• In Senegal la pesca artigianale è minacciata dall’industria e dalla crisi climatica

    L’Onu ha dichiarato il 2022 come l’”Anno internazionale della pesca artigianale e dell’acquacoltura” ma nel Paese africano si sta facendo poco o nulla per tutelare le risorse ittiche. Sono sempre più scarse e la sicurezza alimentare di numerosi Stati del continente risulta compromessa. Reportage dal dipartimento di #Mbour

    El Hadji Diop ha quasi sessant’anni e da quando era giovane nella sua vita non ha fatto altro che pescare. Come lui, migliaia di altre persone vivono seguendo la vocazione della lunga costa senegalese: la pesca artigianale. Dal Nord al Sud del Senegal lo scenario è sempre lo stesso e, a qualsiasi ora del giorno, pescatori, carpentieri, falegnami, venditori e trasformatrici di pesce affollano il lungomare. Un tessuto sociale intero legato al mondo della pesca. In Senegal infatti il 17% della popolazione attiva vive direttamente o indirettamente dei prodotti del mare, settore trainante dell’economia nazionale. Stando al recente studio di Diénaba Beye Traore, “Les enjeux des zones de peche artisanale en Republique du Senegal”, solo nel 2020 le esportazioni di risorse ittiche hanno raggiunto i 262,14 miliardi di franchi Cfa (Comunità finanziaria africana), circa 399 milioni di euro, equivalenti a 291.087 tonnellate di pesce.

    Tuttavia dietro ai colori esuberanti delle piroghe e alla vitalità contagiosa delle spiagge senegalesi, si cela una realtà molto meno felice. Nonostante l’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite abbia decretato il quasi concluso 2022 “Anno internazionale della pesca e dell’acquacoltura artigianali”, un modo quindi per evidenziare il valore della pesca su piccola scala e dell’immenso patrimonio culturale che orbita attorno a questa attività, i mari del Senegal stanno vivendo una crisi senza precedenti per gli effetti sempre più impattanti del cambiamento climatico da un lato e per la presenza di numerosi, troppi, pescherecci industriali dall’altro.

    “Amoul de”, ovvero “non ce n’è”, racconta El Hadji nella lingua locale wolof riferendosi al pesce, talmente sfruttato che alcune specie ittiche stanno letteralmente sparendo. “Questo che vedi è il simbolo del franco Cfa”, spiega il pescatore -che incontriamo a Joal, località lungo la costa, circa 100 chilometri a Sud di Dakar, nel dipartimento di Mbour- prendendo dalla tasca una moneta da 100 franchi. “Il poisson-scie, ovvero il pesce sega, impresso sui soldi degli Stati dell’Unione economica e monetaria dell’Africa occidentale, non lo si trova più. L’ultima volta che l’ho visto risale a circa quindici anni fa”. Tra i ricordi legati al passato, El Hadji cita anche un clima molto più stabile e prevedibile rispetto a quello attuale: “In passato, quando era primavera inoltrata, pativamo il caldo ma oggi un giorno è caldo e uno no. Inoltre, le piogge sono diminuite e anche questo ha un impatto sugli ecosistemi marini. A volte l’acqua ha un gusto che non riconosco, è come se fosse più salata rispetto a un tempo”. Secondo l’ultimo rapporto del Gruppo intergovernativo sul cambiamento climatico (Ipcc), si prevede che a fronte di un riscaldamento globale di 1,5 °C le temperature della superficie del mare aumenteranno di 0,5 °C – 1,3 °C intorno a tutto il continente africano, alterando così la capacità di adattamento degli organismi marini.

    Oltre al cambiamento climatico, c’è una seconda grande minaccia che sta contribuendo a impoverire i mari senegalesi. Abdou Karim Sall, referente dell’Ong senegalese Oceanium che si occupa di tutela degli ecosistemi marini, spiega -anch’egli a Joal- che la presenza di grandi pescherecci industriali è una delle cause, se non la prima, del depauperamento ittico in corso. “Il pesce sta diminuendo a vista d’occhio, è dai primi anni del 2000 che si sta facendo raro. Nelle acque che lambiscono i 700 chilometri di costa senegalese ci sono molti pescherecci industriali, alcuni rapporti parlano di circa 160 imbarcazioni, anche se saranno sicuramente di più. Il numero preciso non lo conosciamo. Immagina la pressione di tutte queste navi su un tratto di oceano così limitato”.

    In aggiunta al numero elevato di grandi navi, sono anche le relative modalità di lavoro a preoccupare Abdou Karim Sall: “Con le reti tirano a bordo tutto quello che trovano tenendosi le specie nobili, come il tonno, la cernia, la dorata, il pesce spada, o il marlin blu, e rigettando in mare il pesce che non ha mercato, quello cioè di piccola taglia, che occuperebbe spazio per niente”. Della veridicità di questa testimonianza è facile rendersene conto: le maree portano periodicamente a riva i pesci scartati dai pescherecci, che si arenano lungo i litorali diventando un bottino per falchi e avvoltoi. Anche le località più chic del Paese non sono esonerate dalla brutalità di questo massacro e i turisti in passeggiata sulle spiagge dorate di Cap Skirring devono zig-zagare tra le piccole carcasse in putrefazione. “L’oceano rischia di diventare un deserto liquido e i pescherecci industriali si permettono di sprecare il pesce in questo modo”, continua Abdou Karim Sall. “Quest’anno, per la prima volta in tutta la mia vita, ho visto una piroga in vendita, ed è normale. I nostri ragazzi conoscono il mare, se non possono più lavorare nel settore ittico cosa gli resta? Migrare, sanno come organizzare la traversata e raggiungere l’Europa”.

    M.A. Ndiaye, attivista qui a Mbour, dipartimento del Senegal dove si trova uno dei porti più importanti del Paese, dirige un programma radiofonico per sensibilizzare gli attori della pesca e la popolazione sull’importanza di tutelare le acque dell’Oceano Atlantico. “Con le mie trasmissioni denuncio chi pesca in modo illegale, che siano pescatori locali o stranieri. Ma spesso sono proprio i grandi pescherecci a infrangere la legge, catturando il pesce nelle zone per loro vietate e senza distinguere tra specie protette o no. Queste navi sono autorizzate a pescare solamente oltre le sei miglia dalla costa, ma durante la notte capita di vederle in acque dedicate alla pesca su piccola scala. È da anni che stiamo chiedendo di aver accesso alla lista dei pescherecci, per conoscerne i proprietari, la provenienza”. Continua l’attivista: “Spesso i pescatori mi contattano per segnalarmi la presenza di navi battenti bandiera cinese e questo è possibile solo grazie a un sistema corrotto. Non essendoci accordi di pesca in vigore con nessuno stato asiatico, ed essendo le licenze di pesca concesse solamente a società la cui proprietà è a maggioranza senegalese, sono fiorite numerose realtà prestanome dove un senegalese detiene il 51% della quota e lo straniero il rimanente 49%”.

    Peter K., skipper tedesco in transito a Dakar per fare rifornimento di viveri e carburante, racconta di essere in viaggio da più di un anno e ricorda che quando a fine 2021 gli era capitato di passare accanto alle isole dell’arcipelago di Capo Verde, era come navigare tra le strade di una grande città: “C’erano navi ovunque ed erano sicuramente pescherecci asiatici. Lo capivo dalla comunicazione radio”. Per la rarefazione del pesce, i pescatori artigianali sono costretti a spingersi sempre più al largo, pescando nelle stesse acque dove transitano anche le grandi navi che urtano le piroghe e spesso senza neanche accorgersene. In aggiunta, in seguito a tali incidenti, è praticamente impossibile per un pescatore senegalese essere risarcito dei danni subiti a causa dell’impossibilità di rintracciare l’imbarcazione colpevole.

    La vita di un pescatore artigianale, anche se apparentemente affascinante e intrisa d’avventura, è rischiosa e piena di pericoli: “Al giorno d’oggi per trovare dei banchi sufficientemente grandi, dobbiamo spingerci perfino in Guinea-Bissau”, racconta sempre El-Hadji. “A bordo della nostra piroga siamo circa una ventina di persone, carichiamo tutto ciò di cui abbiamo bisogno per fronteggiare due settimane di navigazione, carburante, acqua, cibo, carbone. Ma la notte è quasi impossibile dormire, dobbiamo fare i turni e assicurarci che qualcuno rimanga sveglio per avvistare le navi di grandi dimensioni”. Anche recentemente, nell’estate 2022, una nave cinese ha urtato una piroga senegalese, uccidendo ben tre persone. Sebbene l’Accordo delle Nazioni Unite sugli stock ittici (rettificato dal Senegal nel 1997) stabilisca la necessità di non danneggiare la pesca di sussistenza degli Stati in via di sviluppo, l’accesso alla pesca artigianale per le comunità autoctone non sembra essere particolarmente tutelato. Ne consegue che la rarefazione delle risorse ittiche sta mettendo alla prova la pesca locale, contribuendo all’aumento all’insicurezza alimentare non solo del Senegal, ma di tutti i paesi limitrofi che dipendono dal pesce proveniente dall’Atlantico.

    A inizio giugno 2022, in occasione della Giornata mondiale degli oceani, Greenpeace Africa ha accompagnato le comunità di pescatori di Joal in una marcia di sensibilizzazione, per protestare contro il rifiuto del governo di proteggere gli stock ittici del Paese. Abdoulaye Ndiaye, responsabile della campagna per gli oceani di Greenpeace Africa, spiega ad Altreconomia che il Senegal ha firmato degli accordi di pesca con l’Unione europea che consentono a 45 pescherecci europei di pescare almeno 10.000 tonnellate di tonno e 1.750 tonnellate di nasello all’anno: “Tuttavia, in seguito alla stipula di tali contratti, lo Stato ha messo un freno all’immatricolazione delle nuove piroghe, ostacolando così l’attività dei pescatori locali che denunciano di non essere mai inclusi nei processi decisionali e di trovarsi costretti ad affrontare una concorrenza ad armi impari per l’accesso ad uno stock ittico sempre più scarso”.

    Eppure gli strumenti per tutelare gli attori della pesca tradizionale e le risorse ittiche ci sarebbero. La vicina Mauritania, ad esempio, ha da poco lanciato il suo secondo rapporto sull’Iniziativa per la trasparenza della pesca (Fisheries transparency initiative, Fiti) e relativo agli anni 2019 e 2020, che dà accesso ai dati riguardanti gli accordi di pesca tra Paesi e gruppi privati stranieri, lo stato degli stock, l’elenco dei pescherecci di grandi dimensioni. “Queste informazioni sono indispensabili e i professionisti del settore della pesca artigianale insieme alle associazioni della società civile hanno ripetutamente domandato al Presidente della Repubblica del Senegal di aderire all’iniziativa Fiti. L’unico modo per andare verso una gestione sostenibile della pesca, è tramite una comunicazione trasparente che faccia luce sull’elenco dei pescherecci autorizzati, nonché sulle risorse ittiche ancora disponibili,” conclude il responsabile di Greenpeace.

    https://altreconomia.it/in-senegal-la-pesca-artigianale-e-minacciata-dallindustria-e-dalla-cris
    #Sénégal #pêche #pêche_artisanale #changement_climatique #pêche_industrielle #exportation #poisson-scie #climat #Chine #Chinafrique

    • Sénégal : Publication d’un rapport d’étude sur les enjeux des zones de pêche artisanale

      Mbour -Sénégal – 31 mars 2022- Dans le cadre de la célébration de l’Année Internationale de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture Artisanales (IYAFA 2022) décrétée par l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies, la Confédération Africaine des Organisations professionnelles de Pêche Artisanale (CAOPA) a commandité une série d’études sur les enjeux des zones de pêche artisanale en Sierra Léone, au Ghana, au Madagascar, en Mauritanie, en Gambie, en République de Guinée et au Sénégal, avec l’appui de la Coalition pour des accords de pêche équitables (CAPE) et de la Société suédoise pour la conservation de la nature (SSNC).

      La présentation des résultats de l’étude du Sénégal a été faite le jeudi 31 mars 2022, à Mbour, situé 80 km au sud de Dakar.

      Le rapport a été rédigé par Madame Diénaba BEYE TRAORE, expert juriste consultant international. L’étude présente les différentes réglementations ayant un lien avec la pêche artisanale en Sierra Léone. Sur base de discussions ayant été menées avec les pêcheurs, les lacunes dont souffrent ces textes juridiques sont ensuite identifiées et des recommandations sont proposées. Les résultats sont relatés dans un document consignant les recommandations pour la sécurisation des zones de pêche artisanale au Sénégal.

      PAS DE ZONE EXCLUSIVEMENT RÉSERVÉE À LA PÊCHE ARTISANALE

      « En République du Sénégal, en dehors des Aires marines protégées (AMP), il n’y a pas de limitation à la pêche artisanale qui peut être pratiquée dans l’ensemble de la zone maritime du Sénégal. Pour les autres types d’opérations, les zones de pêche sont situées au-delà de 03 miles nautiques de la laisse de basse mer », lit-on dans le rapport qui souligne, toutefois, qu’il n’existe pas de zone exclusivement réservée à la pêche artisanale.

      Malgré l’importance du secteur de la pêche, dont dépend une grande partie de la population sénégalaise, des problèmes persistent, principalement liés aux conflits entre pêcheurs dans les différentes zones de pêche.

      Sur la base des discussions ayant été menées avec les pêcheurs, les lacunes dont souffrent ces textes juridiques sont ensuite identifiées et des recommandations sont proposées.

      Malgré l’importance du secteur de la pêche, dont dépend une grande partie de la population sénégalaise, des problèmes persistent, principalement liés aux conflits entre pêcheurs dans les différentes zones de pêche. Ces problèmes soulignent la nécessité d’une meilleure compréhension de la réglementation relative à la pêche artisanale dans ce pays.

      ENJEUX

      D’après le rapport, l’enjeu principal qui peut retarder, voire bloquer, l’accès à des zones de pêche artisanale est lié principalement à l’obtention du permis de pêche en vertu de l’article 68 du Code des Pêches Maritimes (CPM). Cette obtention est conditionnée à plusieurs exigences préalables :

      – Tout d’abord ce permis nécessite une autorisation préalable avant l’importation, la construction ou l’acquisition d’un nouveau navire ou engin de pêche ou sa transformation en navire de pêche, cette autorisation est donnée par une autorité administrative mais dans la pratique les embarcations sont construites, achetées ou reconverties en absence de cette autorisation pour plusieurs raisons : l’ignorance de la réglementation en vigueur, le caractère informel du sous-secteur de la pêche artisanale ou le manque d’expertise au sein de l’administration responsable des autorisations.

      Depuis sa création en 2010, la CAOPA a beaucoup œuvré pour la reconnaissance de la pêche artisanale.

      « Depuis plus de dix ans, nous, les hommes, les femmes, les jeunes de la pêche artisanale africaine, avons uni nos forces pour que notre secteur soit reconnu à sa juste valeur par nos États qui sont nos premiers partenaires. Petit à petit, notre travail a donné la confiance à nos communautés pour faire valoir leurs avantages, en termes social, économique, culturel et comme gestionnaires des écosystèmes côtiers par rapport à d’autres activités qui exploitent les océans et les littoraux, comme la pêche industrielle, l’exploitation pétrolière, le tourisme côtier, etc. »

       Aujourd’hui, la pêche artisanale est mieux reconnue au niveau international, à travers les Directives Volontaires pour une pêche artisanale durable de la FAO, et à travers les Objectifs de Développement durable agréés par les Nations Unies, qui demandent à tous les pays de « Garantir aux pêcheurs artisans l’accès aux ressources et aux marchés », a expliqué Gaoussou GUEYE, président de la CAOPA.

      https://caopa.org/senegal-publication-dun-rapport-detude-sur-les-enjeux-des-zones-de-peche-artisanale/31/03/2022/actu/4063

      Pour télécharger le rapport :
      https://caopa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Senegal_Study_Oct_2021_Layout_final.pdf

      #rapport

  • Le Business du bonheur

    De la légendaire Lise Bourbeau à la reine du rangement Marie Kondo, en passant par la star du développement personnel Tony Robbins, le bonheur est une industrie qui fait des millionnaires. C’est aussi une idéologie : le culte de l’optimisme, de la résilience et de la performance individuelle. Mais alors que la consommation d’antidépresseurs ne cesse d’augmenter et que les burn-out se multiplient dans nos sociétés, que cache cette obsession contemporaine pour le bonheur ?

    https://www.film-documentaire.fr/4DACTION/w_fiche_film/66144
    #film #documentaire #film_documentaire
    #développement_personnel #management #positivité #bonheur #psychologie_positive #choix #marché #coaching #individualisme #science_du_bonheur #Martin_Seligman #psychanalyse #Freud #thérapie_comportementale #optimisme #pessimisme #espoir #forces_Clifton #Don_Clifton #leadership #volontarisme #self-help #protestantisme #la_recherche_du_bonheur #recherche_du_bonheur #self-made_man #méritocratie #responsabilité_individuelle #inégalités #agency (#pouvoir_d'agir) #USA #Etats-Unis #libéralisme #éducation_positive #émotions #psychologie_sociale #team-building #cache-misère #travail #chief_happiness_officer #volonté #convivialité #docilité #happiness_economics #Richard_Layard #center_of_economic_performance (#CED) #bien-être_individuel #David_Cameron #programmes_d'activation_comportementale #chômage #rapport_Stiglitz #Gallup #adaptation #privatisation_de_la_souffrance

  • #Chine : le drame ouïghour

    La politique que mène la Chine au Xinjiang à l’égard de la population ouïghoure peut être considérée comme un #génocide : plus d’un million de personnes internées arbitrairement, travail forcé, tortures, stérilisations forcées, « rééducation » culturelle des enfants comme des adultes…
    Quel est le veritable objectif du parti communiste chinois ?

     
    http://www.film-documentaire.fr/4DACTION/w_fiche_film/64324

    #Ouïghours #Xinjiang #camps_d'internement #torture #stérilisation_forcée #camps_de_concentration #persécution #crimes_contre_l'humanité #silence #matières_premières #assimilation #islam #islamophobie #internement #gaz #coton #charbon #route_de_la_soie #pétrole #Xi_Jinping #séparatisme #extrémisme #terrorisme #Kunming #peur #état_policier #répression #rééducation #Radio_Free_Asia #disparition #emprisonnement_de_masse #images_satellites #droits_humains #zone_de_non-droit #propagande #torture_psychique #lavage_de_cerveau #faim #Xinjiang_papers #surveillance #surveillance_de_masse #biométrie #vidéo-surveillance #politique_de_prévention #surveillance_d'Etat #identité #nationalisme #minorités #destruction #génocide_culturel #Ilham_Tohti #manuels_d'école #langue #patriotisme #contrôle_démographique #contrôle_de_la_natalité #politique_de_l'enfant_unique #travail_forcé #multinationales #déplacements_forcés #économie #colonisation #Turkestan_oriental #autonomie #Mao_Zedong #révolution_culturelle #assimilation_forcée #Chen_Quanguo #cour_pénale_internationale (#CPI) #sanctions

    #film #film_documentaire #documentaire

  • 25,000 violent pushbacks at EU borders documented in the ‘Black Book’

    The Left in the European Parliament today launches the second edition of the “#Black_Book_of_Pushbacks”: over 3,000 pages mapping the systematic violence unfolding at Europe’s borders. The four volumes of the Black Book are a collection of more than one thousand testimonies of people on the move compiled by independent experts from the #Border_Violence_Monitoring_Network (#BVMN). It documents how almost 25,000 thousand people were beaten, kicked, humiliated and arbitrarily detained before being illegally pushed back, both at the EU’s external borders and from deep within the territory of its member states.

