for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, for a Europe fit for the Digital Age, Margrethe Vestager, for an Economy that works for people, Valdis Dombrovskis, for Inter-institutional Relations and Foresight, Maroš Šefčovič, for Values and Transparency, Věra Jourová, for Democracy and Demography, Dubravka Šuica, as well as Vice-President for Promoting our European way of life, Margaritis Schinas, will accompany the President.

      Commissioners for International Partnerships, Jutta Urpilainen, for Trade, Phil Hogan, for Innovation and Youth, Mariya Gabriel, for Jobs and Social Rights, Nicolas Schmit, for Economy, Paolo Gentiloni, for Agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski, for Cohesion and Reforms, Elisa Ferreira, for Justice, Didier Reynders, for Equality, Helena Dalli, for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, for Crisis Management, Janez Lenarčič, as well as Commissioners for Transport, Adina Ioana Vălean, for Energy, Kadri Simson and for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, Virginijus Sinkevičius, will also travel to Addis Ababa.

      The EU and the African Union (AU) will discuss how to take foward their cooperation to address key challenges both Europe and Africa are facing such as the need to promote sustainable growth and jobs, green transition, digital transformation, peace, security and good governance, mobility and migration.

      The meeting will also be an opportunity for the EU side to consult its African partners on the upcoming comprehensive Africa Strategy which President von der Leyen promised to deliver in her first 100 days in office and is due to be presented in early March.

      The presentation of this important document will kick-start a wider consultation process that will lead up to the EU-AU Ministerial meeting in May 2020 in Kigali, Rwanda, and the upcoming EU-AU Summit in October in Brussels, where both sides will agree a joint approach on shared priorities.

      Background

      The EU and the AU have progressively built a solid strategic and political partnership that is anchored on reciprocal commitments. This partnership is based on shared values and interests, enshrined in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy adopted in 2007 in the Summit in Lisbon.

      Political dialogue between the EU and the AU takes place regularly at different levels. Commission-to-Commission and ministerial meetings take place every year, whilst EU-AU Summits at Heads of State level are held every three years. At the 5th AU-EU Summit in 2017, African and European leaders identified economic opportunities for the youth, peace and security, mobility and migration and cooperation on governance as the strategic priorities for 2018-2020 and committed to tackle them jointly.

      The EU also presented in the Summit in 2017 in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, its new External Investment Plan with the objective to create 10 million new jobs by 2023, in particular for women and young people. The Plan hopes to trigger €47 billion in public and private investments.

      In the last Commission-to-Commission meeting in May 2018 in Brussels, the EU and the AU signed a Memorandum of Understanding to reinforce their cooperation in the area of peace and security.

      The two Commissions are committed to being active players and driving forces to implement the EU-AU Partnership, which is today more relevant than ever in a fast evolving global environment.

      https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_317

    • Questions et réponses : vers une #stratégie_globale_avec_l'Afrique

      1. Pourquoi l’UE a-t-elle besoin d’une nouvelle #stratégie ?

      L’Afrique est le voisin le plus proche de l’Europe. En raison de l’histoire, de la proximité et des intérêts partagés, les liens qui unissent l’Afrique à l’Union européenne (UE) sont vastes et profonds. Il est temps de faire passer cette relation à un niveau supérieur.

      Pour les relations entre l’Afrique et l’UE, 2020 sera une année charnière pour concrétiser l’ambition de développer un #partenariat encore plus solide.

      Le nouvel #accord de partenariat entre l’UE et le groupe des États d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique devrait être conclu et le prochain sommet UE-Union africaine aura lieu à Bruxelles en octobre 2020 en vue de définir un #programme_commun_de_partenariat.

      L’Afrique comme l’Europe sont confrontées à un nombre croissant de défis communs, notamment les effets du changement climatique et la transformation numérique.

      L’Europe doit donc coopérer avec l’Afrique pour relever avec elle les défis communs du 21e siècle. C’est la raison pour laquelle cette communication propose de nouvelles voies de coopération entre les deux continents qui visent à renforcer l’alliance stratégique de l’UE avec l’Afrique.

      2. Qu’y a-t-il de nouveau dans cette proposition de nouvelle stratégie ?

      La communication conjointe de la Commission et du haut représentant est une contribution à une nouvelle stratégie avec l’Afrique. Elle expose des idées pour intensifier la coopération dans tous les aspects du partenariat UE-Afrique. Elle propose un cadre global pour le futur partenariat afin de permettre aux deux parties d’atteindre leurs objectifs communs et de relever les défis mondiaux.

      En réponse aux nouvelles réalités changeantes, la proposition de stratégie met l’accent sur la #transition_écologique et la #transformation_numérique, qui constituent les principaux domaines cibles de la #coopération future.

      Surtout, l’UE insiste tout au long de la communication conjointe sur la nécessité de prendre pleinement en considération les #jeunes et les #femmes ainsi que leur potentiel en tant que vecteurs de changement. En répondant à leurs aspirations, nous déterminerons l’avenir du continent.

      La proposition de nouvelle stratégie constitue un point de départ pour faire passer le partenariat à un niveau supérieur fondé sur une compréhension claire de nos intérêts et responsabilités mutuels et respectifs. Elle vise à rendre compte de l’exhaustivité et de la maturité de notre relation, dans laquelle les intérêts et les valeurs des deux parties sont rassemblés pour promouvoir une coopération commune dans des domaines d’intérêt commun.