    Key data:

    - 1,635 testimonies impacting 24,990 persons
    - 4 volumes, consisting of more than 3,000 pages
    - 15 countries covered: Austria, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Albania 

    https://left.eu/25000-violent-pushbacks-at-eu-borders-documented-in-the-black-book

    #Black_Book #refoulements #push-backs #frontières #migrations #réfugiés #asile #violence #frontières_extérieures #frontières_intérieures #rapport #statistiques #chiffres #Autriche #Italie #Slovénie #Grèce #Croatie #Pologne #Hongrie #Roumanie #Serbie #Bosnie-Herzégovine #Bosnie #Monténégro #Kosovo #Bulgarie #Macédoine_du_Nord #Albanie #frontière_sud-alpine #Balkans #route_des_Balkans

    –—

    voir aussi ce fil de discussion :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/892443

    • - 15 countries covered: Austria, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Albania

      ce qui veut dire que si on inclut la France et ses 10aines de pushback à la frontière avec l’Italie (Montgenèvre en particulier) par semaine (jours !) on doit arriver à des chiffres nettement supérieurs...

      #Frontex

  • Violences sexuelles sur mineurs en institutions : pouvoir confier ses enfants en toute sécurité - rapport - Sénat
    https://www.senat.fr/notice-rapport/2018/r18-529-1-notice.html

    Violences sexuelles sur mineurs en institutions : pouvoir confier ses enfants en toute sécurité - rapport
    Rapport d’information de Mmes Marie MERCIER, Michelle MEUNIER et Dominique VÉRIEN, fait au nom de la MCI Répression infractions sexuelles sur mineurs
    n° 529 tome I (2018-2019) - 28 mai 2019

    Page 19 du rapport
    https://www.senat.fr/rap/r18-529-1/r18-529-11.pdf

    Par ailleurs, Marie Rabatel, cofondatrice et présidente de l’Association francophone des femmes autistes (AFFA), a mis en avant le fait, qui ne peut laisser indifférent, que les enfants en situation de handicap, en particulier mental, ont quatre fois plus de risques de subir des violences sexuelles que les autres. Selon elle, les enfants aveugles, malentendants, ceux qui s’inscrivent dans le spectre de l’autisme et les déficients intellectuels et ceux qui sont atteints d’un trouble de communication sociale sont plus touchés que les autres. En outre, parmi les enfants présentant des troubles autistiques, les filles ont, dans 90 % des cas, été victimes de violences sexuelles dans l’enfance2. Marie Rabatel a expliqué que cette proportion très élevée tenait à l’extrême vulnérabilité des victimes, qui sont aussi aisément manipulables. De surcroît, ces enfants sont rarement entendus, du fait de leur handicap. Enfin, la multiplicité des personnels intervenant dans les institutions d’accueil constitue un facteur de risque supplémentaire pour ces enfants.

    #autisme #femmes_autistes #viols #agressions_sexuelles #rapport_sénat #institutions

  • "On nous a abandonnés dans le désert à 2h du matin" : le calvaire des migrants refoulés de l’Algérie vers le Niger

    Chaque année, l’Algérie expulse des milliers d’Africains subsahariens vers le Niger, abandonnant les migrants non-nigériens au lieu dit Point-Zéro, qui marque la frontière entre les deux pays en plein Sahara. Le village nigérien d’#Assamaka, à plusieurs heures de #marche au sud, est aujourd’hui débordé par ces vagues de refoulements successives. Reportage.

    Quinze kilomètres de marche dans le Sahara avec un pied cassé. Les efforts pour soulever les béquilles qui s’enfoncent trop profondément lors des franchissements de dune, tandis que les grains de sable s’infiltrent dans les pansements à chaque pas, pendant des heures et des heures. C’est ce qu’ont enduré Alpha Mohamed et Houssain Ba début novembre lorsque ces deux jeunes Guinéens ont été abandonnés au #Point-Zéro, qui marque la frontière entre l’Algérie et le Niger.

    Un lieu inhospitalier avec du sable à perte de vue, où les autorités algériennes ont refoulé des dizaines de milliers d’Africains subsahariens ces dernières années.

    « On nous a abandonnés à Point-Zéro à 2h du matin et nous avons dû marcher avec nos béquilles pendant des heures. Nous ne sommes arrivés à Assamaka qu’à 11h du matin », confie Alpha Mohamed à InfoMigrants.

    Les deux amis de 18 ans sont alors loin d’être seuls. Autour d’eux, plus de 600 Maliens, Guinéens, Ivoiriens, Soudanais, Nigérians et Sénégalais errent hagards, la peau du visage recouverte par la poussière ocre du Sahara, les yeux plissés vers les quelques lumières scintillant à 15 kilomètres un peu plus au sud.

     Une armée de l’ombre composée d’ouvriers, de serveurs, de boulangers - les petites mains qui contribuent à faire tourner l’économie algérienne. Certains ont encore les bottes de chantier qu’ils portaient lorsque les autorités les ont arrêtés sur leur lieu de travail. Tous ont été brutalement arrachés à leur quotidien, alors qu’ils étaient chez eux au réveil, dans un restaurant pendant un repas, lors d’une quelconque sortie en ville, ou au travail.

    C’est le cas de Alpha et Houssain, qui ont été arrêtés sur le chantier d’un immeuble à Oran, où ils travaillaient comme manoeuvres. « Les policiers sont arrivés à 9h du matin et tous les ouvriers noirs se sont aussitôt enfuis. Nous, on a essayé de partir en montant dans les étages mais un policier nous a rattrapés. Il nous a bousculés exprès et nous sommes tombés : c’est comme ça qu’on s’est cassé le pied », se remémore Alpha.

    Après un passage express dans un hôpital oranais, les deux jeunes Guinéens sont déportés vers le centre de refoulement de #Tamanrasset, à 1 900 kilomètres de route au sud d’Alger. Les migrants qui s’y trouvent ont été complètement dépouillés de leurs maigres biens : téléphones portables, argent liquide, passeports, bijoux... Entassés dans des bétaillères, les migrants sont ensuite abandonnés au Point-Zéro. Pour Alger, c’est la fin de l’opération appelée sobrement « #reconduite_à_la_frontière ».

    Pour Alpha et Houssain, c’est juste le début du calvaire. Après des heures de marche dans le sable, balayé sans répit par l’Harmattan - un vent du Sahara en provenance du Nord-Est qui vous glace les os pendant la nuit - les deux jeunes passent à proximité du lieu-dit La Dune. Situé à trois kilomètres au nord d’Assamaka, c’est le premier endroit où certains des migrants les plus fatigués décident de passer la nuit, dans un décor post-apocalyptique. Le soleil levant découpe les silhouettes des carcasses de voitures, des pneus à demi-enterrés, et des vieux bidons de gasoil utilisés pour délimiter les territoires des cabanes des mécaniciens et commerçants de carburants qui peuplent les lieux.

    Les Guinéens ont eux continué directement leur chemin jusqu’au centre d’enregistrement des autorités nigériennes, avant de se présenter au #centre_de_transit de l’Organisation internationale des migrations (#OIM), le bras de l’ONU qui assiste les retours volontaires des migrants vers leur pays d’origine.

    Des autorités débordées par l’afflux des expulsés

    L’arrivée à Assamaka marque pour les refoulés d’Algérie le début d’une longue attente. La multiplication des vagues d’expulsion conjuguée au ralentissement des #rapatriements a fait gonfler le nombre de migrants sur place à près de 3 000 individus - plus du double de la population initiale d’Assamaka. Alpha et Houssain ont pu s’installer à l’intérieur du camp de transit de l’OIM - dont la capacité maximale est de 1 000 personnes - mais la grande majorité des migrants dort à la belle étoile, s’abritant comme ils peuvent dans des hangars ouverts. Leur patience est mise à rude épreuve.

    « Cela fait deux mois qu’on nous dit qu’on va partir bientôt ! », s’exclame Seyni Diallo, un jeune Sénégalais expulsé après un séjour de six mois en Algérie. « On manque de nourriture et de couvertures, c’est vraiment dur de dormir dehors ici, les nuits sont très fraîches », renchérit Sagma Kaboré, originaire du Burkina Faso.

    La #promiscuité de 3 000 migrants dans ces conditions donne des sueurs froides à plusieurs ONG. « On craint une véritable crise humanitaire à Assamaka si cette situation se prolonge. Une épidémie d’ampleur peut se déclarer très rapidement si une personne a la rougeole, la méningite ou le covid, », affirme Diabry Talaré, coordinatrice de Médecins sans frontières (MSF) à Agadez. L’isolement géographique d’Assamaka renforce les difficultés, à la fois pour la logistique humanitaire et pour la vie quotidienne des migrants qui y sont bloqués.

    Assamaka, un îlot surpeuplé isolé dans le désert

    Assamaka est une bourgade si isolée qu’elle donne l’impression d’un îlot surpeuplé perdu au milieu d’une mer de sable. Les pistes défoncées qui mènent à Arlit puis Agadez pullulent de bandits coupeurs de route. De simples voyageurs sont régulièrement braqués par ces pirates des sables - un 4x4 utilisé comme ambulance a même été intercepté et volé sur la route menant d’Assamaka à Arlit.

     L’#isolement est également marquant sur le plan des télécommunications. La plupart des réseaux téléphoniques nigériens ne fonctionnent pas à Assamaka. Au centre du village, on remarque ainsi quelques échoppes avec de drôles d’antennes improvisées - de longues tiges de bois d’environ six mètres de haut, d’où pendouille une demi-bouteille en plastique contenant un téléphone avec une carte SIM algérienne. C’est le principal moyen de se connecter à Internet.

    Mais pour beaucoup de migrants expulsés d’Algérie sans argent ni téléphone, il est quasiment impossible de contacter leurs proches durant leurs longues semaines d’attente.

    « Certains migrants ont passé deux ou trois mois sans nouvelles de leur famille, c’est une inquiétude permanente qui a un impact sur la santé mentale », explique Mahamadou Toidou, chargé des consultations psychologiques pour MSF à Assamaka. « Il y a des cas comme ce jeune Guinéen, qui a été arrêté dans la rue par les policiers algériens, alors que sa femme enceinte de deux mois et demi était à la maison. Depuis son expulsion il n’a pas pu la contacter, il s’isole dans son coin et pense tout le temps à ça... Il souffre énormément dès qu’il voit une femme avec son enfant », ajoute le psychologue.

    Opérations de « #ratissage » dans le désert

    Le fait que les autorités algériennes procèdent à ces #refoulements sans aucune coordination avec les autorités nigériennes a parfois des conséquences dramatiques. Une trentaine de corps sans vie ont été retrouvés au nord d’Assamaka depuis 2020. Pour éviter que des migrants se perdent et s’épuisent dans le désert, des équipes de l’OIM et de MSF lancent des opérations de ratissage lorsqu’un « #convoi_piéton » est signalé. Des 4x4 s’élancent alors vers le Point-Zéro à la recherche de personnes perdues ou trop fatiguées pour avancer.

    Ils sont rejoints depuis juillet dernier par une équipe d’Alarme Phone Sahara (APS), une organisation humanitaire nigérienne qui dispose d’un tricycle tout-terrain pour aller porter secours aux migrants égarés.

    « Je ne pouvais plus supporter de voir ces pauvres gens dans cette situation », confie Ibrahim François, un membre de l’équipe d’APS qui participe régulièrement aux opérations de ratissage. « Maintenant que les nuits sont froides, les Algériens refoulent toujours les migrants vers 2 ou 3h du matin. C’est fait exprès pour qu’ils se mettent en route pour chercher un abri, et qu’ils ne restent pas sur place », affirme t-il.

    L’éprouvante marche forcée dans le désert vécue par les deux jeunes Guinéens blessés reste marquée au fer rouge dans leur esprit. « On nous a traités comme des animaux en Algérie, on ne veut plus jamais y retourner », affirme Houssain Ba. « Maintenant on veut enfin pouvoir quitter Assamaka et rentrer chez nous. »

    L’expression « convois piétons » au Niger fait référence aux personnes refoulées d’Algérie qui sont non-nigériennes et que les autorités algériennes abandonnent au Point-Zero, à 15 km d’Assamaka. Les migrants nigériens sont refoulés lors de « convois officiels » qui ont fait l’objet d’un accord entre l’Algérie et le Niger en 2014. Les camions des convois officiels sont opérés par le Croissant Rouge algérien, qui transportent directement les expulsés jusqu’à la ville d’Agadez. Pour donner un ordre de grandeur, le « convoi piéton » du 1er novembre comptait 634 individus tandis que le « convoi officiel » du 3 novembre comptait 840 personnes (dont quelques non-Nigériens). Les 3 000 migrants actuellement à Assamaka sont les reliquats des vagues successives de « convois piétons ».

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #abandon #expulsions #renvois #déportation #désert #Algérie #Niger #Sahara #désert_du_Sahara
    –---

    Ajouté à la métaliste des « #left-to-die in the Sahara desert »
    https://seenthis.net/messages/796051

    via @rhoumour

  • Interview - Au cœur de la réalisation du Monde de demain

    https://www.abcdrduson.com/interviews/serie-le-monde-de-demain

    Hélier Cisterne et Katell Quillévéré ont réalisé la série Le Monde de demain. Six épisodes qui se révèlent particulièrement intéressants, non pas tant pour ce qu’ils racontent du groupe NTM, mais pour leur alliance d’émotion et de précision dans la restitution d’une époque, et ce qu’ils disent de l’adolescence.

  • It’s time to make minimum wage laws apply to ALL workers (no, they don’t at present) - Food Politics by Marion Nestle
    https://www.foodpolitics.com/2022/11/its-time-to-make-minimum-wage-laws-apply-to-all-workers-no-they-dont-a

    For reasons of history—and, alas, racism—laws requiring minimum wages do not apply to restaurant workers, farm workers, and home employment workers, all mostly people of color.

    This report focuses on restaurant workers who depend on tips:

    Unique among pay inequities, the subminimum wage for tipped workers was an original pay gap created intentionally to deny Black women any wage at all, forcing them to live on tips. This original and intentional pay inequity has been compounded over the last 160 years since Emancipation by ongoing inequities in hiring by employers and tipping and harassment by customers — resulting in an unlivable situation for Black women. The fact that Black women persist in the restaurant industry is a testament to many of these workers’ pride in their work as hospitality professionals who deserve to be remunerated as such.

    #rapport #racisme #sexisme #exploitation #salaire_minimum #service

  • Criolo chante l’espoir et la résilience sur « Sobre Viver »

    #Criolo parle ici parle de l’indignation, de la colère et du chagrin qu’il a dû affronter jusqu’à ce qu’il trouve l’espoir au milieu du chaos. « Cet album parle de foi, de résilience. Il parle encore une fois de cet abîme social dans lequel nous vivons, et de ce qui va avec » confie l’artiste.

    https://www.radiofrance.fr/fip/criolo-chante-l-espoir-et-la-resilience-sur-sobre-viver-9293200

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxaj0PI7T1U

    #musique #hip-hop #rap #brésil

  • #Recherche et #Engagement : Recherche et #engagement_citoyen des chercheur·euse·s

    Un engagement croissant des chercheur·euse·s dans le débat public a amené la Direction de l’UNIL à initier une réflexion sur cette question.

    Cette thématique a été soumise à des chercheuses et chercheurs de toutes les facultés, réunis au sein d’un groupe de travail par le Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en éthique (CIRE) et le Centre de compétences en durabilité (CCD). Le groupe de travail s’est réuni à treize reprises entre avril 2020 et mai 2022 et a défini de manière autonome les thématiques, les approches et les méthodes qu’il jugeait pertinent de mobiliser dans cette perspective. Il a notamment réalisé une enquête, ainsi que des focus groups, auprès de la communauté UNIL au printemps 2021.

    Les réflexions du groupe de travail visaient en premier lieu à clarifier les enjeux liés à l’engagement des #scientifiques dans le #débat_public et à mieux comprendre les pratiques et perceptions de la communauté UNIL à cet égard. Les réflexions et conclusions du groupe de travail, ainsi que ses recommandations adressées à la Direction de l’UNIL sont présentées dans le rapport. Celui-ci est accompagné d’une annexe détaillant les résultats de l’enquête.

    https://www.unil.ch/centre-durabilite/fr/home/menuinst/recherche/recherche-et-engagement.html

    Pour télécharger le rapport :
    L’ENGAGEMENT PUBLIC DES UNIVERSITAIRES : ENTRE LIBERTÉ ACADÉMIQUE ET DÉONTOLOGIE PROFESSIONNELLE


    https://www.unil.ch/files/live/sites/centre-durabilite/files/pdf/rapport-gt-unil-recherche-et-engagement.pdf

    #militantisme #rapport #université_de_Lausanne #UNIL #liberté_académique #déontologie #neutralité #liberté_d'expression #devoir_de_réserve #désobéissance_civile #crédibilité #enseignement #affiliation_professionnelle #culture_de_l'engagement

    ping @karine4 @_kg_

    • Ce rapport est mentionné dans cette interview avec #Julia_Steinberger :

      Julia Steinberger, professeure, militante et… activiste pour le climat

      Mi-octobre, cette professeure d’économie écologique à l’Université de Lausanne, autrice principale du dernier rapport du GIEC, a été embarquée par la police. Son crime ? Avoir bloqué la circulation avec d’autres militants pour réclamer la rénovation des passoires énergétiques en Suisse.

      Il faut s’armer d’un peu de patience pour arriver à Julia Steinberger. Ce n’est pas que son bureau à l’Institut de géographie et durabilité de l’Université de Lausanne soit difficile à trouver. Il est même assez reconnaissable avec ses posters des groupes Extinction Rebellion et Renovate Switzerland sur la porte. Non. C’est plutôt que la chercheuse a du mal à gérer les nombreuses sollicitations médias.

      « Je donne normalement deux fois, même trois présentations à des publics divers chaque semaine et c’est beaucoup, beaucoup trop. Et ça c’est sans parler des interviews, des médias, des podcasts, etc. C’est trop et je pense que nous voulons que tout le monde s’intéresse à cette problématique, se l’accapare et décide d’agir dessus. Mais en même temps, nous n’avons pas du tout le soutien institutionnel, les heures dans la journée, pour pouvoir faire notre travail, notre enseignement et aussi faire face à ces demandes de communication. Donc là, je crois que je suis en train de crouler là-dessous, mais je ne pense pas que je suis la seule. »

      Julia Steinberger n’en est pas à sa première manif. Avant le blocage de la route vers Berne, le 11 octobre 2022, la chercheuse a déjà écopé d’une amende pour une brève occupation d’une banque accusée de financer les énergies fossiles. Mais si prof et activiste sont deux termes incompatibles pour certains, ce n’est pas la vision de Julia Steinberger. Elle, veut dissocier neutralité et rigueur scientifique. Et fait sienne la maxime de Rabelais : « Science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme ».

      « Je pense que le travail de recherche n’empêche ou ne soustrait pas à l’obligation d’agir en tant que citoyen ou en tant que citoyenne. Je ne me suis jamais vraiment demandé si je devais ou je ne pouvais faire que l’un ou l’autre. Je sais que ça dérange certains, mais je pense que c’est une question aussi de cohérence et d’intégrité. Et je ne suis pas la seule dans mon cas de figure. »

      L’université de Lausanne est en effet habituée d’avoir dans ses rangs des chercheurs engagés pour la sauvegarde du climat. Le philosophe et candidat écologiste aux européennes de 2019 en France, Dominique Bourg. Le prix Nobel de chimie Jacques Dubochet, quasiment de toutes les manifestations en Suisse.
      Responsabilité

      Elle-même fille d’un prix Nobel de physique et militant pour le désarmement nucléaire, Julia Steinberger veut croire que l’ampleur du réchauffement est telle que les scientifiques du climat doivent se réinventer s’ils veulent se faire entendre.

      « Je pense que dans certains domaines, [les chercheurs assument] une responsabilité de communication publique. Concernant le problème du tabagisme, par exemple, dans la santé. Mais dans le domaine du climat, la stratégie actuelle, une stratégie de technocratie ou les chercheurs se limitent à conseiller les politiques, est un échec. Nous écrivons des rapports qui sont ensuite destinés à conseiller et à orienter les politiques, mais on se rend compte que ce n’est pas du tout suffisant et qu’il faut faire autrement. »

      Pour le moment, l’université ne trouve rien à redire à ses actions. Au contraire même. La direction a commandé un rapport sur l’engagement public de ses chercheurs. Et ses conclusions sont simples : l’université a pour mission de stimuler le débat sur les grands enjeux de société. Et c’est exactement ce que fait Julia Steinberger.
      « Corruption légale »

      Mais son combat en agace tout de même certains. Surtout à droite et à l’extrême droite, où on lui reproche d’être décroissante. « Et alors », répond-elle ? Cela ne remet pas en cause la validité de ses recherches. Et de renvoyer la classe politique suisse à ses propres contradictions :

      « Par exemple, nos parlementaires ont le droit d’être lobbyiste. Donc même s’ils jouent le jeu de la transparence, ils sont lobbyiste, pour l’industrie automobile par exemple. Je viens justement de lire la newsletter du parti d’extrême droite l’IDC – elle est sponsorisée par Land Rover, Opel et Kia. C’est-à-dire que c’est une corruption légale. Mais le résultat pour les citoyens et pour le bon fonctionnement d’une société dans une démocratie est très très très délétère. »

      À 48 ans, avec une vie de famille et un gros projet de recherche européen sur les bras, Julia Steinberger ne compte pas pour autant ralentir sa vie d’activiste. Elle la mène depuis trop longtemps pour ça.

      https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/comme-personne/julia-steinberger-professeure-militante-et-activiste-pour-le-climat-6076
      #renovate_Switzerland #responsabilité

  • Si tu connais rien en reggaeton (un peu comme moi).

    Histoire, tubes, critiques, avenir : TOUT SUR LE REGGAETON (avec Geos et Victor)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEgR8f72BoM

    REGGAETON THÉORIE : Et si on prenait le reggaeton au sérieux ? [DOCUMENTAIRE]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2LgNpGrxPU

    #musique #reggaeton #histoire #danse #Amérique_du_sud #Amérique_centrale #Panama #Porto_Rico #riddim #reggae #dancehall #rap #dembow

  • Rapporto Migrantes : +87% dei giovani italiani che « emigrano ». Mattarella : « Serve una riflessione »"

    Il rapporto «Italiani nel Mondo» presentato oggi dice che, nonostante la pandemia, la mobilità italiana è cresciuta. Mattarella: «Chi lascia il nostro Paese lo fa per necessità e non per libera scelta, non trovando in Italia un’occupazione adeguata»

    L’onda lunga della pandemia ha frenato la mobilità italiana, ma non ha impedito ai giovani italiani di partire e segnare una percentuale alta nella cosiddetta «fuga dei cervelli» con un + 87%. Italiani partiti soprattutto dal Nord Italia alla volta prevalentemente dell’Europa, mentre è noto che gli italiani del Sud affollano poi gli spazi lasciati vuoti al Nord.

    A sottolineare la tendenza è il «Rapporto Italiani nel Mondo» della Fondazione Migrantes della Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, giunta alla sua XVII edizione.

    "Il triplice rifiuto percepito dai giovani italiani, anagrafico, territoriale e di genere, incentiva il desiderio di estero e soprattutto lo fa mettere in pratica. Dal 2006 al 2022 la mobilità italiana è cresciuta dell’87% in generale, del 94,8% quella femminile, del 75,4% quella dei minori e del 44,6% quella per la sola motivazione «espatrio».

    "Una mobilità giovanile che cresce sempre più - spiega il dossier - perchè l’Italia ristagna nelle sue fragilità, e ha definitivamente messo da parte la possibilità per un individuo di migliorare il proprio status durante il corso della propria vita accedendo a un lavoro certo, qualificato e abilitante (ascensore sociale); continua a mantenere i giovani confinati per anni in «riserve di qualità e competenza» a cui poter attingere, ma il momento non arriva mai. Il tempo scorre, le nuove generazioni diventano mature e vengono sostituite da nuove e poi nuovissime altre generazioni, in un circolo vizioso che dura da ormai troppo tempo".

    «In questa situazione, già fortemente compromessa - si legge ancora -, la pandemia di Covid-19 si è abbattuta con tutta la sua gravità rendendo i giovani italiani una delle categorie più colpite dalle ricadute sociali ed economiche». "È da tempo - annota ancora il rapporto - che i giovani italiani non si sentono ben voluti dal proprio paese e dai propri territori di origine, sempre più spinti a cercar fortuna altrove. La via per l’estero si presenta loro quale unica scelta da adottare per la risoluzione di tutti i problemi esistenziali (autonomia, serenità, lavoro, genitorialità, ecc.).

    «E così ci si trova di fronte a una Italia demograficamente in caduta libera». Per quanto riguarda i dati, "al 1° gennaio 2022 i cittadini italiani iscritti all’Aire sono 5.806.068, il 9,8% degli oltre 58,9 milioni di italiani residenti in Italia. Mentre l’Italia ha perso in un anno lo 0,5% di popolazione residente (-1,1% dal 2020), all’estero è cresciuta negli ultimi 12 mesi del 2,7% che diventa il 5,8% dal 2020. In valore assoluto si tratta di quasi 154 mila nuove iscrizioni all’estero contro gli oltre 274 mila residenti «persi» in Italia".

    «Il Rapporto fornisce anche quest’anno una fotografia di grande interesse dei flussi migratori che interessano i nostri connazionali», ha detto il presidente della Repubblica, Sergio Mattarella, nel messaggio inviato al presidente della Fondazione Migrantes, monsignor Gian Carlo Perego.

    «A partire sono principalmente i giovani - e tra essi giovani con alto livello di formazione - per motivi di studio e di lavoro. Spesso non fanno ritorno, con conseguenze rilevanti sulla composizione sociale e culturale della nostra popolazione. Partono anche pensionati e intere famiglie», osserva il Capo dello Stato.

    “Il fenomeno di questa nuova fase dell’emigrazione italiana non può essere compreso interamente all’interno della dinamica virtuosa dei processi di interconnessione mondiale, che richiedono una sempre maggiore circolazione di persone, idee e competenze. Anzitutto perché il saldo tra chi entra e chi esce rimane negativo, con conseguenze evidenti sul calo demografico e con ricadute sulla nostra vita sociale. Ma anche perché in molti casi chi lascia il nostro Paese lo fa per necessità e non per libera scelta, non trovando in Italia una occupazione adeguata al proprio percorso di formazione e di studio”.

    E conclude il capo dello Stato «Il nostro Paese, che ha una lunga storia di emigrazione, deve aprire una adeguata riflessione sulle cause di questo fenomeno e sulle possibili opportunità che la Repubblica ha il compito di offrire ai cittadini che intendono rimanere a vivere o desiderano tornare in Italia».

    Il rapporto sottolinea peraltro come quella di oggi sia «una Italia interculturale - si legge nel dossier -in cui l’8,8% dei cittadini regolarmente residenti sono stranieri (in valore assoluto quasi 5,2 milioni), mentre il 9,8% dei cittadini italiani risiedono all’estero (oltre 5,8 milioni)».

    «Negli ultimi difficili anni di limitazione negli spostamenti a causa della pandemia, di recessione economica e sociale, di permanenza di una legge nazionale per l’immigrazione sorda alle necessità del tessuto lavorativo e sociodemografico italiano, la comunità dei cittadini italiani ufficialmente iscritti all’anagrafe degli italiani residenti all’estero (Aire) ha superato la popolazione di stranieri regolarmente residenti sul territorio nazionale».

    https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2022/11/rapporto-migrantes-+87-dei-giovani-italiani-emigrano-mattarella-spesso-non-f
    #émigration #Italie #migrations #solde_migratoire #statistiques #Italie #2022 #rapport #chiffres #démographie

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste « Les Italiens quittent en masse leur pays, mais on n’en parle pas... »
    https://seenthis.net/messages/762801

    • Rapporto Italiani nel Mondo #Migrantes, mobilità italiana: convivere e resistere nell’epoca delle emergenze globali

      Si era soliti affermare che l’Italia da paese di emigrazione si è trasformato negli anni in paese di immigrazione: questa frase non è mai stata vera e, a maggior ragione, non lo è adesso perché smentita dai dati e dai fatti. Dall’Italia non si è mai smesso di partire e negli ultimi difficili anni di limitazione negli spostamenti a causa della pandemia, di recessione economica e sociale, di permanenza di una legge nazionale per l’immigrazione sorda alle necessità del tessuto lavorativo e sociodemografico italiano, la comunità dei cittadini italiani ufficialmente iscritti all’Anagrafe degli Italiani Residenti all’Estero (AIRE) ha superato la popolazione di stranieri regolarmente residenti sul territorio nazionale.

      Una Italia interculturale in cui l’8,8% dei cittadini regolarmente residenti sono stranieri (in valore assoluto quasi 5,2 milioni), mentre il 9,8% dei cittadini italiani risiedono all’estero (oltre 5,8 milioni) afferma oggi iol Rapporto Italiani nel Mondo della Fondazione Migrantes presentato a Roma.

      In generale, la popolazione straniera in Italia è più giovane di quella italiana. I ragazzi nati in Italia da genitori stranieri (“seconde generazioni” in senso stretto) sono oltre 1 milione: di questi, il 22,7% (oltre 228 mila) ha acquisito la cittadinanza italiana. Se ad essi si aggiungono i nati all’estero (245 mila circa) e i naturalizzati (quasi 62 mila), la compagine dei ragazzi con background migratorio supera 1,3 milioni e rappresenta il 13,0% del totale della popolazione residente in Italia con meno di 18 anni. Una popolazione “preziosa” vista la situazione demografica ogni anno più critica vissuta dall’Italia, caratterizzata da inesorabile denatalità e accanito invecchiamento e considerando il fatto che tra i sogni di queste nuove generazioni vi è sempre più presente quello di vivere in altri paesi del mondo: il 59% degli alunni stranieri delle scuole secondarie, infatti, vorrebbe da grande spostarsi all’estero, un dato molto più alto rispetto ai loro compagni italiani (42%). Per gli stranieri assume rilevanza anche il paese di nascita (proprio o dei propri genitori), che verrebbe scelto come destinazione di vita una volta adulti dall’11,6%. Il 47,7%, però, sceglierebbe un paese diverso sia dall’Italia sia dal paese di origine e gli Stati Uniti sono la meta più desiderata in assoluto.

      Fino a quando l’estero rimane per i giovani e i giovanissimi attualmente residenti in Italia un desiderio, il problema, per il nostro Paese, resta poco grave e circoscritto; la storia nazionale, però, insegna che la mobilità è qualcosa di strutturale per l’Italia e il passato più recente ha visto e vede proprio le nuove generazioni sempre più protagoniste delle ultime partenze. D’altronde non potrebbe essere altrimenti

      considerando quanto la mobilità sia entrata a far parte pienamente dello stile di vita, tanto nel contesto formativo e lavorativo quanto in quello esperienziale e identitario.

      L’Italia sempre più transnazionale

      L’attuale comunità italiana all’estero è costituita da oltre 841 mila minori (il 14,5% dei connazionali complessivamente iscritti all’AIRE) moltissimi di questi nati all’estero, ma tanti altri partiti al seguito delle proprie famiglie in questi ultimi anni. Ai minori occorre aggiungere gli oltre 1,2 milioni di giovani tra i 18 e i 34 anni (il 21,8% della popolazione complessiva AIRE, che arriva a incidere per il 42% circa sul totale delle partenze annuali per solo espatrio).

      Non bisogna dimenticare, infine, tutti quelli che partono per progetti di mobilità di studio e formazione – che non hanno obbligo di registrazione all’AIRE e chi è in situazione di irregolarità perché non ha ottemperato all’obbligo di legge di iscriversi in questo Anagrafe.

      Una popolazione giovane, dunque, che parte e non ritorna, spinta da un tasso di occupazione dei giovani in Italia tra i 15 e i 29 anni pari, nel 2020, al 29,8% e quindi molto lontano dai livelli degli altri paesi europei (46,1% nel 2020 per l’UE-27) e con un divario, rispetto agli adulti di 45-54 anni, di 43 punti percentuali. I giovani occupati al Nord, peraltro, sono il 37,8% rispetto al 30,6% del Centro e al 20,1% del Mezzogiorno. Al divario territoriale si aggiunge quello di genere: se i ragazzi residenti al Nord risultano i più occupati con il 42,2%, le ragazze della stessa fascia di età ma residenti nel Mezzogiorno non superano il 14,7%.

      Il triplice rifiuto percepito dai giovani italiani – anagrafico, territoriale e di genere – incentiva il desiderio di estero e soprattutto lo fa mettere in pratica. Dal 2006 al 2022 la mobilità italiana è cresciuta dell’87% in generale, del 94,8% quella femminile, del 75,4% quella dei minori e del 44,6% quella per la sola motivazione “espatrio”.

      Una mobilità giovanile che cresce sempre più perché l’Italia ristagna nelle sue fragilità; ha definitivamente messo da parte la possibilità per un individuo di migliorare il proprio status durante il corso della propria vita accedendo a un lavoro certo, qualificato e abilitante (ascensore sociale); continua a mantenere i giovani confinati per anni in “riserve di qualità e competenza” a cui poter attingere, ma il momento non arriva mai. Il tempo scorre, le nuove generazioni diventano mature e vengono sostituite da nuove e poi nuovissime altre generazioni, in un circolo vizioso che dura da ormai troppo tempo.

      In questa situazione, già fortemente compromessa, la pandemia di Covid-19 si è abbattuta con tutta la sua gravità rendendo i giovani italiani una delle categorie più colpite dalle ricadute sociali ed economiche.

      La presa di coscienza di quanto forte sia stato il contraccolpo subito dai giovani e dai giovanissimi, già in condizioni di precarietà e fragilità, in seguito all’esplosione dell’epidemia mondiale, è stata al centro della creazione e formalizzazione del Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza (PNRR) e di diverse politiche adottate a livello europeo. Le azioni del PNRR sono volte a recuperare il potenziale delle nuove generazioni e a costruire un ambiente istituzionale e di impresa in grado di favorire il loro sviluppo e il loro protagonismo all’interno della società. Il PNRR è, detto in altri termini, un punto da cui ricominciare per pensare e programmare un futuro diverso, che risponda e valorizzi i giovani, le loro capacità e le loro competenze rispondendo anche ai loro desideri e alle loro attese.

      L’Italia fuori dall’Italia

      È da tempo che i giovani italiani non si sentono ben voluti dal proprio Paese e dai propri territori di origine, sempre più spinti a cercar fortuna altrove. La via per l’estero si presenta loro quale unica scelta da adottare per la risoluzione di tutti i problemi esistenziali (autonomia, serenità, lavoro, genitorialità, ecc.). E così ci si trova di fronte a una Italia demograficamente in caduta libera se risiede e opera all’interno dei confini nazionali e un’altra Italia, sempre più attiva e dinamica, che però guarda quegli stessi confini da lontano.

      Al 1° gennaio 2022 i cittadini italiani iscritti all’AIRE sono 5.806.068, il 9,8% degli oltre 58,9 milioni di italiani residenti in Italia. Mentre l’Italia ha perso in un anno lo 0,5% di popolazione residente (-1,1% dal 2020), all’estero è cresciuta negli ultimi 12 mesi del 2,7% che diventa il 5,8% dal 2020. In valore assoluto si tratta di quasi 154 Non c’è nessuna eccezione: tutte le regioni italiane perdono residenti aumentando, però, la loro presenza all’estero. La crescita, in generale, dell’Italia residente nel mondo è stata, nell’ultimo anno, più contenuta, sia in valore assoluto che in termini percentuali, rispetto agli anni precedenti.

      Il 48,2% degli oltre 5,8 milioni di cittadini italiani residenti all’estero è donna (2,8 milioni circa in valore assoluto). Si tratta, soprattutto, di celibi/nubili (57,9%) o coniugati/e (35,6%). I/le divorziati/e (2,7%) hanno superato i/le vedovi/e (2,2%). Da qualche anno si registrano anche le unioni civili (circa 3 mila).