      Il s’agit notamment de développer un modèle de #croissance_verte, d’améliorer l’environnement des entreprises et le climat d’#investissement, d’encourager l’#éducation, la #recherche, l’#innovation et la création d’#emplois_décents grâce à des investissements durables, de maximiser les bienfaits de l’#intégration_économique_régionale et des #échanges_commerciaux, de lutter contre le #changement_climatique, de garantir l’accès à l’#énergie_durable, de protéger la #biodiversité et les #ressources_naturelles, ainsi que de promouvoir la #paix et la #sécurité, de garantir la bonne gestion de la #migration et de la #mobilité et d’œuvrer ensemble au renforcement d’un ordre multilatéral fondé sur des règles qui promeut les valeurs universelles, les #droits_de_l'homme, la #démocratie et l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. Une coopération renforcée sur les questions mondiales et multilatérales doit être au cœur de notre action commune.

      L’UE et ses États membres doivent adapter leur dialogue avec l’Afrique en veillant à ce que leur positionnement soit conforme à nos intérêts mutuels et accorder plus d’importance aux valeurs, aux principes clés et aux bonnes pratiques réglementaires, compte tenu de l’intérêt accru affiché par de nombreux acteurs pour le potentiel de l’Afrique.

      3. Quels sont les principaux défis et domaines de coopération à venir ?

      La stratégie recense cinq domaines clés de la future coopération approfondie entre l’Europe et l’Afrique.

      Il s’agit des domaines suivants : (1) transition écologique et accès à l’énergie, (2) transformation numérique, (3) croissance et emplois durables, (4) paix et #gouvernance, (5) migration et mobilité.

      Dans chacun de ces domaines, la proposition de nouvelle stratégie définit des moyens de réaliser des objectifs communs.

      En outre, le développement d’une coopération politique renforcée sur les questions mondiales et multilatérales sera au cœur de notre action commune.

      4. L’UE a-t-elle noué des contacts avec les parties prenantes pour élaborer cette stratégie ?

      La Commission et le haut représentant ont présenté aujourd’hui les premiers éléments de la stratégie. Des contacts préliminaires avaient eu lieu auparavant. Outre un dialogue interne avec les États membres de l’UE et les députés du Parlement européen ainsi que la société civile au niveau formel et informel, l’UE a noué des contacts avec des partenaires africains, notamment lors de la 10e rencontre de « Commission à Commission », qui s’est tenue le 27 février 2020 à Addis-Abeba.

      Les propositions s’inscrivent également dans le prolongement du programme arrêté d’un commun accord lors du sommet Union africaine-UE de 2017 à Abidjan et des récents échanges qui ont eu lieu au niveau politique.

      La communication conjointe de ce jour présente des propositions destinées à alimenter le dialogue en cours avec les États membres de l’UE, les partenaires africains, ainsi que le secteur privé, la société civile et les groupes de réflexion, et il sera donné suite à ces propositions dans la perspective du prochain sommet UE-Union africaine qui se tiendra à Bruxelles en octobre 2020.

      La réunion ministérielle Union africaine-UE qui se tiendra les 4 et 5 mai à Kigali sera une autre occasion de débattre en profondeur de la communication à un niveau plus formel avec la partie africaine.

      Le sommet UE-Union africaine d’octobre 2020 devrait être le point culminant au cours duquel nous espérons nous accorder sur une approche commune avec nos partenaires africains pour s’attaquer aux priorités communes, ce qui est notre objectif.

      5. La nouvelle stratégie va-t-elle remplacer la stratégie commune Afrique-UE définie en 2007 ?

      La stratégie commune Afrique-UE de 2007 a marqué une étape importante dans la relation entre l’UE et l’Afrique. Toutefois, à cette période, le monde était différent et la réalité de notre partenariat avec l’Afrique s’inscrivait dans un autre contexte mondial. En 2020, soit 13 ans plus tard, de nouvelles opportunités et de nouveaux défis se présentent, tels le changement climatique, la transformation numérique, les inégalités, les pressions démographiques et la gouvernance mondiale. L’Afrique est un continent en plein essor, qui a vu ces dernières années certains de ses pays afficher les taux de croissances les plus rapides au niveau mondial, et elle attire l’attention de plusieurs autres acteurs. Nous vivons dans un environnement mondial concurrentiel dans lequel les biens publics mondiaux sont menacés. Nous devons nous adapter à ces nouvelles réalités et renouveler notre partenariat avec l’Afrique.

      Aujourd’hui, l’UE propose les priorités envisageables pour ce nouveau partenariat. L’UE continuera de dialoguer avec les partenaires africains en vue de définir avec eux nos priorités stratégiques communes pour les années à venir.

      6. En quoi cette stratégie est-elle compatible avec les objectifs plus larges de la Commission européenne, tels que le pacte vert pour l’Europe et la priorité accordée au numérique ?

      La Commission européenne entend conduire la transition vers une planète saine et un nouveau monde numérique. Le dialogue de l’UE avec l’Afrique prend en compte ces ambitions dans ces deux domaines.

      Pour atteindre les objectifs de développement durable, l’UE et l’Afrique doivent choisir un avenir à faible intensité de carbone, efficace dans l’utilisation des ressources et résilient face au changement climatique, conformément à l’accord de Paris.

      La Commission européenne est déterminée à faire de l’Europe le premier continent neutre sur le plan climatique au monde ; dans le cadre de son action extérieure, elle propose de coopérer avec l’Afrique afin de maximiser les bienfaits de la transition écologique et de réduire autant que possible les menaces pesant sur l’environnement. Cela englobera chaque aspect de l’économie circulaire et de chaînes de valeur et de systèmes alimentaires durables, à travers la promotion des énergies renouvelables, la réduction des émissions, la protection de la biodiversité et des écosystèmes et une progression vers des modèles d’urbanisation verts et durables.