      I dati sul tempo di residenza all’estero indicano che il revival delle partenze degli italiani non è recentissimo, ma risale alla profonda crisi vissuta nel 2008-2009 dal nostro Paese. Infatti, il 50,3% dei cittadini oggi iscritti all’AIRE lo è da oltre 15 anni e “solo” il 19,7% è iscritto da meno di 5 anni. Il resto si divide tra chi è all’estero da più di 5 anni ma meno di 10 (16,1%), e chi lo è da più di 10 anni ma meno di 15 (14,3%).

      La presenza italiana nel mondo cresce, lo si è detto, ma la crescita avviene attraverso elementi esogeni ed endogeni. Tra gli elementi esogeni il più importante e più discusso, a seguito dei profondi cambiamenti del nostro Paese, dovuti a quasi 50 anni di immigrazione e a causa della legge n. 91 del 1992 oggi distante dalla realtà interculturale del Belpaese, è l’acquisizione di cittadinanza: i cittadini italiani iscritti all’AIRE per acquisizione della cittadinanza dal 2006 al 2022 sono aumentati del 134,8% (in valore assoluto si tratta di poco più di 190 mila italiani; erano quasi 81 mila nel 2006). L’elemento endogeno per eccellenza è, invece, la nascita all’estero dei cittadini italiani, ovvero figlie e figli che si ritrovano a venire al mondo da cittadini italiani che risiedono già oltreconfine e che, sempre da italiani, crescono e si formano lontano dall’Italia ma con un occhio rivolto allo Stivale. Gli italiani nati all’estero sono aumentati dal 2006 del 167,0% (in valore assoluto sono, oggi, 2.321.402; erano 869 mila nel 2006). Si tratta di italiani che restituiscono un volto ancora più composito del nostro Paese rendendolo interculturale e sempre più transnazionale, composto cioè da italiani che hanno origini diverse (nati e/o cresciuti in paesi lontani dall’Italia o nati in Italia in famiglie arrivate da luoghi lontani) e che si muovono con agilità tra (almeno) due paesi, parlando più lingue, abitando più culture.

      Gli oltre 5,8 milioni di italiani iscritti all’AIRE hanno, quindi, un profilo complesso: sono giovani (il 21,8% ha tra i 18 e i 34 anni), giovani adulti (il 23,2% ha tra i 35 e i 49 anni), adulti maturi (il 19,4% ha tra i 50 e i 64 anni), anziani (il 21% ha più di 65 anni, ma di questi l’11,4% ha più di 75 anni) o minori (il 14,5% ha meno di 18 anni).

      Oltre 2,7 milioni (il 47,0%) sono partiti dal Meridione (di questi, 936 mila circa, il 16%, dalla Sicilia o dalla Sardegna); più di 2,1 milioni (il 37,2%) sono partiti dal Nord Italia e il 15,7% è, invece, originario del Centro Italia.

      Il 54,9% degli italiani (quasi 3,2 milioni) sono in Europa, il 39,8% (oltre 2,3 milioni) in America, centro-meridionale soprattutto (32,2%, più di 1,8 milioni).

      Gli italiani sono presenti in tutti i paesi del mondo. Le comunità più numerose sono, ad oggi, quella argentina (903.081), la tedesca (813.650), la svizzera (648.320), la brasiliana (527.901) e la francese (457.138).

      https://www.migrantes.it/rapporto-italiani-nel-mondo-migrantes-mobilita-italiana-convivere-e-resist

      –-

      synthèse en pdf:
      https://www.migrantes.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/11/Sintesi_RIM2022.pdf

    • Il monologo di #Crozza su migranti e Mimmo Lucano: “Dovremmo accoglierli a braccia aperte, la vera emergenza sono gli italiani che scappano”

      Nella nuova puntata di Fratelli di Crozza, in onda in prima serata sul Nove e in streaming su Discovery+, Maurizio Crozza riflette su alcuni dati allarmanti che segnalano la fuga degli italiani dal nostro Paese: “Negli ultimi anni se n’è andato un italiano su dieci. Gli stranieri in Italia sono 5,2 milioni e gli italiani all’estero sono 5,8 milioni. Sono più quelli che sono andati di quelli che sono arrivati. E il governo non vuol far scendere gli stranieri dalle navi? Ma bisognava andar lì ad accoglierli con le collane di fiori come in Polinesia. L’emergenza non è l’invasione è l’evasione”.

      https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/11/12/il-monologo-di-crozza-su-migranti-e-mimmo-lucano-dovremmo-accoglierli-a-braccia-aperte-la-vera-emergenza-sono-gli-italiani-che-scappano/6871062

      #Maurizio_Crozza

  • At the heart of Fortress Europe: A new study about Austria’s role in border externalization policies in the Balkans

    On the 28th of September 2020, Ayoub N. and six of his friends were chain pushed back from Austria to Slovenia, Croatia, and eventually back to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), from where Ayoub had begun his journey to Austria a few weeks earlier. Ayoub, like many others, had been stuck for years in between the EU member states, in the Balkans, and this was just another attempt to reach the Schengen Zone. He continued trying even after this push-back. In July 2022, Ayoub was still stuck inside the Balkan Circuit (Stojić Mitrović and Vilenica 2019), a region of transit with many loops, within which movement is circular, going forward and backwards because of border violence.

    Exactly one year after Ayoub and his group of friends experienced the chain push-back, Austrian Interior Minister, Karl Nehammer, finished his trip to Kosovo, Albania, and Montenegro meant to coordinate joint frameworks for fighting what he calls illegal migration, terrorism, and organized crime. During the trip, he announced that a “Return Conference” would take place a few months later in Vienna. The gathering in February 2022 brought together high-ranking officials from more than 22 countries, including representatives of EU agencies and think tanks. The main focus of the event was supporting Western Balkan[1] states with effective deportation practices through the newly established “Joint Coordination Platform against irregular migration.” BiH was mentioned as one of the platform’s main partners, and during the press conference organized after the event BiH Security Minister Selmo Cikotić stated that “With the support of the EU and some proactive partners, like Austria, we could move from a crisis situation to migration management.”

    It is not known to the public how the “return mechanisms” discussed would materialize and on what legal grounds the return of people would take place. In 2021, a parliamentary request for information focused specifically on Austria’s plans to return people to the Western Balkans, while another asked details about the role of BiH. In response to the queries, the interior minister emphasized that Austria is “only” providing good practice, expertise, and training, while partner countries can state their specific needs and are, in the end, responsible for ensuring that the human rights of those concerned will be upheld. This is a common rhetorical practice in the context of EU border externalization policies, with EU countries only providing knowledge and equipment, while “accession” countries in the Balkans have to fulfil the dark side of Europeanization.

    Austria took over a key role in building up a network of multilateral stakeholders that enables the fortification of Europe on diplomatic and informal levels, while states and locations near and far from Central Europe face the consequences of these policies; BiH is one example.

    Lobbying for Externalization

    In July 1998, Austria took over the EU presidency. As its first intervention on the issue of EU-migration policy, it introduced the Strategy Document on Immigration and Asylum Policies, which was sent to the European Council for further discussion. In this document, Austria advocated for a unified approach to migration in the Schengen area, which at that moment comprised 15 countries. It proposed the “Europeanization of migration policy,” while describing the existing approach and structures dealing with migration as “relatively clumsy.” The document called for more cooperation with “third states” in exchange for economic and other benefits. The Strategy envisaged that “Fortress Europe” should be replaced by the “concentric circles of the migration policy,” which included EU neighboring countries. Further, the neighboring partners “should be gradually linked into a similar system” that would eventually be similar to the “first circle,” meaning the EU member states. As for “transit countries,” the main approach would be to “eliminate push factors” in them. The Strategy called for the “tightening of the pre-accession strategy… as far as migration policies are concerned.” In addition, it stressed the need for agreements with third countries that would allow the return of people whose asylum applications were rejected, as well as the introduction of policies that would deter migration in general. The paper also argued that the Geneva Convention was outdated and that individual rights should be replaced with “political offers” of EU membership, or other types of cooperation.

    By the end of the year, this proposal had been amended twice, but in the end it was rejected. A number of non-governmental organizations, including the International Federation for Human Rights, condemned the document on account of its harsh language and the restrictive measures proposed. Even though it was never adopted, the document remains a guideline, and some of its measures were put in place, especially in Austria. Along with several Balkan neighboring countries, Austria became more involved in security-related questions in the region, establishing various organizations and groups that are visibly active in the field, including the Salzburg Forum as one key intergovernmental group. Since the early 1990s, the forum functioned as a lobbying group, not only within the framework of the EU and on a regional level between its partners, but also on an often invisible level that reaches far beyond the EU. Austria played a key role in establishing the forum and is also one of its leading members. While the forum did not always achieve its strategic goals (Müller 2016, 28), it became a testing ground for fueling anti-Muslim and anti-migrant sentiments in Europe, and spearheaded plans for the dark future of EU border externalization policies. The multilateral cooperation within the Forum was based on debate, dialogue, exchange of ideas, and strategic planning; the establishment of its operative tool, the Joint Coordination Platform, is another step in cementing the externalization of border management to the Balkans.

    Coordinating “Migration Management”

    The Joint Coordination Platform (JCP) is a network that coordinates political and strategic intervention outside the Schengen Area, monitoring and controlling the EU’s external borders, as well as actions in third countries. Although it was already in the planning for several years, the JCP was inaugurated in Vienna after the Return Conference in February 2022. The JCP office is led by former Frontex Vice-President Berndt Körner and by lawyer Bohumil Hnidek,[2] and will provide a hinge function for Frontex operations in the Balkans (Monroy 2022). As the Frontex agency is not allowed to organize deportations to third countries, in the future it may support deportations from different EU countries to the Balkans, while the JCP would coordinate and monitor the rest of the “local” operations. In September 2022, the first deportations from Bosnia to Morocco with the support of the JCP already took place.

    The investigative journalist Matthias Monroy further links the Vienna-based think tank ICMPD, led by former Austrian Vice-Chancellor Michael Spindelegger (ÖVP), to the operational implementation of regional return mechanisms to the Balkans. As early as 2020, the JCP started training police officers from BiH for conducting deportations. The training of 50 “return specialists” was recently described by Austrian Interior Minister Karner: “We help with training, impart standards, but that doesn’t change the responsibility that remains in the respective countries. It is about observing all international standards.”

    To understand ICMPD’s practices on the ground, it is worth reviewing the project descriptions of its Western Balkans and Turkey office in recent years. The long-standing partner of the Salzburg Forum implements migration management, border management, and capacity building in the Balkans, for example by providing the border police in Kosovo[3] with technical and biometric equipment to register people on the move; and supporting the border police in Albania[4] with equipment for land border surveillance and maritime border surveillance and control. Capacity building in Albania means in particular providing patrol boats and surveillance vehicles. The regional capacity building projects further cover information campaigns for people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and people on the move in the Western Balkans.[5] Labelled as protection and support for migrants, ICMPD invests in the enhancement of migrant information systems[6] for authorities in BiH to implement entry control, registration, and data collection mechanisms. The “electronic biometric residence permit cards,” which should be made available through such projects, point not only to the on-ground preparation but also to the implementation of what investigative journalists call “extra-European Dublin.” This includes for example “Balkandac,” a fingerprint database in the Balkans that would allow countries to deport third-country nationals to countries with readmission agreements before entering the EU Schengen area.

    It is important to highlight that ICMPD has entered the Joint Coordination Platform with years of experience in implementing EU border externalization projects in Africa and the Middle East (Naceur 2021).

    Another active regional partner of the Joint Coordination Platform is Hilfswerk International. Next to the 1 million Euro in Austrian Development Aid that was used as an emergency relief fund through IOM in BiH in 2021, the Upper Austrian Federal Government donated 100,000 Euro to support the construction of a water system in the Lipa camp.[7] The project was implemented by Hilfswerk International, which has been working in the Balkans and especially in BiH as a humanitarian aid organization since 1996. While the organization covers a broad range of services in BiH, it recently joined the niche of network and capacity building in the field of “migration management” in BiH, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Montenegro.

    Hilfswerk International has joined the field of migration management in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a player that can offer extensive experience on the ground. Considering the top-down and dysfunctional approach implemented by IOM in the region, Hilfswerk International is an organization that is closely linked to Austria-based actors and accessible for unbureaucratic and, according to its managing director, pragmatic solutions. As Regional Director Jašarević stated in an interview about their most recent project:

    … we all know, and it is not a secret, that the EU does not want migrants on their territory. And what now? Should we leave them here to suffer or to disappear? It’s not possible.

    They [the JCP] can use our infrastructure here if needed, but they also organize some events themselves. They are connecting donors and infrastructure. They know what is going on at a much deeper level than we do. And we are happy to contribute. They are working very hard as far as I know. Very few people and very big plans, but very capable people. I think it will be more visible this year. But it has only just started.[8]

    Balkan Route: better coordination with Austrian aid

    Even at the end of the 1990s, Austria’s political landscape paved the way for defining the Western Balkans as a strategic buffer zone for Europe’s increasingly restrictive migration and asylum policies. What has been drafted as a strategy to contain migration in “concentric circles” has since developed into the full-scale implementation of land and sea border zones that legitimate legislation, control, tracking, management of, and violence against people moving in circuits while trying to reach the EU Schengen zone.

    Our study can be used as a tool to further investigate Austrian-based and Austrian-initiated organizations, security corporations, and individual actors that are heavily involved in violent EU border externalization from Vienna to Sarajevo and beyond.

    The full study can be accessed here.

    References:

    Müller, Patrick. 2016. “Europeanization and regional cooperation initiatives: Austria’s participation in the Salzburg Forum and in Central European Defence Cooperation.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 45, no. 2: 24-34.

    Stojić Mitrović, Marta, and Ana Vilenica. 2019. “Enforcing
    and disrupting circular movement in an EU
    Borderscape: housingscaping in Serbia.” Citizenship Studies 23, no. 6: 540-55.

    Stojić Mitrović, Marta, Nidzara Ahmetašević, Barbara Beznec, and Andrej Kurnik. 2020. The Dark Sides of Europeanisation: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the European Border Regime. Belgrade: Rosa-Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe; and Ljubljana: Inštitut Časopis za kritiko znanosti. https://rosalux.rs/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/169_the-dark-side-of-europeanisation-_vladan_jeremic_and_wenke_christoph_rls.

    [1] The authors only use the term Western Balkans in relation to the process of EU border externalization and accession plans of Albania, BiH, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. See Stojić Mitrović et al. 2020, 20-22.

    [2] Bohumil Hnidek is a lawyer and the former Director for International Cooperation and EU Affairs to the Ministry of interior of the Czech Republic.

    [3] MIK: Manage increased influx of migrants in Kosovo, April, March 2021 (Fact Sheet ICMPD, 4).

    [4] EU4SAVEALB: EU Support for the Effective Management of Green and Blue Borders in Albania, February 2019-April 2022 (Fact Sheet ICMPD, 7-8).

    [5] IKAM: Information and capacity building on asylum, legal and irregular migration in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Western Balkans, March 2021-March 2022 (ICMPD Fact Sheet, 9).

    [6] MiS BiH: Enhancement of Migration Information System for Strengthening Migration, Asylum and Border Management in Bosnia and Herzegovina, November 2021-March 2023 (ICMPD Fact Sheet, 9-10).

    [7] In mid-June 2022, people living in Lipa reached out to local volunteers in BiH to inform them that for a week they did not have running water. At that moment, the temperatures were over 40 degrees. Even though less than 400 people were in the camp (capacity is 1,500), people were crammed in containers (six in each) with one small fan, and were receiving a gallon of water per person a day. Every day, one cistern was used. According to the testimony, there was no water in the bathrooms and toilets, either. After the information was published on social media, people in the camp told local volunteers that the employees in the camp threatened some of the residents, warning them that they cannot talk about the camp and saying that if they did not like the place they could leave.

    [8] Interview Suzana Jašarević online, 15 March 2022.

    https://lefteast.org/fortress-europe-austria-border-externalization

    #Autriche #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Balkans #route_des_Balkans #push-backs #refoulements #refoulements_en_chaîne #Slovénie #Croatie #migrerrance #violence #Balkan_Circuit #Return_Conference #Joint_Coordination_Platform_against_irregular_migration #renvois #expulsions #Joint_Coordination_Platform (#JCP) #Frontex #ICMPD #Michael_Spindelegger #return_specialists #spécialistes_du_retour #Salzburg_Forum #Kosovo #militarisation_des_frontières #complexe_militaro-industriel #Albanie #surveillance #surveillance_des_frontières #biométrie #Balkandac #empreintes_digitales #réadmission #Hilfswerk_International #Lipa #Bosnie #Bosnie_et_Herzégovine #Serbie #Macédoine_du_Nord #Monténégro

    • At the Heart of Fortress Europe

      The study provides a broad mapping of Austrian-based multilateral cooperation, actors, and or­ganisations that are heavily involved in EU border externalisation policies far beyond Austrian borders – and therefore in the violent and sometimes lethal approach to people on the move.

      Since the ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015 and the sealing of the Balkan Route in 2016, people on the move are trying to make their way to the European Schengen area via Bosnia-Herzegovina. According to Frontex, the Western Balkans has become one of the main migrant routes to Europe. The actors examined here are therefore of particular importance.

      https://www.transform-network.net/publications/issue/at-the-heart-of-fortress-europe

      #rapport

    • Balkans : la #Serbie, la #Hongrie et l’Autriche s’unissent contre l’immigration illégale

      La Serbie a accepté mercredi, en concertation avec la Hongrie et l’Autriche, de déployer des forces de police supplémentaires à sa frontière Sud avec la Macédoine du Nord, afin de lutter contre l’immigration illégale. L’Autriche va envoyer 100 policiers en renfort dans cette zone.

      La Serbie est parvenue à un accord avec la Hongrie et l’Autriche, mercredi 16 novembre, sur le déploiement de patrouilles de police conjointes le long de sa frontière Sud.

      « Nous avons convenu d’engager plus de police (...) à la frontière avec la Macédoine du Nord », a déclaré le président serbe Aleksandar Vucic, lors d’une conférence de presse organisée après la signature de l’accord avec les Premiers ministres hongrois et autrichien, Viktor Orban et Karl Nehammer.

      L’accord vise à freiner en amont les arrivées dans l’Union européenne (UE), la Serbie étant utilisée comme un pays de transit par les migrants. La route des Balkans occidentaux, via la Turquie, la Bulgarie, la Macédoine du Nord et la Serbie, reste la principale porte d’entrée dans l’UE pour les migrants. Près de 130 000 entrées irrégulières dans l’UE à partir de la route des Balkans occidentaux ont été enregistrées sur les dix premiers mois de l’année 2022, soit le nombre le plus fort depuis le pic de la crise migratoire de 2015, selon Frontex.
      « La migration illégale ne devrait pas être gérée, elle devrait être stoppée »

      Karl Nehammer a annoncé que son pays allait déployer 100 officiers de police pour aider son voisin serbe à patrouiller la frontière avec la Macédoine du Nord. Ces patrouilles seront secondées par des moyens techniques tels que « des caméras à vision thermique, des drones et des véhicules », a précisé le Premier ministre autrichien. Le même genre de matériel est déjà utilisé à la frontière serbo-hongroise où, depuis 2017, une clôture s’étend sur 160 km.

      Viktor Orban a, de son côté, affirmé que, depuis le début de l’année 2022, la Hongrie avait empêché 250 000 franchissements illégaux de frontières, dont beaucoup organisés par des passeurs armés. « La migration illégale ne devrait pas être gérée, elle devrait être stoppée », a-t-il ajouté, décrivant la situation à la frontière avec la Serbie comme « difficile ».

      Conséquence du mur érigé entre la Serbie et la Hongrie : les migrants se tournent vers les passeurs, seuls espoirs pour les aider à franchir. Résultat, dans la zone, leur mainmise s’exerce partout, dans les camps informels comme à l’intérieur des centres officiels, comme a pu le constater InfoMigrants sur place en octobre.
      En finir avec le « tourisme de l’asile »

      Toujours mercredi, Aleksandar Vucic a déclaré que son pays imposait désormais des visas aux ressortissants de la Tunisie et du Burundi, une mesure déjà annoncée en octobre mais qui entre ces jours-ci en vigueur.

      L’UE et la Suisse avaient fait pression pendant plusieurs semaines sur la Serbie afin qu’elle modifie sa politique des visas. Ces pays avaient reproché à la Serbie de servir de porte d’entrée vers l’UE à des migrants turcs, indiens, tunisiens, cubains et burundais, dispensés de visas jusque là pour venir dans le pays. C’est maintenant chose faite.

      Le président de la Serbie, du pays candidat à l’UE depuis 2012, avait promis que Belgrade alignerait sa politique des visas sur celle de Bruxelles « d’ici la fin de l’année » en commençant par la révocation des dispenses accordées aux Tunisiens, Burundais et Indiens. « Bientôt, deux autres pays seront soumis à cette même mesure car nous devrons avoir le même régime de visas que l’UE », a-t-il prévenu, sans préciser de quels pays il s’agissait.

      « Je suis reconnaissant envers le président de la Serbie pour tout ce qu’il fait pour en finir avec le ’tourisme de l’asile’ », a réagi, mercredi, Karl Nehammer.

      Ensemble, les Tunisiens, les Burundais, les Indiens, les Cubains et les Turcs représentent seulement 20% des migrants passés par la route des Balkans occidentaux depuis janvier 2022. La grande majorité des personnes qui transitent par la Serbie ne sont donc pas des exilés exemptés de visas. La plupart sont originaires d’Afghanistan et de Syrie.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/44816/balkans--la-serbie-la-hongrie-et-lautriche-sunissent-contre-limmigrati

  • A booster is your best shot now - by Eric Topol
    https://erictopol.substack.com/p/a-booster-is-your-best-shot-now

    The idea that we could be looking annual shots is unrealistic given the waning period and lack of clearcut seasonal Covid as is the case with flu. That is why we desperately need new generation of vaccines that include nasal vaccines to block infections/transmission, more durable vaccines (such as by tweaking the nanoparticles) and pan-sarbecovirus vaccines that will be variant-proof. All of this is in our reach, but so far not getting the priority and resource allocation from the US to follow through.

    For now, the best defense we have against the BQ.1.1-led wave is to get a booster. It will markedly raise neutralizing antibodies and our cellular immune response, and just-in-time to broaden our immunity to be ready for BQ.1.1 and related variants with marked immune evasiveness. As you well know, it takes a couple of weeks to get the immune response built, so this is the right time to get it done. It will help prevent severe Covid for at least 4-5 months ahead. Be ready. The pandemic isn’t over—yet. Preserve your health and that of your family, friends, and network.

    #sars-cov2 #vaccination #rappel #covid

  • Revealed : The #OLAF report on Frontex

    An infamous internal report by the EU anti-fraud agency OLAF shows how Frontex tried to cover up human rights violations. We are publishing it for the first time.

    “The plane circled over our heads again and again, but no one helped us,” says Samuel Abraham. On 10 April 2021, he left the Libyan shore in a rubber boat with 62 other people. They were on the high seas for five days. “We didn’t think this trip would take so long. That’s why, and to save space, we didn’t bring much food and water.” Out of desperation, they drank sea water.

    Last year, Samuel Abraham reported to us his attempted crossing and we published it with Buzzfeed News Germany. We changed his name to protect him.

    He told us that, at one point, a cargo ship had appeared in sight and that three people had jumped into the water. They did not reach the ship, they drowned. On the last day at sea, the remaining people were picked up by a supposed fishing boat and taken back to Libya. Only 51 of them reached Libya alive, next to the dead bodies of the others who had died on the way back.

    The plane Samuel Abraham saw circling over his head was operated by Frontex, the EU border and coast guard agency who witnessed what constituted a human rights violation. This was not only researched and documented by journalists and NGOs, but also by EU bodies.

    In cooperation with Der Spiegel and Lighthouse Reports, we are publishing the report on Frontex by the EU’s anti-fraud agency OLAF. A report that has been talked about throughout the last year, that led to the resignation of former Frontex Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri, but until now has not been revealed to the public in full – it was never meant to be revealed.
    Human rights violations swept under the carpet

    In fact, up until today, only a very reduced group of EU officials have been able to read the document in full: this includes European Commission representatives, the former Frontex Management Board, a few selected Members of the European Parliament, and OLAF itself.

    The Frontex OLAF report shows that Samuel Abraham’s story is not exceptional; a serious human rights violation witnessed and later brushed under the carpet. It is neither exceptional nor a matter of chance.

    It was finalised in February 2022; 16 months, 20 witnesses and over 120 pages after the moment the EU anti-fraud watchdog first received a whistleblower alert by post warning about serious wrongdoing within the agency.

    Under EU and international law, Frontex has the legal obligation to guarantee respect for human rights during its operations. But what OLAF found is that instead of taking steps to prevent human rights violations from happening, Frontex took recurrent, deliberate measures to make sure the violations that were indeed taking place, would not be witnessed, documented, investigated or accounted for.

    More precisely, it shows how the Fundamental Rights Officer was sidelined; internal reports on human rights violations were manipulated; and how Frontex misled the European Commission and Parliament.
    “Not one of us”: the isolation of the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer

    As the OLAF report shows, on 3 September 2020 Frontex’s main operational departments met to discuss the following: some officials had become convinced that the Greek-Turkish relationship was evolving into a “kind of ‘war’”, where Frontex’s operational information was subject to being “misused” and could therefore cause potential reputational damage to the agency.

    The cornerstone of all this suspicion was the Frontex Fundamental Rights Office. This department had been created to ensure violations of human rights during Frontex operations were prevented by design. If violations do take place, it is the Office’s duty to conduct an investigation and recommend appropriate action.

    This department and, in particular, its head, the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO), had been encountering resistance internally. Labelled as “leftists” who were too close to NGOs, WhatsApp messages exchanged among Frontex officials qualified the FRO’s pro-rights stance as an “intellectual dictatorship” comparable to “Khmer Rouge terror”. Frontex staff was encouraged to consider their fundamental rights peers not as colleagues, but as “externals”; “not one of us”.

    As such, Frontex’s leadership considered the information the FRO had access to needed to be limited – even in cases relating to a violation of human rights. At the 3 September 2020 meeting, this rationale was clearly set out: “Fundamental Rights has a right of access to all information. But it does not mean that we give all information. (...) Fundamental Rights asks and we try to be friendly. That’s the trap.”

    The trap was an information shutdown which, in practice, would make it substantially harder and, in some cases, impossible, for the FRO to monitor and investigate the human rights violations that were, at this point, certainly taking place during Frontex operations. Efforts had started already in 2016, and were well underway by the time the 3 September 2020 meeting was held.

    The OLAF report describes how already in 2016, e-mails from the FRO in which she required details and clarifications in the context of a potential human rights violation that had been reported “remained long unanswered or did not receive a reply at all.” In January 2018, Frontex leadership took the decision to severely restrict the FRO’s access to the agency’s main border surveillance and information-management tool, the EUROSUR system. This required a redesign of the EUROSUR architecture so that the FRO, from now on, would only be able to view a limited amount of operational information, while all classified information would not only be inaccessible, but also invisible: it became “impossible for FRO to be aware of the existence of that specific document in the system”.

    The FRO’s EUROSUR cut-off would cost 15.000 euros of taxpayer money. The justification reflects how human rights monitoring was considered a danger to effective border control: “At stake is the possibility to use EUROSUR as a reliable security tool for MS [Member States] in full compliance with security standards”.

    Shortly after, a new idea emerges: Frontex Serious Incident Reports should be considered classified information.
    Control of the paper trail

    Serious Incident Reports (SIRs) are at the heart of Frontex’s internal reporting system. These reports are meant to be filed by Frontex agents deployed on mission when they witness or become part of a serious incident. This could be, for example, when Frontex staff has a car accident while deployed; wakes up to their property having been vandalised with anti-police messages; exposed to Covid-19; and, most importantly, when Frontex officers witness or become involved in a human rights violation.

    SIRs are the agency’s primary paper trail for wrongdoing. As such, the existence and distribution of these reports became uncomfortable for an agency that considers its human rights obligations an obstacle for its ultimate goal and mission: border control.

    The OLAF report lays out the measures taken to undermine and circumvent SIRs as a reporting mechanism, in order to downplay or ignore severe human rights violations that were taking place to the knowledge of Frontex. In 2020, an essential step was taken in this direction: “In case a SIR is generated based on operational data collected by FRONTEX (…) this SIR must be restricted,” reads an internal e-mail. This could be done by scaling up the classification of SIRs. Internally, some officials warned the efforts to classify these reports “would be illegal”.

    The process for handling SIRs was also manipulated. Frontex’s internal rules establish four categories of SIRs – incident reports relating to a possible violation of human rights should be allocated Category 4, which would immediately trigger an involvement of the FRO, investigation, and adequate follow-up.

    On the day Samuel Abraham was in distress at high sea, Frontex staff wrote an internal e-mail stressing the need to launch a Serious Incident Report and asked for guidance about the categorisation. OLAF notes, that all information about the incident “highlighted strong indications of violations of human rights”, which would fall under Category 4. But internally this was waved off to avoid involving the FRO.

    In other occasions, a decision was taken not to create a SIR in the first place; it appears that in Frontex’s eyes, a human rights violation that is not recorded is a violation that doesn’t exist.

    Letters to Greek authorities with regards to serious rights violations were re-drafted into a “politically softer” version, “less explicit on the gravity of the facts in question”. In April 2020, a SIR was launched after Frontex-deployed officers witnessed Greek authorities “towing an overcrowded fragile boat in the night towards the open sea is a situation that can seriously endanger the lives of the passengers”. Der Spiegel reported about this case end of October 2020. The FRO’s evaluation of the case found it a likely “case of an unprocessed return and violation of the principle of non-refoulement”. However, during its investigation, OLAF found no further follow-up: “no formal request for information or clarification was sent to the Hellenic Authorities in relation to this incident”. Human rights violation, once again, left unaddressed.
    Intimidation “bears fruit”: the silencing of officers

    But not only incidents were silenced, also those who report them. In summer of 2019, an internal e-mail warned: “we fear/have indications that potential violations are not always reported to Frontex [headquarters] because of possible repercussions of deployed officers in the Host MS [Member State]”. There had been at least one case where an officer deployed in a Frontex operation had filed a SIR and had later been relocated; the assumption was that “it could be linked to the fact of reporting”.

    Furthermore, Frontex-deployed officers were not making use of official reporting channels but were instead leaving mentions of what pointed to human rights violations in “unofficial reports”. When an officer was asked for the reason, (s)he argued that “it happened in the past that because of the initiation of a SIR the debriefing expert had serious conflict with the Greek Authorities and could that made [REDACTED] stay unbearable“. In order to avoid a similar situation, the officer had chosen to report incidents “via alternative channels”.

    Intimidation and threats to Frontex officers, notably by Greek authorities, in order to avoid formal reporting of violations of human rights, were well known to Frontex management. The topic had been “thoroughly discussed” internally, recognising that “threats of EL [Greek] authorities to sanction ‘critical’ deployed staff bears fruit”.

    However, no action was ever taken to address this problem or to prevent it from happening again. Out of “the need to keep a good relationship with the Greek authorities”, Frontex did “not ask for any specific action to be taken or checks to be done”. The matter was set aside.
    “So not to witness…”

    On 5 August 2020, the Frontex plane FSA METIS was surveilling the Aegean Sea when it witnessed a boat with approximately 30 people on board, in Greek territorial waters, being towed by Greek authorities towards Turkish territorial waters. The sighting amounted to a human rights violation. A Serious Incident Report was launched.

    Within a month, the Frontex plane was no longer operating in the Aegean but had instead been relocated to the Central Mediterranean “to support activities in the region”.

    Three months later, during a raid to the Frontex headquarters in Warsaw, OLAF finds a report mentioning the FSA METIS relocation. A handwritten note of a high representative on the last page of the document reads: “We have withdrawn our FSA some time ago, so not to witness...”.

    In an interview with OLAF, (s)he would elaborate on his handwritten remark: “the withdrawing of aerial surveillance served the purpose for FRONTEX to avoid witnessing incidents and alleged pushbacks by Greece, so avoiding to have to deal internally at the Agency with sensitive cases. Personally, the solution was good for me as I was in the middle of two different and opposite demands: [REDACTED] wanted to cover possible irregularities by Greece and [REDACTED] [REDACTED] wanted to deal with those cases in full compliance with the SOP [Standard Operating Procedure]”.

    Frontex’s choice was in fact much more effective than a cover-up of “irregularities”. It was a carte blanche for impunity.
    Disloyalty to the Union

    Internal control mechanisms disabled, there were few avenues left to hold Frontex accountable – mainly, EU institutions. When in 2020, media and civil society reports on Frontex became more and more frequent, the European Commission started seeking answers from the EU’s border agency. The Commission wanted to know whether progress had been made on several of the human rights protection mechanisms – as it is Frontex’s legal obligation.

    OLAF found Frontex misled the Commission when responding to its questions, offering “a partial view of the dynamics of the events“ and showed “lack of cooperation and the reluctance” to implement the Commission’s recommendations. Cooperating and following the EU Commission’s guidance was indeed not in Frontex’s plans, since for some years now, Frontex leadership had been harvesting an increasingly derogatory view of the EU legislative body which it saw less as a respectable authority and more like an enemy.

    Private messages exchanged among Frontex high-level reveal a view of the European Commission as “the legislator who makes Frontex a legal smuggler/taxi”.

    Demeaning messages, which harden in tone from 2019 onwards following the appointment of Ylva Johansson as Commissioner for Home Affairs, criticised the EU institution for “amateurism on operational subjects, obsession on FR [Fundamental Rights] subjects, and bureaucratic cretinism”.

    By 2020, the Commission had become an adversary: “Today the biggest risk for the European corps and Frontex comes from the Commission” – a striking conclusion since the proposal for a Frontex standing corps of 10,000 border guards initially originated, in 2018, from the European Commission itself.

    But it wasn’t only the European Commission’s questions getting shunned – also the European Parliament’s. In multiple occasions, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Homme Affairs (LIBE) summoned Frontex and requested explanations and clarifications with regards to the recurrent reports of human rights violations. During its investigation, OLAF identified at least eleven stances where Frontex lied or misled the European Parliament in its responses.

    These lies, misleading statements and antagonistic views with respect to the European Commission and Parliament were found by OLAF as a “lack of loyalty towards the Union”.
    Eight months later: the aftermath of the OLAF report

    For almost eight months, some EU representatives have known about the explosive facts and findings of the report: the recurrent human rights violations taking place under Frontex’s eyes; Frontex’s studied efforts to brush off and conceal these violations; an unlawful system of impunity built by an agency of the EU, financed with EU taxpayer money.

    And yet the fact is, very little has changed in the aftermath of the OLAF investigation. Only the resignation of one person, former Frontex Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri, is the most visible consequence of the report’s findings to date, besides the fact that the European Parliament continues to refuse to approve the agency’s budget. A climate of silence and inaction seems to have been established, incomprehensibly to anyone familiar with the content of the OLAF report.

    In this context, on 21 September, Frontex issued a statement announcing “recent changes within the agency”, presenting in six vague bullet points. But the reality seems to be different: Crucially, a noticeable absence from Frontex’s “recent changes” press release is the suspension of operations in the Aegean. This is a provision set by Article 46 of the Frontex Regulation, which states that the Frontex Executive Director should “suspend or terminate any activity by the Agency, in whole or in part, if he or she considers that there are violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations related to the activity concerned that are of a serious nature or are likely to persist.”

    These violations have been well-established by the OLAF report, which includes among its findings that, while being aware of the human rights violations taking place in Greece, Frontex “did not ensure appropriate follow-up, including taking any actions in relation to the scope of the Article 46 of the FRONTEX Regulation”. And yet Frontex continues to contradict OLAF’s findings, reiterating in the media that “Frontex’s actions in the Aegean Sea region had been carried out in compliance with the applicable legal framework, including in accordance with the responsibilities stemming from fundamental rights.”

    At the same time, some signs already point at some of Frontex’s “recent changes” which could be failing to materialise. Frontex argues that in 2021 it conducted a revision of its Serious Incident Reporting Mechanism “to improve the reporting on events at the external borders, including fundamental rights violations”. However, civil society has alerted to the fact that it has been over 1,000 days since Frontex last filed a SIR in the Greek island of Samos. It was precisely in Samos, as documented in the OLAF report, where Greek authorities’ intimidation tactics to discourage incident reporting had been bearing fruit.

    We have asked Frontex for a statement concerning the OLAF report and its investigations, but they have not replied to it yet.
    Commission remains inactive

    Meanwhile, the European Commission’s reluctance to take a stance, let alone any action, in response to the OLAF report has been remarkable. When questioned about Der Spiegel’s previous reporting on OLAF’s findings, the Commission merely made vague references to the one change in Frontex leadership, a “new Action Plan” for a Fundamental Rights Strategy, and the hiring of Fundamental Rights Monitors – which has been a legal obligation of Frontex since 2019. “A lot of work is being done,” stated the Commission spokesperson, who did not deliver specifics and made no mention of Article 46.