      Les pays africains sont particulièrement vulnérables face au changement climatique, car celui-ci risque de compromettre les progrès en cours en matière de développement durable.

      De même, la Commission européenne s’est engagée à créer une Europe adaptée à l’ère numérique ; dans le cadre de son action extérieure, elle propose de coopérer avec l’Afrique afin de promouvoir et de valoriser la transformation numérique en Afrique et de garantir l’accès à des services numériques sûrs et abordables.

      Selon les estimations, une augmentation de 10 % de la couverture numérique pourrait augmenter le PIB de l’Afrique de plus de 1 %. Avec les investissements, les infrastructures et le cadre réglementaire appropriés, le passage au numérique a le pouvoir de transformer les économies et les sociétés en Afrique. En outre, l’interdépendance des deux continents sous-tend que le dialogue de l’UE avec l’Afrique est dicté tant par ses valeurs que par ses intérêts.

      7. Quels liens économiques existent entre l’Europe et l’Afrique ?

      L’UE est le principal partenaire de l’Afrique en matière d’échanges et d’investissements, et le principal soutien de la zone de libre-échange continentale africaine (ZLECA), avec la mobilisation prévue de 72,5 millions d’euros d’ici la fin de 2020.

      En 2018, le total des échanges de biens entre les 27 États membres de l’UE et l’Afrique s’élevait à 235 milliards d’euros, soit 32 % des échanges totaux de l’Afrique. À titre de comparaison, ce total s’élève à 125 milliards d’euros pour la Chine (17 %) et à 46 milliards d’euros pour les États-Unis (6 %).

      En 2017, le stock d’investissements directs étrangers des 27 États membres de l’UE en Afrique s’élevait à 222 milliards d’euros, soit plus de cinq fois les stocks des États-Unis (42 milliards d’euros) ou de la Chine (38 milliards d’euros).

      8. Quelle est l’ampleur de l’aide humanitaire et de l’aide au développement fournies par l’UE en Afrique ?

      L’UE et ses États membres sont le principal fournisseur d’aide publique au développement (APD) en faveur de l’Afrique. En 2018, l’UE et ses 27 États membres ont octroyé 19,6 milliards d’euros, soit 46 % du total reçu par l’Afrique.

      En outre, l’UE, conjointement avec ses États membres, est le principal donateur d’aide humanitaire en Afrique. Depuis 2014, la Commission européenne a elle-même alloué plus de 3,5 milliards d’euros à l’aide humanitaire déployée en Afrique.

      L’UE négocie actuellement son futur budget à long terme. Selon les propositions de la Commission européenne, le nouvel instrument de financement extérieur de l’UE pour la période 2021-2027 aura une portée mondiale, mais plus de 60 % des fonds disponibles profiteront à l’Afrique.

      9. Que fait l’UE pour stimuler les investissements et la création d’emplois en Afrique ?

      L’Afrique est un continent où les possibilités de croissance sont de plus en plus nombreuses, avec une main-d’œuvre jeune et innovante et des niveaux de croissance économique élevés. L’UE est le plus grand partenaire commercial et d’investissement de l’Afrique.

      Nous entendons coopérer avec l’Afrique afin de :

      – stimuler les échanges commerciaux et les investissements durables en Afrique ;

      – promouvoir des réformes qui améliorent l’environnement des entreprises et le climat d’investissement ;

      – améliorer l’accès à une éducation de qualité, aux compétences, à la recherche, à l’innovation, à la santé et aux droits sociaux ;

      – favoriser l’intégration économique régionale et continentale.

      Il est possible d’y parvenir en s’appuyant sur les travaux menés dans le cadre de l’Alliance Afrique-Europe pour un investissement et des emplois durables, lancée en 2018 dans le but de créer 10 millions d’emplois en cinq ans, de stimuler l’investissement et de promouvoir le développement durable. Avec le plan d’investissement extérieur de l’UE, qui est un élément clé de l’Alliance, l’UE a déjà alloué 4,6 milliards d’euros de fonds pour des financements mixtes et des garanties depuis 2018. Ces fonds devraient permettre de mobiliser 47 milliards d’euros d’investissements publics et privés. En outre, depuis 2018, l’UE a également fourni près de 1,4 milliard d’euros à l’Afrique pour qu’elle renforce l’environnement des entreprises et le climat d’investissement.

      L’UE propose de faire de l’Alliance un pilier central des relations économiques entre les deux continents.

      10. L’UE accordera-t-elle la priorité aux échanges commerciaux, aux investissements et à la croissance économique aux dépens des droits de l’homme ? Comment la stratégie va-t-elle promouvoir le respect des droits de l’homme ?

      Le respect des droits de l’homme demeure au cœur de la coopération au développement de l’UE et occupe donc une place fondamentale dans la proposition de nouvelle stratégie.

      Le respect des droits de l’homme universels - politiques, civils, économiques, sociaux ou culturels - restera une caractéristique essentielle de notre partenariat.

      Dans le cadre du partenariat pour la paix et la gouvernance, l’UE s’emploiera à unir ses forces à celles des partenaires africains afin de promouvoir le plein respect des droits de l’homme, en agissant à tous les niveaux. Par exemple, l’UE continuera de soutenir les défenseurs des droits de l’homme et les initiatives visant à renforcer les organisations de la société civile. Une approche plus stratégique et structurée des dialogues politiques sur les droits de l’homme menés avec les pays africains sera également adoptée, en complémentarité avec les consultations régulières avec les organisations régionales africaines et le dialogue bien établi sur les droits de l’homme entre l’UE et l’UA.