    In all, the OLAF report reveals the making of a system of impunity by Frontex: continuous efforts to downplay, conceal and enable serious violations of human rights and international law taking place on an ongoing basis at the EU’s borders. Despite OLAF’s investigation, Frontex’s system of impunity remains largely untouched.

    https://fragdenstaat.de/en/blog/2022/10/13/frontex-olaf-report-leaked

    #rapport #OLAF #Frontex #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #push-backs #refoulements #Libye #droits_humains #Grèce #Turquie #Serious_Incident_Reports (#SIRs) #omerta #silence #intimidation #EU #Union_européenne #UE

    • Migration : un rapport pointe la gestion accablante de Frontex dans les eaux grecques

      L’agence européenne Frontex aurait-elle fermé les yeux face à des refoulements de migrants dans les eaux grecques ? C’est ce qui ressort d’un rapport confidentiel de l’OLAF, l’Office européen de lutte antifraude, rendu public par la plateforme FragDenStaat, basée en Allemagne, en collaboration avec Der Spiegel et Lighthouse Reports (Pays-Bas).

      Selon l’OLAF, des cadres de l’agence chargée des frontières extérieures de l’UE ont commis « des fautes graves », en ne signalant pas des refoulement de migrants de la part des garde-frontières grecs.

      Ce rapport indique que dans un cas, l’avion de l’agence de l’UE s’est volontairement éloigné d’une zone en mer Egée, pour ne pas être témoin d’un incident en cours. Le rapport pointe par ailleurs une multitude de manquements, face à l’arrivée de bateaux de fortune, souvent en provenance de Turquie.

      Ces conclusions confirment les accusations de plusieurs ONG, qui pointaient depuis plusieurs années les manquements de l’Union européenne dans la gestion de la crise migratoire, due notamment à la guerre en Syrie. En avril dernier, mis sous pression, le patron Frontex Fabrice Leggeri a démissionné.

      https://fr.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/14/migration-un-rapport-pointe-la-gestion-accablante-de-frontex-dans-les-e

    • "Des pratiques du passé" : Frontex réagit au rapport accablant ses dirigeants

      L’agence de garde-frontières Frontex a réagi aujourd’hui à la publication par des ONG et médias de l’intégralité du rapport de l’OLAF, l’organe anti-fraude de l’Union européenne. Ce rapport accusant les dirigeants de Frontex d’avoir dissimulé des refoulements, en violation du droit international, avait fait grand bruit il y a plusieurs mois, jusqu’à pousser à la démission l’ex-patron Fabrice Leggeri.

      Ce vendredi, l’agence des garde-frontières et des garde-côtes de l’Union européenne, Frontex, a réagi à la publication de l’intégralité du rapport de l’OLAF (office européen de lutte anti-fraude) par plusieurs ONG et médias. "L’Agence prend au sérieux les conclusions des enquêtes, audits et examens, et les utilise comme des opportunités pour changer et s’améliorer", a déclaré Frontex dans un communiqué de presse paru aujourd’hui.

      Ce rapport de l’OLAF se concentrait sur les activités de Frontex en Grèce du printemps à l’automne 2020. Il révélait que Frontex n’avait pas traité correctement des preuves de refoulements d’exilés aux frontières maritimes et terrestre, allant jusqu’à les dissimuler. Or, ces "puschback" sont contraire au droit international et européen, puisqu’ils empêchent tout examen d’une demande de protection.

      L’agence ne nie plus sa responsabilité dans les accusations détaillées par l’enquête de l’OLAF. Elle reconnaît volontiers de "graves fautes de conduites" commises par les dirigeants de Frontex d’alors. Le numéro un, Fabrice Leggeri, directeur général depuis 2015, avait démissionné fin avril face aux accusations relayées dans la presse.
      Changements dans les procédures de signalement

      Plusieurs enquêtes journalistiques menées par le consortium Lighthouse Reports et publiées notamment dans Le Monde, avaient ainsi démontré qu’entre mars 2020 et septembre 2021, Frontex avait enregistré des renvois illégaux dans les eaux grecques comme de simples "opérations de prévention au départ, menées dans les eaux turques".

      Or, toutes les investigations menées par des médias menaient à la conclusion "que les responsables de Frontex [étaient] conscients des pratiques illégales des gardes-frontières grecs et [étaient] en partie impliqués dans les refoulements eux-mêmes", écrivait le journal allemand Der Spiegel en octobre 2021.

      Aujourd’hui, Frontex qualifie ces actes répréhénsibles de "pratiques du passé" dans son communiqué. L’agence affirme ainsi avoir pris, depuis, des "mesures correctives". Par exemple, Frontex déclare avoir renforcé les procédures de signalement des incidents graves, y compris en ce qui concerne les refoulements.
      D’autres conclusions d’enquêtes à venir

      Enfin, Frontex assure avoir établi à la fin de l’été 2022 "un plan d’action pour réparer les torts du passé et du présent et pour engager un dialogue structuré" avec les autorités grecques.

      InfoMigrants reçoit depuis plusieurs années des témoignages d’exilés victimes de "pushbacks" par les garde-côtes et garde-frontières grecs. À l’été 2021, une Congolaise avait expliqué comment les garde-côtes avaient refoulé son embarcation en mer, mettant les passagers en danger. "Ils nous ont menacé avec leur armes (…) Ils ont tourné autour de nous, ce qui a fait de grandes vagues et du courant", avait-elle rapporté. Au mois de mai 2021, Samuel, un autre migrant d’Afrique subsaharienne, avait raconté comment son embarcation avait été refoulée vers les côtes turques.

      Au-delà de ces refoulements, d’autres enquêtes visent actuellement Frontex, notamment au sujet de dissimulations de maltraitances commises sur des exilés en Hongrie et en Bulgarie. Frontex nie, jusqu’ici, avoir couvert ces violences. Elle avait expliqué officiellement n’avoir “pas autorité sur le comportement des polices aux frontières locales".

      En attendant la progression de ces enquêtes, l’agence européenne prévoit de disposer d’un effectif propre de 10 000 garde-frontières et garde-côtes, à l’horizon 2027. Dans cette perspective, elle programme déjà des commandes d’armes "létales et non-létales".

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/44017/des-pratiques-du-passe--frontex-reagit-au-rapport-accablant-ses-dirige

    • Certificate le pratiche illegali di Frontex. Ma l’Agenzia resta a operare sulle frontiere

      L’Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode ha ricostruito le gravi violazioni dei diritti umani commesse in questi anni dall’Agenzia europea chiamata a sorvegliare i confini dell’Ue. Dalla copertura di centinaia di respingimenti al contrasto a chi voleva denunciare. Il cambio al vertice non è sufficiente, segnala il Parlamento europeo

      Frontex ha coperto centinaia di respingimenti illegali ai confini esterni dell’Unione europea e al suo interno ha ostacolato chi voleva denunciare queste pratiche. Il rapporto dell’Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode (Olaf) sull’Agenzia, che aveva portato nell’aprile 2022 alle dimissioni dell’ex direttore esecutivo Fabrice Leggeri, è stato reso pubblico a metà ottobre 2022 dal settimanale tedesco Der Spiegel, testata che con le sue inchieste aveva dato avvio proprio all’indagine dell’Olaf sull’operato di Frontex. E martedì 18 ottobre il Parlamento europeo ha approvato una risoluzione (con 345 voti favorevoli, 284 contrari e otto astenuti) contro la cosiddetta “procedura di discarico” del bilancio dell’Agenzia, ovvero una valutazione ex post che ha l’obiettivo di monitorarne l’attività degli anni precedenti (in questo caso del 2020). “Un segnale importante ma dalle conseguenze solo politiche: l’Agenzia purtroppo continuerà a fare quello che ha sempre fatto e di certo questo voto non bloccherà le sue attività -spiega Laura Salzano, dottoranda in Diritto europeo dell’immigrazione presso l’Università di Barcellona-. Questo significa che Frontex continua a poter utilizzare il suo ampio budget nonostante la votazione degli eurodeputati”. Un bilancio che per il 2022 ammonta a 754 milioni di euro: un aumento di più del 100% rispetto al 2006, il primo anno di piena operatività dell’Agenzia e che continuerà a crescere fino a toccare i 5,6 miliardi di euro entro il 2027 come ricostruito anche nel nostro libro “Respinti“.

      Scorrendo il report di 123 pagine dell’Olaf emergono chiaramente le lacune nei meccanismi di denuncia di situazioni di violazione dei diritti umani delle persone coinvolte (direttamente o indirettamente) nell’attività dell’Agenzia e come queste non siano emerse in precedenza per motivi politici. In altri termini le istituzioni europee hanno fatto finta di nulla perché l’obiettivo perseguito da Frontex, “chiudere” le frontiere, doveva essere raggiunto a qualsiasi costo. “L’Agenzia ha avuto un’espansione molto ampia con l’approvazione di due regolamenti (2016 e 2019) nel giro di tre anni e non accompagnati da un parallelo monitoraggio -sottolinea Salzano-. Le sue competenze, le sue capacità di incidere sui diritti umani dei rifugiati sono esponenzialmente aumentate ma senza adeguati meccanismi di ‘responsabilità’ interna”. Su questo punto secondo la ricercatrice è un “controsenso” che Frontex non sia mai responsabile di quanto succede durante le operazioni a cui partecipa: “Il direttore esecutivo ha grandi poteri, può prendere tantissime decisioni ma la responsabilità di quanto avviene lungo i confini ricade sugli Stati membri. Non può funzionare”.

      E che non funzioni lo si capisce analizzando alcuni stralci del rapporto. Parte dell’inchiesta di Olaf si concentra sui cosiddetti “Serious incident report”, ovvero le segnalazioni di “gravi incidenti” che, secondo il regolamento dell’Agenzia, sono “avvenimenti naturali o causati dall’azione umana che possono influire negativamente o essere rilevanti per una particolare attività di Frontex” che possono mettere a repentaglio la sua reputazione e includere situazioni di potenziali “violazione dei diritti fondamentali e di quanto stabilito dal diritto Ue e internazionale con particolare riferimento alla possibilità di richiedere asilo”. Una volta ricevuta una segnalazione di tali incidenti, l’ufficio del Frontex situation center individua un “coordinatore” che ha il compito di procedere con indagini interne per chiarire la situazione. Ci sono quattro categorie di segnalazioni classificate in base alla pericolosità: la quarta, la più grave, che riguarda proprio la possibile violazione dei diritti fondamentali delle persone coinvolte, prevede un particolare meccanismo per cui le indagini sono di responsabilità del “Fundamental rights officer”, l’ufficio che si occupa di monitorare il rispetto dei diritti umani.

      Tra il 10 e il 12 aprile 2020 l’aereo di Frontex che sorveglia il Mediterraneo centrale individua quattro imbarcazioni con a bordo circa 250 persone che si muovono dalla “zona Sar” libica a quella maltese. Le autorità de La Valletta non collaborano con l’Agenzia nell’implementare un’operazione di salvataggio. Alle 12.34 di mercoledì 13 aprile al Frontex situation center arriva una segnalazione in cui si sottolinea che le imbarcazioni sono “sovraffollate” e le persone sono “senza giubbotti di salvataggio”. Un’ora dopo, un ulteriore messaggio inviato al centro di comando sottolinea la mancanza di cooperazione delle autorità maltesi e segnala che due delle barche sono arrivate in Italia e avevano bottiglie d’acqua a bordo. “Probabilmente la Guardia costiera maltese le ha trainate fino alle coste italiane. Mi chiedo -scrive l’ufficiale di Frontex- se a livello politico si possa fare pressione su Malta dato che questa diventa una situazione umanamente irresponsabile”. Ventiquattr’ore dopo, l’ufficiale pretende che sia lanciato un “Serious incident report” e che sia classificato nella “Categoria quattro” dato che l’attività osservata è in chiara violazione di diritti fondamentali dei naufraghi. Ma dagli uffici dell’Agenzia non sono d’accordo: viene assegnata la “Categoria 2” -ovvero un incidente dall’alto interesse pubblico e politico- perché quanto osservato è avvenuto al di fuori delle operazioni di Frontex ed è necessario “tenere un profilo neutrale nelle discussioni tra Italia e Malta”. Solo successivamente si scopre che il 15 aprile 2020 una delle barche è arrivata a Tripoli dopo aver ricevuto l’assistenza di una nave commerciale nella zona Sar maltese: 51 persone superstiti, cinque morti. Il 4 maggio 2020 sempre il Frontex situation center chiede di riclassificare l’incidente nella “Categoria quattro”. Ma da Varsavia, sede dell’Agenzia, l’obiettivo è uno: fare in modo che la competenza non passi all’ufficio che si occupa dei diritti umani. La giustificazione? “Non vedo l’interesse di cambiare la classificazione, né il valore aggiunto di avere un Fundamental rights officer in sovrapposizione con le inchieste giudiziarie a Malta”. L’Olaf osserva, tra l’altro, come sia lo stesso regolamento che, in caso di incidenti gravi, non distingue tra “operazioni congiunte di Frontex con gli Stati membri o semplici attività messe in atto dalla stessa Agenzia”. Come in questo caso.

      Il copione si ripete, pochi giorni dopo, nel Mar Egeo. Nella notte tra il 18 e il 19 aprile dello stesso anno la sorveglianza area di Frontex permette di osservare le attività della Guardia costiera greca: dopo aver intercettato, già nelle acque territoriali di competenza, una barca con a bordo alcuni naufraghi questi vengono caricati su un vascello delle autorità elleniche. Poco dopo, vengono nuovamente trasferiti sulla loro imbarcazione e trainati verso le acque territoriali turche dove vengono lasciati in balia delle onde, senza motore, alle sei del mattino. Come nel caso descritto precedentemente viene richiesta la “Categoria quattro” anche perché in questo episodio un video ricostruisce quanto avvenuto: l’ufficiale scrive via WhatsApp che si tratta di “un nuovo caso, molto più problematico” a dimostrazione del “sistematico” utilizzo di questi metodi di respingimento. Ma da Varsavia arriva lo steso messaggio: “Frontex non ha assetti coinvolti, la segnalazione ricade nella ‘Categoria due’”. Nei giorni successivi si susseguono le richieste per riclassificare la segnalazione. Tutto resta uguale e addirittura il report viene classificato come “riservato” e raggiunge un numero ristretto di destinatari. Il Fundamental rights officer non riceverà mai il report finale di questo evento.

      Quando sul confine greco-turco si susseguono i casi descritti (dall’aprile 2020 a oggi secondo la ricerca del Forensic Architecture, l’Agenzia è stata coinvolta in 122 casi drift-back ed era a conoscenza di 417 che sono stati registrati negli archivi operativi e mascherati come “prevenzioni nell’ingresso”) la soluzione di Frontex va alla radice. Viene messo in discussione il termine respingimenti “che giuridicamente non esiste e non è possibile dire con certezza che siano tali anche considerando che la Turchia e le Ong hanno interessi comuni” ma soprattutto vengono “rimossi gli occhi scomodi”. Così il 5 agosto 2020 (“Senza alcun senso da un punto di vista di operazione Sar”, ha spiegato all’Olaf un agente) a seguito dell’ennesima procedura di traino della Guardia costiera greca verso la Turchia l’aereo dell’Agenzia viene “spostato a sorvegliare il confine terrestre greco facendolo muovere avanti e indietro per nove volte tra due punti in cui nessuna attività era stata osservata”. Il 7 settembre, un mese dopo, il velivolo viene ricollocato nel Mediterraneo centrale. Meglio non vedere quello che succede in Grecia.

      Dal rapporto emergono anche marcate fratture interne. Un membro del personale afferma che l’ufficio per i diritti fondamentali “non sono veri colleghi” mentre un altro agente osserva che “è il primo [nemico, ndr] di Frontex perché riferisce tutto alle Ong e fa regnare all’interno dell’Agenzia un regime di terrore simile a quello dei Khmer rossi”. E non stupisce che l’Ufficio non abbia mai avuto accesso a Eurosur, il Sistema europeo di sorveglianza delle frontiere che è il “cuore” delle prove dei respingimenti. A tutto questo si aggiunge la pessima gestione interna: si registra un suicidio di un membro legato a “presunte pratiche di molestie sessuali” e nel 2020 su 17 casi segnalati di molestie, 15 sono stati chiusi senza seguito.

      Questa è Frontex. Nonostante dal board dell’Agenzia si siano affrettati a dichiarare che “queste pratiche appartengono al passato” così come la Commissaria agli affari interni Ylva Johansson che si è definita “scioccata” ma “sicura che il consiglio di amministrazione si è assunto pienamente le proprie responsabilità”. “L’Agenzia ha problemi strutturali -osserva Salzano-. Finché non si risolvono è difficile che il suo mandato possa rispettare il diritto internazionale e quello dell’Unione europea. E l’unico passo possibile in questa direzione è una sentenza della Corte di giustizia che ristabilisca i confini del suo operato. Olaf segna un punto di svolta perché l’illegalità è finalmente certificata da un corpo dell’Ue ma resta un ente amministrativo, non una Corte”.

      L’Agenzia infatti è ancora lì (e nessun provvedimento disciplinare è stato preso contro l’ex direttore Leggeri e il suo ex capo di gabinetto, come nota con “rammarico” il Parlamento europeo), sulle frontiere tra Grecia e Turchia (e non solo) dove i respingimenti, così come le condanne della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo nei confronti del governo di Atene, sono proseguiti sistematicamente. E la scusa del “se c’è Frontex si rispettano maggiormente i diritti umani” oggi vacilla ancora di più. Fa poi riflettere che il rapporto Olaf, chiuso nel febbraio 2022, sia rimasto per mesi inaccessibile anche agli stessi parlamentari europei e che solo la sua pubblicazione da parte di alcuni quotidiani e Ong abbia portato l’assemblea di Strasburgo a votare nuovamente il discarico sul bilancio di Frontex e a parlare apertamente di quanto successo.

      https://altreconomia.it/certificate-le-pratiche-illegali-di-frontex-ma-lagenzia-resta-a-operare

  • #Latvia: Refugees and migrants arbitrarily detained, tortured and forced to ‘voluntarily’ return to their countries

    Latvian authorities have violently pushed back refugees and migrants at the country’s borders with Belarus, subjecting many to grave human rights violations, including secret detention and even torture, according to new findings published in a report by Amnesty International.

    Latvia: Return home or never leave the woods reveals the brutal treatment of migrants and refugees – including children – who have been held arbitrarily in undisclosed sites in the Latvian forest, and unlawfully and violently returned to Belarus. Many faced beatings and electric shocks with tasers, including on their genitals. Some were unlawfully forced to return ‘voluntarily’ to their home countries.

    “Latvia has given refugees and migrants a cruel ultimatum: accept to return ‘voluntarily’ to their country, or remain stranded at the border facing detention, unlawful returns and torture. In some cases, their arbitrary detention at the border may amount to enforced disappearance,” said Eve Geddie, Director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office.

    “The Latvian authorities have left men, women and children to fend for themselves in freezing temperatures, often stranded in forests or held in tents. They have violently pushed them back to Belarus, where they have no chance of seeking protection. These actions have nothing to do with border protection and are brazen violations of international and EU law.”