      Le développement, c’est-à-dire la croissance économique, ne peut être durable que s’il repose sur les fondements du respect des droits de l’homme.

      11. Que fait l’UE pour promouvoir la paix et la stabilité en Afrique ?

      La paix et la sécurité ne sont pas seulement un besoin fondamental pour tous, elles constituent également une condition préalable au développement économique et social.

      La paix, la sécurité, la bonne gouvernance et la prospérité économique en Afrique sont également essentielles pour la propre sécurité et prospérité de l’UE.

      L’UE est déjà active dans ce domaine en Afrique. Elle fournit actuellement des conseils et des formations à plus de 30 000 membres des personnels militaires, policiers et judiciaires africains dans le cadre de 10 missions relevant de la politique de sécurité et de défense commune. En outre, l’UE a fourni 3,5 milliards d’euros par l’intermédiaire de la facilité de soutien à la paix pour l’Afrique depuis sa création en 2004, dont 2,4 milliards d’euros depuis 2014, afin de contribuer aux opérations militaires et de paix menées par l’Union africaine.

      Par ailleurs, plus d’un million de personnes en Afrique subsaharienne ont bénéficié depuis 2014 de programmes soutenus par l’UE en faveur de la consolidation de la paix après un conflit et de la prévention des conflits.

      Dans le cadre des propositions formulées dans la stratégie, l’UE adaptera et approfondira son soutien aux efforts de paix africains au moyen d’une coopération plus structurée et stratégique, en mettant particulièrement l’accent sur les régions connaissant les tensions et les vulnérabilités les plus fortes. L’UE propose de soutenir les capacités africaines en matière de défense et de sécurité, notamment au moyen de la facilité européenne pour la paix et de ses missions de la PSDC, et de se concentrer sur une approche intégrée des conflits et des crises, en agissant à tous les stades du cycle des conflits. Cela suppose de déployer des efforts de prévention, de résolution et de stabilisation au moyen d’actions bien ciblées sur le plan humanitaire, du développement, de la paix et de la sécurité.

      La résilience devrait en particulier être au cœur des efforts consentis par l’Afrique et l’UE pour faire face aux conflits et fragilités qui perdurent, sachant que la résilience, la paix, la sécurité et la gouvernance sont étroitement liées. L’UE propose, dans la stratégie, de soutenir les efforts déployés par nos partenaires africains pour s’attaquer à l’ensemble des défis et accroître leur résilience globale.

      12. Comment l’UE coopérera-t-elle avec l’Afrique en matière de migration et de mobilité ?

      L’évolution démographique, l’aspiration à bénéficier d’opportunités économiques, les conflits et crises actuels et l’impact du changement climatique auront pour conséquence que les niveaux de migration et de déplacement forcé continueront d’engendrer des défis et des opportunités aussi bien pour l’Europe que pour l’Afrique.

      La migration restera l’une des priorités de notre partenariat. Une migration et une mobilité bien maîtrisées peuvent avoir un effet positif sur les pays d’origine, de transit et de destination et profiter aux sociétés de nos deux continents.

      Depuis 2015, les pays de l’UE et les pays africains ont mis en place, dans le cadre du dialogue et de la coopération relevant des processus de La Valette, de Rabat et de Khartoum, une approche commune de la gestion des aspects extérieurs de la migration et de la mobilité, qui a démontré qu’ensemble nous pouvons sauver et protéger des vies, venir en aide aux personnes dans le besoin et démanteler le terrible modèle économique des passeurs et des trafiquants.

      L’UE coopérera avec l’Afrique sur une approche équilibrée, cohérente et globale de la migration et de la mobilité, guidée par les principes de solidarité, de partenariat et de responsabilité partagée et fondée sur le respect des droits de l’homme et du droit international. Tant les possibilités de migration légale que l’amélioration de la coopération en matière de retour et de réadmission feront l’objet des discussions sur l’approche à suivre.

      L’UE promeut le dialogue entre les continents sur la mobilité et la migration et continuera à renforcer la coopération trilatérale entre l’Union africaine, les Nations unies et l’UE.

      13. Comment les négociations avec les pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique seront-elles prises en compte ?

      L’UE et le groupe des États d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP) devraient conclure un nouvel accord de partenariat pour remplacer l’accord de Cotonou, qui expirera à la fin de 2020. Le futur accord ACP-UE englobe un accord de base commun, ainsi que trois partenariats spécifiques adaptés à chaque région, dont un pour les relations de l’UE avec les pays d’Afrique subsaharienne qui sont parties au groupe des États ACP. Cela permettra de créer un nouveau cadre juridique pour les relations entre l’UE et les pays ACP.

      L’UE a également conclu des accords d’association distincts avec quatre pays d’Afrique du Nord.

      Les relations globales entre l’UE et l’UA sont définies par les sommets conjoints, qui ont lieu tous les trois ans, et par les réunions ministérielles régulières, qui donnent une direction politique à la relation entre les deux continents.

      https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/QANDA_20_375

  • Why I Leave Home
    By Yohana Tekeste

    I was born in a desert

    In which I grew up with false hope

    Eyes red, heart always aching

    Free classes opportunities zero

    I tried to look to those who were before

    No change I could see

    Mind so big, thinking so small

    Too much air, couldn’t breathe any more

    Tired of missions without aim

    The struggle took my father’s leg and my future, too

    My illness can kill if I don’t leave!

    Can this be crime to save my prime?

    Seeking for a place which I cannot even name

    Asking for asylum, it was not for food

    More a hunger for freedom leading to peace

    Was it my fault for leaving home?

    –----

    ቤተይ ገዲፈ

    ብ ዮሃና ተከስተ

    ተወሊደ ኣብ ምድረ በዳ

    ዓብየ ብናይ ሓሶት ተስፋ

    ወግሐ ጸብሐ ዓይነይ እናቀይሐ

    ብዘይእብረ ልበይ እናተሰብረ

    ሕልምታተይ ደረት ኣልቦ

    ዕድላተይ እናተራብሐ ብባዶ

    እንተራእኽዎም ቅድመይ ዝነበሩ

    ራኢኦም ጸልሚቱ መለሳ ዘይብሉ

    ኣእምርኦም ሰፊሕ ቅንጥብጣብ ዝሓስቡ

    ኣየር ብብዝሑ ትንፋሶም ተዓፊኑ

    ምንባር ሓርቢትዎም ተስፋ ዝሰኣኑ

    ተልእኾ ኣድኪሙኒ ዕላማ ዘይብሉ

    ቃልሲ ደኣ ናይ ኣቦይ እንድኣሉ

    እግሩ ዝወሰደ መጻእየይ መንጢሉ

    ጓሂ’ዶ ደኣ ክቀትለኒ እንታይ ኣለኒ ዕዳ

    ንሕልመይ ምብካየይ ገበን ኮይኑ ግዳ

    ስሙ’ኳ ዘይፈለጦ እንትርፎ ክርእዮ

    ስደት ዓዲ ጓና መኣስ ተመንየዮ

    ዝብላዕ ስኢነ’ዶ ዑቅባ ሓቲተዮም

    ሕልናይ’ዩ ጠምዩ ናጽነት ምስ ሰላም

    ዓደይ ብምግዳፈይ ኮይነ ድየ ጠላም፧

    https://www.oxforcedmigration.com/current-issue/why-i-leave-home

    #poésie #poème #exil #migrations #réfugiés #paix #liberté #Erythrée #réfugiés_érythréens

  • Le #Brexit et les deux Irlandes

    En 1998, l’Accord du Vendredi Saint a mis fin à trente ans de guerre civile en Irlande du Nord. Pierre angulaire du traité, l’ouverture de la frontière avec l’Irlande du Sud a facilité l’application du #processus_de_paix. Mais le Brexit menace de la rétablir.


    https://laviedesidees.fr/Le-Brexit-et-les-deux-Irlandes.html
    #Irlande #UK #Angleterre #frontières #paix

  • The infinity war - The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/13/infinity-war

    Every time Washington searches for a monster to destroy, it shows the world’s despots how to abuse the rules and hands demagogues a phantom to inflate. The alternative is not “isolationism” but something closer to the opposite: peaceful, lawful international cooperation against the major threats to humanity, including climate change, pandemic disease and widespread deprivation. Those are the enemies worth fighting, and bombs and bullets will not defeat them.

    #etats-unis #guerres #paix

  • Caravane FM (RTS) | Requérants d’asile aux Mayens de Chamoson : mon rêve c’est la paix
    https://asile.ch/2019/11/22/caravane-fm-rts-requerants-dasile-aux-mayens-de-chamoson-mon-reve-cest-la-paix

    Ils viennent de Syrie, du Sri Lanka, d’Erythrée ou encore de Géorgie. Une cinquantaine de familles de réfugiés et de requérants d’asile ont été placées pour des séjours de plusieurs semaines au « Temps de vivre », une ancienne auberge des Mayens de Chamoson transformée par le canton du Valais en lieu de vie et […]

  • La France suit avec attention les manifestations qui se déroulent actuellement dans plusieurs villes en #Iran. Elle rappelle son attachement au respect de la liberté d’expression et du droit à manifester pacifiquement.

    Je n’arrive pas à trouver les bons tags...
    Peut-être celui de Mickaël Correia sur twitter est le meilleur : #rire_jaune
    Et j’ajoute #hypocrisie
    Et ce petit air de #colonialisme
    #France #manifester_pacifiquement #liberté_d'expression #manifestations #résistance

    ping @karine4 @cede

  • Forum de Paris sur la #paix : « Le monde se fissure. Le statu quo n’est pas tenable » - Guterres | ONU Info
    https://news.un.org/fr/story/2019/11/1055881

    Le soit disant pompier qui appelle au secours les pyromanes,

    António Guterres a expliqué que c’est pour cette raison qu’il a lancé des #réformes visant à rendre l’#ONU plus efficace et plus agile.

    « Au-delà, nous devons penser le multilatéralisme en réseaux, au plus près des populations. Il nous faut travailler main dans la main avec les organisations régionales, mais également les #institutions_financières, les #banques de développement et les agences spécialisées », a-t-il ajouté.

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

  • Eritrean refugees defy border closures only to find hardship in Ethiopia

    The long-dormant border crossings re-opened with such fanfare between Eritrea and Ethiopia last year as a symbol of warming relations are all now closed – but that isn’t stopping a steady flow of Eritrean refugees from fleeing across the heavily militarised frontier.

    According to the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, around 300 people continue to cross each day, using remote paths to avoid arrest by Eritrean border guards. They are prima facie refugees, typically escaping compulsory national service, repression, and joblessness, or looking to reunite with family members who have already made the journey.

    New arrivals join roughly 170,000 Eritrean refugees already in Ethiopia, staying in overcrowded camps, or living in nearby host communities. Younger, more mobile men and women typically head to the capital, Addis Ababa, to look for work, taking advantage of Ethiopia’s liberal employment policies for refugees.

    Finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet in Ethiopia, many Eritrean refugees are choosing to move on, seeking better opportunities in Europe – or even further afield in the Americas – to support their families.

    Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993, but relations between the two governments soured, leading to a war from 1998 to 2000 in which 100,000 people died. Eritrea’s closed economy and the harshness of a regime that has remained on a war footing created a generation of exiles – some 460,000 people had fled the country by the end of 2016 out of a population of 5.3 million.

    The peace agreement signed in July 2018 between Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki ended almost two decades of frozen conflict – and won Abiy a Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month. The accord was meant to usher in trade and development, and revive the historical ties between the two nations. But, as progress towards normalising relations has stalled, the four frontier posts thrown open under the agreement have shut, with the last one, Assab-Bure, closing in May.

    “No proper explanation was given, but most probably the [Eritrean] regime fears the risk of losing control over the command economy and further acceleration of the mass exodus,’’ said Nicole Hirt, a researcher on Eritrea with the German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    Safety, but little work

    The Ethiopian government’s “open-camp” policy means refugees don’t have to stay in camps and can work or continue with their education.

    But most Eritreans here have no proof of their academic qualifications. The Eritrean government doesn’t issue them to those who haven’t completed national service or can’t show evidence of an exemption.

    That complicates the search for work, as Eritrean refugees have to compete in an economy that is struggling to deliver jobs to an already large pool of unemployed youth.

    In the densely-populated Mebrat Hail suburb of Addis Ababa, many apartment buildings are home to Eritreans who arrived after the peace agreement was signed.

    The influx of people looking for work and accommodation led to a jacking up of rents – adding to the struggle of new refugees trying to make a fresh start in Ethiopia.

    “Rent is becoming very expensive in Addis Ababa and, even when you can find a job, you can barely pay the bills,’’ said Abinet, a young Eritrean working as a taxi driver.

    Rent on a one-bedroom flat is between $150 and $200 – a large amount of money to find each month.

    Faven, who was a laboratory technician in the Eritrean capital, Asmara, came to Addis Ababa to join her family. She is now working in a small shop earning $34 a month. “Not even enough to pay my rent,” she said.
    No way back

    Compulsory national service is the “primary driver behind the mass exodus of thousands of young Eritreans each month who brave dangerous foreign journeys and callous governments to reach safety abroad”, Human Rights Watch has noted.

    Mickel, 22, fled the country after doing three years in the military – leaving him now marooned.

    “I’m afraid to return. I will end up in jail, or worse [if I do],” he told The New Humanitarian. “I don’t have a passport and I cannot move freely.”

    Attendance at Sa’wa, Eritrea’s national defence training centre, is compulsory for every high school student. Conscription can be indefinite. Human rights groups have repeatedly documented “slavery-like” conditions during military training at Sa’wa, including torture and sexual violence.

    “I wake up in the night and I feel the government is coming to take me.”

    "We are prisoners of our dreams in Sa’wa. We are not free. That’s why I ran away,” said a 27-year-old former physics teacher, who taught at Sa’wa before escaping.

    Filomon, a teenager, said he constantly worries he could be kidnapped in Addis Ababa by Eritrean secret police and taken back to Asmara – a fear heightened by the reopening of the Eritrean embassy in July last year.

    “I wake up in the night and I feel the government is coming to take me. I still feel they can arrest me at anytime,” Filomon told TNH. “I don’t feel safe here.”
    Travelling on

    For many Eritreans, life in Ethiopia is a frustrating state of limbo.

    Those who can, make plans to leave the country. For example, Robel, 27, is waiting for his application for a family reunification visa to the UK to be processed. In the meantime, his brother sends him money each month.

    Others contemplate more difficult journeys, north to Sudan and then the Mediterranean route to Europe via Libya – although that is tempered by the well-known dangers.

    “We are aware of the risk and we all know what’s happening there,’’ a young Eritrean woman said in reference to Libya, where migrants can face detention, extortion, and torture at the hands of militia, even before attempting the perilous sea crossing to Europe.

    It is difficult to gauge how many Eritreans are journeying on from Ethiopia, but according to UNHCR, it is a significant number, with many of them unaccompanied minors.

    Apart from the well-trodden journey north to Sudan, new routes are emerging – or being re-explored.

    For those who can afford it, Latin America is a growing destination – with the hope of then making it on from there to the United States or Canada – according to the UN’s migration agency, IOM.

    “Nothing is impossible if you have money,” said Ghebre, who arrived in Addis a few months ago but is already dreaming of a better life abroad, and who preferred to only give one name.

    Forged travel documents that can get you to Colombia, Ecuador, or Panama are available from smugglers in Uganda for $3,500 per person, TNH was told by several Eritreans in Addis Ababa. It is then a treacherous overland trek to Mexico.

    Getting through Mexico, though, is a major hurdle. A report this month by the Mixed Migration Centre noted that some 4,779 Africans were apprehended in Mexico from January through July of 2019 – almost a fourfold increase over the same period the previous year. Among those were Eritreans, according to IOM.

    Between 1,500 and 3,000 Africans are currently stranded in the southern city of Tapachula – although the Mexican authorities say they are on pace to triple the number of African migrants being processed this year, up from 2,100 in 2017.

    An unknown number of migrants are also camped on Mexico’s northern border – stalled by the tough new US immigration policies. In a one week period earlier this year, the US Border patrol at Del Rio stopped more than 500 African migrants – some with children – who had taken the risk to cross undocumented.

    Even if Eritreans do make it to the United States, there has been an “alarming uptick” in deportations by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, which specifically targets them, according to news reports.