    On 10 August 2021, Latvia introduced a state of emergency following an increase in numbers of people encouraged to come to the border by Belarus. In contrast with EU and international law and the principle of non-refoulement, the emergency rules suspended the right to seek asylum in four border areas and allowed Latvian authorities to forcibly and summarily return people to Belarus.

    Latvian authorities have repeatedly extended the state of emergency, currently until November 2022, despite the decrease of movements over time, and their own admission that the number of attempted entries were the result of multiple crossings by the same people.

    Dozens of refugees and migrants have been arbitrarily held in tents at the border in unsanitary conditions, A small percentage of people were allowed into Latvia, the vast majority of whom were placed in detention centres and offered limited or no access to asylum processes, legal assistance or independent oversight.

    Amnesty’s report on Latvia follows and supplements similar reports focussing on abuses against refugees and migrants by Belarus, Poland and Lithuania.
    Violent pushbacks, arbitrary detention and possible enforced disappearances

    Under the state of emergency, Latvian border guards, in cooperation with unidentified “commandos”, the army and the police, repeatedly subjected people to summary, unlawful and violent forced returns. In response, Belarusian authorities would then systematically push people back to Latvia.

    Zaki, a man from Iraq who was stranded at the border for around three months, told Amnesty International that he had been pushed back more than 150 times, sometimes eight times in a single day.

    Hassan, another man from Iraq who spent five months at the border, said: “They forced us to be completely naked, sometimes they beat us when naked and then they forced us to cross back to Belarus, sometimes having to cross a river which was very cold. They said they would shoot us if we didn’t cross.”

    In between pushbacks, people were forced to spend prolonged periods stranded at the border or in tents set up by the authorities in isolated areas of the forest. Latvian authorities have so far denied using tents for anything other than providing “humanitarian assistance”, but Amnesty International’s findings show that tents were heavily guarded sites used to arbitrarily hold refugees and migrants and as outposts for illegal returns.

    Those not held in tents sometimes ended up stranded in the open at the border, as winter temperatures at times fell to -20C. Adil, a man from Iraq, who spent several months in the forest since August 2021, told Amnesty International: “We used to sleep in the forest on the snow. We used to light fire to get warm, there were wolves, bears.”

    At the border and in the tents, authorities confiscated people’s mobile phones to prevent any communication with the outside world. Some families searched for people who were last known to be in Latvia but could not be reached by phone. A Latvian NGO reported that between August and November 2021, they were contacted by the relatives of more than 30 refugees and migrants feared to have gone missing.

    Holding migrants and refugees in tents in undisclosed locations or leaving them stranded at the border without access to communication or safe alternatives to being continuously shuttled back and forth between Latvia and Belarus constitutes ‘secret detention’ and could amount to enforced disappearance.
    Forced returns, abuse and torture

    With no effective access to asylum under the state of emergency, Latvian officers coerced some people held at the border into agreeing to return ‘voluntarily’ to their countries of origin as the only way to be taken out of the forest.

    Others were coerced or misled into accepting voluntary returns in detention centres or police stations.

    Hassan, from Iraq, told Amnesty International that he tried to explain that his life would be in danger if he was returned: “The commando responded: ‘You can die here too’”.

    Another Iraqi, Omar, described how an officer hit him from behind and forced him to sign a return paper: “He held my hand and said you should do the signature, and then with force, he made me do the signature.”

    In some cases, the IOM representative for Latvia ignored evidence that people transferred as part of “voluntary” return procedures had not provided their genuine consent to returning.

    “Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, continue to commit grave abuses, under the pretext of being under a ‘hybrid attack’ from Belarus. As winter approaches and movements at the border have resumed, the state of emergency continues to allow Latvian authorities to unlawfully return people to Belarus. Many more could be exposed to violence, arbitrary detention and other abuses, with limited or no independent oversight,” said Eve Geddie.

    “Latvia’s shameful treatment of people arriving at its borders presents a vital test for European institutions, which must take urgent measures to ensure that Latvia ends the state of emergency and restores the right to asylum across the country for everyone seeking safety, irrespective of their origin or how they crossed the border.”
    Background

    As pushbacks at the Belarus border with Latvia, Lithuania and Poland re-intensify, the EU Council is prioritizing the adoption of a Regulation on the “instrumentalization” of migrants and asylum seekers. This would allow member states facing situations of “instrumentalization” – as experienced by Latvia – to derogate from their obligations under EU asylum and migration law. The proposal disproportionately impacts the rights of refugees and migrants and risks undermining the uniform application of EU asylum law.

    In June, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that the Lithuanian law on asylum and migration, which limited people’s ability to make asylum applications under the state of emergency and provided for the automatic detention of asylum seekers, was incompatible with EU law.

    The Court’s analysis and conclusions should apply directly to the situation in Latvia, where, since August 2021, the state of emergency effectively prevents most people entering or attempting to enter “irregularly” from Belarus from accessing asylum.

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/10/latvia-refugees-and-migrants-arbitrarily-detained-tortured-and-forced-to-vo

    #Lettonie #réfugiés #asile #migrations #détention #détention_arbitraire #torture #retour_volontaire (sic) #renvois_forcés #pays_baltes #rapport #Amnesty #Amnesty_international #Biélorussie #forêt #push-backs #refoulements #état_d'urgence #police #gardes-frontière #armée #militarisation_des_frontières #violence #abandon #limbe #encampement #commando #milices

    ping @isskein @reka

    • Asylum seekers who claimed torture and abuse in Latvia are using the courts to fight back

      Some of the people looking to take the Latvian state to court have alleged ill-treatment including beatings, electric shocks and cigarette burns.

      Earlier this year, Sidya Sompare, 20, a Guinean man who had attempted to claim asylum in Latvia, tried to end his life in a Latvian detention centre by drinking shampoo in his toilet stall.

      Having fled Guinea in the wake of threats against his safety due to his participation in anti-government protests, Sompare arrived in Belarus in September 2021 on a quest to find a secure life in Europe, before spending six months in the forested border zone between the country and Latvia.

      There, in addition to being pushed back and forth across the border by authorities in both countries, he alleges he was severely beaten, verbally abused, and given barely any food for days on end by Latvian border guards. Sompare then spent eight months in the closed detention center after he lost his passport in the woods and his asylum efforts were denied.

      When Sompare was found on the floor of his toilet stall after his suicide attempt, detention center authorities promptly took him to a hospital.

      “I’m not sick, I’m alright,” he recalled saying to a doctor during an interview with Euronews. “Just I need to be free.”

      He was finally released from detention in April with the help of Doctors Without Borders, an NGO, and a local Latvian human rights group. But Sompare didn’t stop there — having previously filed two unsuccessful complaints against the Latvian state last year for his detention and the dehumanizing treatment he experienced in the forest along the border, he has taken his fight to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where his case was formally registered on July 5.

      Beatings and electric shocks

      Sompare is not alone in turning to legal pathways to seek justice for ill-treatment by Latvian border authorities during the migrant crisis along the Belarusian border.

      As allegations of torture and ill-treatment by Latvian authorities have continued to emerge since last year, an increasing number of migrants and refugees who say they have experienced life-altering trauma at the hands of Latvian security forces have been mounting court challenges against them over the last few months, aiming to hold their former tormentors and the Latvian state accountable.

      These cases, which are mostly taking place at the national level with the exception of Sompare’s, represent some of the first legal efforts in Latvia since the start of the border crisis in 2021 that are specifically focused on the harrowing abuse that border authorities have allegedly inflicted on people crossing the border.

      “All the Latvian institutions, even the ombudsperson of Latvia, they deny that Latvia did anything illegal with those migrants,” said Nikita Matyushchenkov, a human rights lawyer at Respect, Protect, Fulfill (RPF), the legal organisation that helped Sompare file his ECHR case. “So these will be very important judgements.”

      In addition to challenging ongoing deportation procedures against him, Sompare’s ECHR case is focused on the ill-treatment he received in Latvian custody in the forests of the border area, which he and RPF claim was illegal. RPF has also filed three cases at the national level in Latvia, two in March and one in June of this year, on behalf of individuals who claim they were abused by Latvian border authorities between August 2021 and March 2022.

      But these may not be the only cases that will be brought to bear against the Latvian state — Matyushchenkov said that RPF has identified up to 100 people who were abused in one way or another by Latvian border guards while in the forest in the border area.

      Some of Matyushchenkov’s clients have told him that they were beaten with electric shock devices — claims that are consistent with findings documented in 2022 in an Amnesty International report on Latvia’s border. In another report published this month, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment stated that it had received several claims of “severe ill-treatment” from people who were detained after crossing into Latvia, again recounting beatings and electric shocks to areas of the body “including the genitals.”

      ’I got sick physically and mentally’

      The ongoing migrant border crisis has, according to European states, been manufactured by Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, whose government has incentivised people from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia to journey to Belarus before forcing them to cross the borders of Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia illegally as a means of putting pressure on the European Union.

      After establishing a state of emergency along its border in August 2021, Latvia adopted new amendments to its border laws in June of this year that have been denounced by Amnesty International, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UNHCR as legalising internationally-condemned pushbacks. Crucially, these amendments have also enshrined into law the State Border Guard’s broadly defined use of force to prevent illegal entry into Latvia.

      Although Poland and Lithuania have both faced accusations of ill-treatment of migrants as well, Matyushchenkov said that Latvia has been much more extreme in its abuse of people crossing its border.

      In one particularly gruesome case that has previously been reported in international media, Abdulrahman Kiwan, a humanitarian worker who fled Syria following pressure from the government of Bashar al-Assad, has alleged that he not only received electric shocks from Latvian guards, but that they extinguished cigarettes in the places where he had previously been injured.

      Now, Kiwan said he is in touch with a Latvian human rights group about filing his own complaint against the Latvian state — and if it fails, he is also ready to escalate his efforts to the ECHR with the help of legal NGOs.

      “I got sick physically and mentally because of them,” Kiwan, 28, who is now based in Germany, said of the Latvian border authorities. “I want my voice to reach the world and other migrants, that the Latvian Border Guards are liars and are extremely racist.”

      A Latvian human rights group is currently working on preparing a complaint for another refugee based in Germany, Hadi, 26, from Yemen, who told Euronews that Latvian guards beat him, violently struck him in the head, and shocked him with an electric baton. In addition to seeking compensation for crimes committed against him, Hadi, who requested to use an alias due to his ongoing asylum case in Germany, also wants his experience to be a cautionary tale.

      “Legally, I want this complaint [to ensure] that no human being will be harmed after me,” he told Euronews.

      ’The government is scared of me’

      Although Matyushchenkov said the chances of success for migrant cases like these at the ECHR may be significant, the same cannot be said for complaints within the Latvian system.

      “From the way it was investigated at the national level, it seems like the authorities are not willing to investigate such complaints properly,” he said, referencing Sompare’s initial complaint procedure. “In the response to his complaint, they identified a person who allegedly beat the complainant, and they interviewed that person. That security official said he didn’t beat this person, and this was basically the end of the investigation.”

      The Latvian government, including the Latvian State Border Guard, have previously denied any claims of abuse and torture from migrants. As of the writing of this article however, the Latvian State Border Guard, together with the country’s Internal Security Bureau and Prosecution Office which handle legal complaints from people crossing the border, were unavailable for comment.

      Sompare, who is currently living in Latvia’s capital Riga, has no plans to leave Latvia anytime soon. As he fights his still ongoing deportation procedure and the traumatic abuse he suffered in the country, he can feel he is already making an impact.

      “Something is going to change in Latvia,” he said. “Right now for sure the government is scared of me.”

      Despite being severely disappointed in Europe’s capacity to help desperate people like himself, Sompare said he wants to continue his university studies after he wins his case, and hopes to find work at a human rights organization for refugees in Latvia. Until then however, he understands that he is fighting an uphill battle not only to save himself, but also many other asylum seekers who are in the same situation.

      “I want to be an example for the people [to whom] the Latvian government did something illegal,” Sompare said. “The things that I started, I will finish them in Latvia.

      https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/08/01/asylum-seekers-who-claimed-torture-and-abuse-in-latvia-are-using-the-court

      #justice #CEDH #cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l'homme

  • Est-ce que certain-e-s d’entre-vous ont regardé Le monde de demain ?
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/RC-022917/le-monde-de-demain
    Je connais très mal #NTM mais par contre j’ ai acheté des CD de #dee_nasty il y a bien longtemps, et je suis allé une fois au #Globo dans ces années là.
    Ça fait longtemps que je n’ai pas regardé une série française en entier (bon déjà les dialogues sont audibles, c’est déjà ça).
    C’est une série pour boomer comme moi (pour la nostalgie du Paris de l’époque) plutôt que l’opportunité d’une découverte pour des moins vieux ?

  • En Tanzanie, TotalEnergies prépare une bombe climatique aux relents... | Mediapart
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/ecologie/051022/en-tanzanie-totalenergies-prepare-une-bombe-climatique-aux-relents-colonia
    #eacop

    En Tanzanie, TotalEnergies prépare une bombe climatique aux relents colonialistes
    #Les_Amis_de_la_Terre et #Survie publient une enquête inédite sur un futur oléoduc du géant pétrolier français en #Tanzanie. Ce projet écocidaire et néocolonial aura des impacts désastreux sur les plans humain, écologique et climatique. Mais la résistance s’organise.

    le #rapport de l’#ONG :

    https://www.amisdelaterre.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/eacop-la-voie-du-desastre-amis-de-la-terre-survie-oct-2022.pdf https://www.amisdelaterre.org/publication/eacop-la-voie-du-desastre

    • https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2022/10/05/tanzanie-le-projet-d-oleoduc-de-totalenergies-mis-en-cause-par-des-ong-pour-

      Un bilan carbone de 34 millions de tonnes de CO₂ par an
      Le rapport consacre aussi un long chapitre à l’impact environnemental de l’oléoduc, qui traversera plusieurs aires protégées. Il rappelle les risques d’accidents écologiques liés à la nature sismique de la zone et au passage de fréquents ouragans. Selon une étude réalisée par le cabinet E-Tech, spécialisé dans les industries extractives, cette réalité devrait conduire Eacop à renforcer ses dispositifs de prévention en multipliant notamment « les valves de blocage » le long de l’oléoduc pour maîtriser les fuites.

      Après trois années de bataille procédurale, la première audience sur le fond du procès engagé par Les Amis de la Terre et Survie contre TotalEnergies sur son devoir de vigilance devrait se tenir mercredi 12 octobre au tribunal judiciaire de Paris. Le rapport sur le volet tanzanien du projet a été versé aux pièces du dossier. Les ONG, qui demandent l’arrêt de ce projet pétrolier au cœur de l’Afrique des Grands Lacs, ne manqueront pas non plus de rappeler qu’elles comptent désormais dans leurs rangs le Parlement européen. Le 15 septembre, à l’initiative de l’eurodéputé français Pierre Larrouturou (Nouvelle Donne), celui-ci a voté, à une large majorité, une résolution d’urgence pour dénoncer son impact sur les populations, l’environnement et le climat.

      Le bilan carbone du projet s’élève à 34 millions de tonnes de CO₂ par an, davantage que les émissions de l’Ouganda et de la Tanzanie combinées. Les députés exigent l’arrêt des forages dans les aires protégées, ainsi que le report des travaux d’Eacop pendant un an, pour « étudier la faisabilité d’un tracé alternatif » permettant de préserver l’environnement et d’« envisager d’autres projets reposant sur les énergies renouvelables ». Les eurodéputés demandent également que soit mis fin aux violations des droits humains. Le PDG de TotalEnergies, Patrick Pouyanné, invité à venir s’exprimer devant la commission des droits humains du Parlement européen le 10 octobre, a décliné la proposition.

  • Report: Morocco uses green energy to embellish its occupation

    By 2030, half of Morocco’s wind energy production could be generated illegally in occupied Western Sahara. Yet, Morocco presents itself as best-in-class on the energy transition.

    In November 2021, the governments of the world will meet in Glasgow for the COP26 climate talks. At the same time, Morocco - the occupying power of Western Sahara - is erecting its largest energy project on occupied land to date: another step forward in its comprehensive plan to build controversial infrastructure on the land it illegally holds.

    #Western_Sahara_Resource_Watch (#WSRW) today publishes a report exposing all existing and planned renewable energy projects in occupied Western Sahara.

    The report estimates that the energy produced from wind in the territory could constitute 47.20% of Morocco’s total wind capacity by the year 2030, while its share of generated solar power may by then reach 32.64% of Morocco’s total solar capacity.

    As late as 30 September 2021, a new company, #General_Electric, announced an agreement to take part in the controversy.

    The energy produced on occupied land increases Morocco’s dependency on the territory that it occupies. As such, the projects fundamentally undermine the UN peace efforts in Western Sahara directed towards allowing the expression of the right to self-determination of the Saharawi people. The energy is used by industries that plunder the territory’s non-renewable resources, and provides job opportunities attracting more settlers from Morocco. It may also, in time, be exported abroad, including to the EU.

    Morocco brands itself internationally as best in class on renewable energy as part of its commitments under the Paris Agreement. States, however, are only meant to present efforts undertaken in their own territory, not outside of their borders. The UN body that registers and reviews state parties’ achievements, the UNFCCC, claims that it is not in a position to assess the content of the submissions. The scandal of the UNFCCC’s complacency is, of course, compounded by the fact that Morocco’s energy projects can only be carried out under the military occupation that the UN’s central bodies have declared illegal.

    None of the companies participating in the renewable energy industry inside Western Sahara, including those most heavily implicated - Italian company Enel and Spanish Siemens Gamesa - have clarified whether they have even tried to obtain the consent of the people of the territory.

    Instead, the companies refer to an alleged ‘consultation’ of local ‘stakeholders’ or ‘population’. This is the exact same flawed approach taken by the European Commission in its trade and fisheries agreements with Morocco. The European Court of Justice ruled on 29 September 2021 that the EU’s approach in Western Sahara is illegal. The Court explicitly stated that the liberation movement Polisario is the representative of the Saharawi people, that consent must be obtained from them, and that a ‘consultation’ of the ‘population’ cannot substitute the legal requirement of Saharawi consent.

    WSRW demands an immediate exit of all energy companies from the occupied territory, and asks the UNFCCC and its State Parties to challenge Morocco’s systematically erroneous climate reporting.

    https://wsrw.org/en/news/report-morocco-uses-green-energy-to-embellish-its-occupation

    #Maroc #Sahara_occidental #occupation #green_washing #rapport #énergie_éolienne #énergie #transition_énergétique #énergies_renouvelables

    ping @visionscarto

    • Il Sahara Occidentale di fronte all’estrattivismo “green”
      Report del workshop al Venice Climate Camp, di Héctor Santorum

      L’8 settembre 2022 si è tenuto al Venice Climate Camp il workshop “Sahrawi: Colonialismo, estrattivismo e repressione nel Sahara Occidentale” a cura della Sahrawi Youth Union. Proponiamo qui il report del workshop stilato da uno degli organizzatori. Ulteriori informazioni sull’operato delle multinazionali nel Sahara Occidentale sono reperibili sul sito Western Sahara Resource Watch. Traduzione di Fiorella Zenobio.