    The US Department of Homeland Security has also imposed visa restrictions on Eritreans, in direct retaliation for Asmara’s perceived non-cooperation over the deportation of its citizens – a move that in reality punishes the migrants rather than the government.

    https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/10/21/Eritrean-refugees-Ethiopia-border-closures
    #fermeture_des_frontières #ouverture_des_frontières #paix #processus_de_paix #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_érythréens #Erythrée #Ethiopie #Addis_Abeba #travail

  • How friendship makes cities

    Male migrants’ caring friendships (dostis) make cities, Delhi, run. One of capitalism’s “hidden abodes”, these friendships cradle the urban poor through its insecurities and violences. Friendships create wiggle room: the space-times for making meaningful lives. The fluidity of friendships, the multiple forms of relatedness and betrayal they encompass, are particularly well suited to subtending informal economy work. Based on interviews with working class men, I argue: friendships are ontologies through which male migrants experience a city as a particular city. The city figures in the imaginations of men as a space of possibility for friendships not defined by caste, kinship, and gender relations. Translated into everyday practices of “caring karna”, the city is where the “doing of caring” across difference materializes. But friendship is agonistic, fraught and fragile; always vulnerable to unfriending, based on those very plays of difference, which may re-orient people away from it. In ephemeral and infinite friendships, men care by standing witness to violence, to fight against indifference, to stake citizens’ claims to a just city. Friendship offers social scientists and working-class migrants wiggle room, a space of hopeful, dynamic, and relational sociality, integral to a vision of the city as a space of possibility.

    Priti Ramamurthy is a Professor in the Department of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies at the University of Washington. An ethnographer, she has returned to the same villages in the Telangana region of southern India for three decades, to understand the relationship between the social reproduction of families, lives and livelihoods and processes of agrarian transformation. Prof. Ramamurthy’s articulation of feminist commodity chain analysis, as a way to track the creation of value and gendered identities, is a methodological contribution to studies of gender and globalization.

    – Antipode Online
    https://antipodeonline.org/2019/09/16/antipode-at-rc21

    #peace #ville #urban studies

  • Go See “#Official_Secrets” Right Now
    https://theintercept.com/2019/08/31/official-secrets-iraq-war-film

    "Official Secrets", l’histoire d’une #lanceuse_d'alerte qui voulait la #paix | Euronews
    https://fr.euronews.com/2019/08/27/official-secrets-l-histoire-d-une-lanceuse-d-alerte-qui-voulait-la-paix

    L’histoire vraie de #Katharine_Gun, lanceuse d’alerte, arrive au cinéma. Peu de temps avant l’invasion de Irak, en 2003, une jeune traductrice du renseignement britannique révèle un dossier secret de la #NSA : il concerne une opération illégale d’espionnage anglo-américaine contre des membres du Conseil de Sécurité des #Nations_Unies. L’objectif de l’opération d’espionnage est d’influer sur leur vote et favoriser une invasion de l’#Irak.

  • Contre l’exposition coloniale 1931 : contre-exposition au bois de Vincennes

    En 1931, le gouvernement français organise à Vincennes une exposition coloniale internationale pour démontrer la grandeur et la légitimité des Empires coloniaux. Contre cet évènement de grande ampleur, des militants anti-impérialistes se mobilisent à Paris et en Provence pour faire de « la grande foire de Vincennes » l’occasion de déconstruire l’impérialisme français et de fédérer les militants anticolonialistes de métropole.

    Ce mémoire de Vincent Bollenot peut aussi servir la réflexion comment un événement peut, au delà de la contestation, contribuer à #faire_monde.

    Bollenot explique la logique de la contestation comme une logique d’inversion.

    Le but est en effet explicitement de prendre à contre
    pied l’Exposition coloniale qui jette un voile sur la violence de la domination coloniale, et qui va
    même jusqu’à présenter la colonisation comme vectrice de paix, soulignant ses « bienfaits » (138)

    Un pan entier du discours inaugural de l’Exposition colonial, par Paul Reynaud, avance que la
    colonisation a pacifié des pays auparavant en guerres constantes : « Nous avons trouvé en Afrique les
    razzias, l’esclavage, la famine, l’épidémie. Aujourd’hui, les corsaires du désert en sont les gardiens. […] En
    Asie, […] nous avons apporté aussi comme premier présent l’ordre et la paix, que nous maintiendrons. » (note p. 138)

    Pour contrer cette invisibilisation de la violence coloniale, la contre-exposition met en lumière l’utilisation de la force, comme les 18.000 morts pour la ligne ferroviaire Congo-océan dans « une ensemble photographique »

    La violence est pointée du doigt, les
    mots d’ordre de la « mission civilisatrice » sont ainsi déconstruits. En cela, le discours véhiculé
    par l’Exposition coloniale est bel et bien « inversé ».

    Par contre Bollenot critique que « des procédés comparables à ceux de l’Exposition
    officielle » sont également mobilisés.

    Source : À bas l’Exposition coloniale. Acteurs, réseaux, mobilisations (France, 1931).pdf | Vincent Bollenot - Academia.edu
    https://www.academia.edu/34965895/%C3%80_bas_lExposition_coloniale._Acteurs_r%C3%A9seaux_mobilisations_Franc

    #visibilisation #violente_paix #pacification #paix

    • Cannibale de Didier Daeninckx

      Résumé
      Paris 1931, l’Exposition coloniale. Quelques jours avant l’inauguration officielle, empoisonnés ou victimes d’une nourriture inadaptée, tous les crocodiles du marigot meurent d’un coup. Une solution est négociée par les organisateurs afin de remédier à la catastrophe. Le cirque Höffner de Francfort-sur-le-Main, qui souhaite renouveler l’intérêt du public allemand, veut bien prêter les siens, mais en échange d’autant de Kanak. Qu’à cela ne tienne ! Les « cannibales » seront expédiés. Inspiré par ce fait authentique, le récit déroule l’intrigue avec, en arrière-plan, le Paris des années trente - ses mentalités, l’univers étrange de l’Exposition - tout en mettant en perspective les révoltes qui devaient avoir lieu un demi-siècle plus tard en Nouvelle-Calédonie.

  • Lettre à un ami à Gaza

    Les #mots peuvent-ils réparer le monde ? Inspirée de « #Lettres à un ami allemand » d’#Albert_Camus, une invitation poétique au #dialogue israélo-palestinien. Un #essai_littéraire_filmique, présenté hors compétition à la Mostra de Venise en 2018.

    « Quand tu mènes tes guerres, pense aux autres. (N’oublie pas ceux qui réclament la paix) », écrivait #Mahmoud_Darwich, figure de proue de la #poésie palestinienne dans Pense aux autres (2007). Dans la bouche de l’actrice arabe israélienne Clara Khoury (La fiancée syrienne), le texte résonne comme un puissant #cri_politique. Alors que la poésie jaillit, le mur de béton érigé le long de la frontière avec la bande de Gaza défile en toile de fond. Aux reportages d’actualité sur le conflit israélo-palestinien se mêlent de poignantes lectures, par #Amos_Gitaï lui-même et les comédiens Makram Khoury et Hilla Vidor, de textes en arabe et en hébreu signés S. Yizhar, Emile Habibi et #Amira_Hass. Fervent défenseur de la paix, le cinéaste israélien s’est entouré d’amis pour composer cet essai littéraire filmique, présenté hors compétition à la Mostra de Venise en 2018.

    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/087427-000-A/lettre-a-un-ami-a-gaza
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHC6GsQzVbA


    #Israël #Palestine #lettre #guerre #paix #violence

    #Faire_monde à travers des lettres et de la poésie ?
    ping @karine4 @cede
    @reka

  • South Sudan displacement crisis still desperate, one year after peace deal

    One year on from the signing of the peace agreement, millions of South Sudanese remain displaced as the country continues to face a humanitarian crisis and people fear that peace may not last, according to a new report published today.

    Women, who lead the vast majority of displaced households, may be especially vulnerable, including facing the threat of sexual violence. While some women have begun returning to South Sudan, many are not going back to their homes but seeking a safer and better place to live.

    The report, No Simple Solutions: Women, Displacement and Durable Solutions in South Sudan, is by Oxfam, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Care Foundation, Danish Refugee Council, and South Sudanese organizations, Nile Hope and Titi Foundation. It highlights the experiences of women in transit and the conditions they need in order to return home.

    After five years of brutal conflict, more than seven million South Sudanese – over half the country’s population - are in need of humanitarian assistance. Homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed and it will take years for essential infrastructure and services to recover.

    The conflict created the largest displacement crisis in Africa with over 4.3 million people forced to flee their homes; 1.8 million people are internally displaced and there are 2.3 million refugees in the region.

    Elysia Buchanan, South Sudan policy lead, Oxfam said: “Since the signing of the revitalized peace deal, armed clashes between parties have reduced, bringing tentative hope to many. But because of the slow implementation of the deal, many women told us they are still not sure if lasting peace is at hand.”

    The civil war also fueled the rise of sexual violence, including rape as a weapon of war, and the abduction of women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery.

    With the sheer scale of the crisis, and endemic levels of sexual and gender-based violence, a South Sudanese woman activist quoted in the report warned humanitarian agencies against rushing to support people to return home. “This would be like throwing people from one frying pan to another. Humanitarian actors should take things slow, until refugees and internally displaced people can move themselves.”

    Due to the ongoing humanitarian crisis, people returning from neighboring countries often find themselves in more difficult conditions than when they were displaced, including struggling to find somewhere to live.

    Connolly Butterfield, Protection and Gender Specialist of NRC, said: “Time and again, women spoke to us of the challenges they face in returning to their homes. They make the journey back, only to find that their houses and properties were completely destroyed, or had already been occupied by strangers, sometimes soldiers. Some of the women said that if they try to reclaim their properties, they have no means of support. They are more likely to be threatened or exposed to physical or sexual assault,” said

    Because the context still poses risks, all actors should take a long-term, community-driven vision around supporting the conditions required to deliver a lasting end to the displacement crisis, to mitigate the risk of people falling into an endless cycle of movement. It is estimated some 60 percent of displaced South Sudanese have been displaced more than once, and one in 10 have been displaced more than five times.

    Buchanan said: “Helping people return to their homes and rebuild their lives is our goal. But by ignoring or downplaying the issues that make returning dangerous, or not ensuring people have adequate information on what they are coming home to, humanitarian agencies could inadvertently endanger people or make their lives worse.

    The international community must only support the return of internally displaced people if conditions are safe and dignified, and the decision to return is informed and voluntary. The humanitarian response must be sensitive to the needs of women and girls, taking into consideration the country’s harmful gender norms.

    Martha Nyakueka, Gender and Protection Coordinatior of the national NGO Nile Hope, said: “After years of conflict, it will take time for the country to recover. . The warring parties who signed the peace deal must ensure that the agreement leads to lasting changes on the ground, not just in terms of security, but also in terms of improving the lives of the South Sudanese people.”


    https://www.nrc.no/news/2019/september/south-sudan-displacement-crisis-still-desperate-one-year-after-peace-deal
    #Soudan_du_sud #asile #migrations #IDPs #déplacés_internes #réfugiés #paix #accord_de_paix