      Il Sahara Occidentale produce il 50% del PIL marocchino. Alla sommità dell’ordine sociale si trova il colonizzatore, che sia esso un militare, un funzionario o un commerciante; nella parte inferiore troviamo invece il colonizzato. Le azioni dei colonizzatori beneficiano loro stessi e la classe dirigente marocchina. È piuttosto facile individuare il funzionario e il militare. Ma chi è il commerciante? È ognuna delle aziende, statali o private, marocchine o straniere, che operano nel Sahara Occidentale, con la complicità di diversi paesi. Sono questi gli strumenti necessari per la colonizzazione.

      Nel 1884, si svolge la Conferenza di Berlino, nella quale le potenze europee si spartiscono l’Africa. Quello stesso anno avviene la colonizzazione ufficiale del Sahara Occidentale da parte della Spagna. Nel 1957, l’ONU elabora una lista di territori non autonomi, nella quale è incluso il Sahara Occidentale. Due anni dopo, la Spagna avvia le attività di estrazione di risorse e dichiara il Sahara la sua provincia numero 53, concedendo forme di rappresentanza ai sahrawi al fine di evitare la decolonizzazione.

      Nel 1960, l’Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite approva la risoluzione 1514 secondo la quale “qualsiasi territorio non autonomo deve poter esercitare il proprio diritto all’autodeterminazione attraverso un referendum” e il Marocco inizia a reclamare il Sahara come proprio. Nel 1975, il Marocco chiede alla Corte Internazionale di Giustizia un parere consultivo riguardo all’appartenenza del Sahara al Marocco e/o alla Mauritania. La risposta è che il Sahara non è mai appartenuto a nessuno dei due. La Spagna comunica allora che si terrà il referendum.

      La reazione a questi avvenimenti è la cosiddetta “Marcia Verde”, una colonna composta da migliaia di persone – civili e militari marocchini – che si dirige verso il territorio sahrawi il 6 novembre 1975. Il 14 novembre si tiene a Madrid il vertice tra Spagna, Marocco e Mauritania per firmare gli “Accordi di Madrid”, a partire dai quali la Spagna abbandona il territorio del Sahara Occidentale cedendone la titolarità a Marocco e Mauritania. Questa cessione non viene riconosciuta dalle Nazioni Unite, motivo per cui la Spagna continua a essere considerata responsabile della decolonizzazione del territorio.

      Parallelamente a questo accordo, le truppe spagnole abbandonano i sahrawi, che in quel momento erano considerati una delle tante province spagnole e possedevano documenti identificativi spagnoli. Il Fronte Polisario, successore del Movimento Nazionale di Liberazione Sahrawi, dà inizio alla guerra contro il Marocco e la Mauritania.

      Nel 1979, la Mauritania si ritira dalla guerra e riconosce la Repubblica Democratica Araba dei Sahrawi. Nel 1991, le Nazioni Unite intervengono affinché venga firmato il “Plan de Arreglo” [una sorta di Piano d’Intesa] tra il Sahara e il Marocco, vale a dire: il cessate il fuoco, lo svolgimento del referendum entro sei mesi e la creazione di MINURSO, organo incaricato di portare a termine il referendum.

      Un muro minato di oltre duemila chilometri divide le famiglie sahrawi da circa quarant’anni. Durante tutto questo tempo, il popolo sahrawi ha fatto affidamento sulle Nazioni Unite per trovare una soluzione pacifica attraverso il referendum, che però non è mai stato realizzato. La guerra è riscoppiata nel novembre 2020 in seguito alla rottura del cessate il fuoco da parte del Marocco all’altezza del villaggio di Guerguerat. Un gruppo di sahrawi aveva infatti manifestato pacificamente bloccando un’autostrada illegale costruita dal Marocco nel villaggio di Guerguerat, una rotta terrestre per il commercio di prodotti provenienti anche dal Sahara occupato.

      Nei territori occupati dal Marocco si trovano quasi 600.000 persone, delle quali circa 400.000 sono sahrawi. Questi ultimi sono soggetti a violazioni dei diritti umani ed emarginazione sociale (l’80% è disoccupato). È uno spazio chiuso, il Marocco vieta l’accesso agli organi internazionali rendendolo un carcere a cielo aperto. La situazione nei campi per rifugiati di Tindouf è precaria. I loro abitanti hanno accesso limitato a elettricità e acqua, vivono in condizioni climatiche estreme e dipendono dagli aiuti umanitari, in calo a causa delle diverse crisi internazionali.

      Il Marocco non ha gas o petrolio, per cui dipende dalle importazioni. L’azienda norvegese Wisby Tankers AB consegna ogni giorno mezzo milione di litri di petrolio al porto di El Laayoune. Il 30% di questo petrolio viene impiegato da veicoli militari. Il Marocco vuole incrementare la propria capacità produttiva di energia solare ed eolica, rispettivamente del 47% e del 32% entro il 2030. Ci sono diverse aziende coinvolte, tra le quali Siemens Gamesa ed Enel Green Energy, che sostengono di avere il consenso della popolazione, affermazione che risulta essere falsa. Infatti, il consenso dev’essere ottenuto innanzitutto dal Fronte Polisario, il rappresentante riconosciuto dalle Nazioni Unite.

      Per cosa vengono usati questi progetti rinnovabili? Nel Sahara occupato si trovano grandi quantità di fosfato. Il 95% dei bisogni energetici dell’azienda statale marocchina per il fosfato viene soddisfatto dal parco eolico di Foum El Oued. L’industria dei fosfati sahrawi genera annualmente 400 milioni di euro per il Marocco. Il nuovo progetto di Dakhla mira a supportare ed espandere l’industria agricola. Annualmente vengono prodotte 160.000 tonnellate di pomodori, meloni e cetrioli, per il 95% esportate sui mercati internazionali. Tali prodotti provenienti da Dakhla vengono rietichettati ad Agadir per nasconderne la vera provenienza e commercializzarli nei mercati europei.

      Questi progetti ripuliscono la propria immagine con l’energia rinnovabile, fenomeno che chiamiamo “greenwashing”, ma in realtà aiutano a perpetuare l’estrattivismo, ottimizzandolo e consolidandolo. La presenza di queste compagnie si traduce in un supporto implicito alla colonizzazione. Esse affermano che il loro lavoro beneficerà il Sahara (Enel Green Energy), che non si occupano di politica (Enel Green Energy) e che non ci sono sanzioni internazionali (Enel Green Energy, Wisby Tankers AB). Tali argomentazioni dimostrano l’inesistenza della loro etica aziendale.

      Per quanto riguarda l’Unione Europea, la sua posizione ufficiale è la difesa delle risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite. Tuttavia, l’Europa riserva un trattamento differenziato al Sahara occupato e alla Crimea. La Siemens è stata investigata a causa dell’installazione delle sue turbine in Crimea in violazione delle sanzioni contro la Russia. Sembra però che le aziende europee e il governo marocchino abbiano il via libera per fare nei e dei territori occupati ciò che vogliono, senza timore di ripercussioni.

      Di recente, il 29 settembre 2021, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea ha annullato alcune decisioni del Consiglio relative all’Accordo tra l’Unione Europea e il Marocco. Questi ultimi volevano estendere l’Accordo ai prodotti agricoli provenienti dal Sahara Occidentale e modificare l’Accordo di Pesca includendovi acque territoriali sahrawi. Le acque in questione sono molto proficue per la pesca, producono circa due milioni di tonnellate annuali, rendendo il Marocco il primo esportatore ittico dell’Africa. Il 70% di queste esportazioni arriva in Europa.

      In conclusione, la situazione attuale è difficile. Al livello globale, si stanno creando zone di sacrificio, dove non hanno importanza né i diritti umani, né l’ambiente, né alcunché. Il Sahara Occidentale è una di queste zone, dove importa solo il tornaconto economico delle attività che le aziende straniere svolgono nel territorio. Non conta se sono immorali o se supportano la colonizzazione, in quanto i mezzi di comunicazione non ne parlano. Nonostante siano trascorsi quasi cinquant’anni dall’inizio dell’occupazione, il popolo sahrawi continua a lottare.
      Fonti

      - Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea, comunicato stampa n° 166/21, settembre 2021 (es – en – fr)
      - Western Sahara Resource Watch (WSRW) ed Emmaus Stockholm, Report “Combustible para la ocupación”, giugno 2014.
      – Western Sahara Resource Watch (WSRW), Report “Greenwashing Occupation”, ottobre 2021.
      - Western Sahara Resource Watch (WSRW) ed Emmaus Stockholm, Report “Conflict Tomatoes”, febbraio 2012.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2022/09/il-sahara-occidentale-di-fronte-allestrattivismo-green
      #extractivisme

  • #Nioro_du_Sahel, une ville sous tension

    #Nioro du Sahel. Une ville du #Mali isolée à la frontière mauritanienne, à près de 500 kilomètres de pistes de Bamako, Bref, Nioro n’est pas une priorité économique et n’a jamais été électrifiée par l’État malien. Le soir venu, les Niorois s’organisent... et les familles aisées se distinguent au bruit de leur groupe électrogène. Le courant, lui, suit les liens de parenté et de voisinage.
    Mais, depuis quelques années, une équipe de Français s’est lancée dans l’électrification de la ville. Au-delà des câbles et des poteaux, le réseau électrique révèle rapidement son enjeu social et politique. Le projet dépasse alors « l’objet technique » des Français et dévoile de profondes tensions...

    http://www.film-documentaire.fr/4DACTION/w_fiche_film/5046_1

    Un film intéressant qui permet de se rendre compte de ce qui se passe quand on fait une intervention technique sans prendre en compte les rapports sociaux et les enjeux de pouvoir...

    A partir de la minute 18’18 (part 2) :

    Quand les électriciens français se rendent compte que probablement les habitants n’auront pas l’argent pour se payer l’électricité dans leurs foyers...
    Electricien 1 :

    « Il faut savoir se remettre en question. Est-ce qu’ils l’ont bien compris ? »

    Electricien 2 :

    « C’est pas eux qui ont été demandeurs, c’est nous qui avons voulu améliorer leur vie. Est-ce qu’en faisant comme ça nous n’avons pas fait une mauvaise approche ? Parce que eux, ils ne demandaient rien, ils voulaient bien avoir un peu de courant pour avoir un peu de télévision »

    #film #film_documentaire #électricité #électrification #coopération_au_développement #aide_au_développement #développement #documentaire #Nioro-du-Sahel
    #groupe_électrogène #jumelage #solidarité_internationale #EDF #club_CODEV #Limours #bénévolat #coût #prix #incompréhension #inégalités #rapports_de_pouvoir

  • British Muslims’ citizenship reduced to ‘second-class’ status, says thinktank

    Recently extended powers to strip people of their nationality almost exclusively targets Muslims, report says

    British Muslims have had their citizenship reduced to “second-class” status as a result of recently extended powers to strip people of their nationality, a thinktank has claimed.

    The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) says the targets of such powers are almost exclusively Muslims, mostly of south Asian heritage, embedding discrimination and creating a lesser form of citizenship.

    The IRR’s report was published on Sunday amid renewed controversy over the case of Shamima Begum, who was smuggled into the hands of Islamic State aged 15, and in the wake of the Nationality and Borders Act – that allowed citizenship to be stripped without notifying the subject, coming on to the statute books.

    Frances Webber, IRR vice-chair and report author, wrote: “The message sent by the legislation on deprivation of citizenship since 2002 and its implementation largely against British Muslims of south Asian heritage is that, despite their passports, these people are not and can never be ‘true’ citizens, in the same way that ‘natives’ are.

    “While a ‘native’ British citizen, who has access to no other citizenship, can commit the most heinous crimes without jeopardising his right to remain British, none of the estimated 6 million British citizens with access to another citizenship can feel confident in the perpetual nature of their citizenship.”

    Webber said before being used against the Muslim preacher Abu Hamza in 2003, no deprivation of citizenship had been authorised for 30 years. But since then there have been at least 217, with 104 removals in 2017 after the collapse of Islamic State in Syria.

    Despite government claims that powers are only used against those who pose a grave threat to national security, or who have committed abhorrent crimes, the “Citizenship: from right to privilege” report argues the effect is that certain people have a “second-class, disposable, contingent citizenship”.

    Webbersaid: “These classes of citizenship were brought in to target British Muslims of south Asian and Middle Eastern heritage. Such divisions act as a constant reminder to minority ethnic citizens that they must watch their step, and reinforce racist messages about ‘undeserving’ racialised groups unworthy of being British.”

    The report describes the criteria for deprivation of citizenship as “nebulous and undefined” and warns of a risk of its use for political purposes, with Webber highlighting Begum’s case as an example. It was recently alleged Begum was rtrafficked into Syria by a spy working for Canadian intelligence.

    “It raises the question: was Begum’s citizenship removed to divert attention from western agencies’ prioritisation of intelligence gathering over safeguarding vulnerable trafficked girls?” said Webber.

    Citing the Prevent counter-terrorism programme, which has been dogged by claims of being a cover to spy on Muslim communities, the report said citizenship-stripping is “just one aspect of measures targeting Muslim communities, in Britain and abroad, in the past two decades, which have helped to turn British Muslims in the UK into a ‘suspect community’”.

    The latest change to citizen-stripping powers in the Nationality and Borders Act, heightened public awareness – and criticism – of the existing rules as well as the additions, provoking public protests, opposition from campaigners as well as some MPs and Lords.

    The Home Office said the legislation did not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, and that the test for deprivation was clearly set out.

    A spokesperson said: “Our priority is to ensure the safety and security of the UK. Deprivation of citizenship only happens after careful consideration of the facts and in accordance with international law. It is used against those who have acquired citizenship by fraud and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals.

    “We make no apology for doing whatever is necessary to protect the UK from those who pose a threat to our security.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/11/british-muslims-citizenship-reduced-to-second-class-status-says-thinkta
    #UK #Angleterre #citoyenneté #musulmans #nationalité #déchéance_de_nationalité #minorités_ethniques

    ping @karine4 @cede

    • Citizenship: from right to privilege

      Citizenship-stripping powers introduced since 2002 have enshrined a ‘second-class citizenship’ in the UK, mainly affecting British Muslims, says a new report from the Institute of Race Relations.

      Written in the wake of the Nationality and Borders Act, Citizenship: from right to privilege shows how outrage against the controversial ‘clause 9’ (now Section 10 of the Act), allowing citizenship to be removed without notice, heightened public awareness of the powers, and provoked a groundswell of opposition amongst campaigners, MPs and Lords.

      Examining the history of nationality and citizenship legislation since the ‘East African Asians’ scandal of 1968, the background paper explains how both Labour and Conservative governments have given ministers successively wider powers to remove citizenship from those with access to another citizenship – who are mainly ethnic minorities – and how the targets are almost exclusively British Muslims of south Asian heritage.

      The power to remove citizenship from those obtaining it fraudulently is not considered contentious, but the stripping of citizenship on other, often vaguer grounds has become controversial. Such deprivation increased heavily following its use against Muslim preacher Abu Hamza in 2003. Before Hamza, no removal of citizenship had been authorised for 30 years, but since then, there have been at least 217 removals of citizenship, with 104 removals in 2017 following the collapse of ISIS in Syria.

      The government claims that only those whose actions pose grave threats to national security, or who have committed abhorrent crimes, will lose their citizenship. But the report’s author, IRR vice-chair Frances Webber believes the powers affect far more people, effectively creating a second-class of largely minority ethnic Britons whose citizenship is disposable and contingent:

      ‘Changes to citizenship law which have created these classes of citizenship were brought in to target British Muslims of south Asian and middle eastern heritage. Such divisions act as a constant reminder to minority ethnic citizens that they must watch their step, and reinforce racist messages about “undeserving” racialised groups unworthy of being British.’

      The Home Office is not required to show objectively reasonable grounds to remove a person’s citizenship, nor does the person need to have been convicted of any offence, with many deprived despite having no criminal convictions. The report argues that the ambiguous, undefined criteria for deprivation increases the likelihood of arbitrary and discriminatory decisions, and warns of the risk of abuse of the powers for political purposes – an apt warning given the disclosure that Shamima Begum, whose citizenship was removed by then home secretary Sajid Javid in 2018, had been trafficked into Syria by a Canadian spy. ‘The recent revelation of how Begum was trafficked, and the collusion of the British authorities in the cover-up, suggests that risk is a reality,’ said Webber. ‘It raises the question: was Begum’s citizenship removed to divert attention from Western agencies’ prioritisation of intelligence gathering over safeguarding vulnerable trafficked girls?’

      The ability to challenge decisions has also been diminished, with the briefing highlighting the case of a British-born domestic abuse victim who lost her appeal against citizenship removal although she had been coerced by her husband into travelling to Syria.

      Webber adds that the legislation is also a threat to racialised communities’ right to dissent or criticise the government, with Muslims turned into a ‘suspect community’. The increased use of the powers, alongside other provisions affecting Muslim communities, including the controversial Prevent duty, has coincided with the government’s shift away from racial and religious equality protections, which new prime minister Liz Truss has described as ‘favouritism’.

      Webber warns that the measures share the same rationale with the infamous Windrush scandal that came to light in 2018:

      ‘The ‘deportation logic’ on which the deprivation powers are based – get rid of them, regardless of family ties, or how long they have lived here– is the logic that deprived the Windrush generation of their livelihoods, their homes, in some cases their freedom and their country.’

      https://irr.org.uk/article/citizenship-from-right-to-privilege

      #rapport #privilège #loi

  • EU Commissioner Johansson opens first #High_Level_Network_for_returns

    On 8 September, experts from Frontex, Member States and the European Commission met in Brussels to open the first High-Level Network on Returns to discuss the main challenges and developments affecting return operations in the European Union.

    EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson opened the meeting:

    “Today I am proud to launch this high-level network on returns. To return people with dignity, effectively and rapidly, I made returns a cornerstone of the new pact on migration and asylum.

    “What’s clear: we’re at our best when we work together,” she added.

    This new network is composed of representatives from Member States and Schengen Associated Countries` institutions responsible for return and was founded to coordinate the efforts made by all Member States to ensure effective returns on EU level. The event was chaired by the EU Return Coordinator Mari Juritsch.

    Lars Gerdes, Frontex Deputy Executive Director for Returns and Operations, underlined the agency’s growing role when it comes to returns:

    “Frontex plays a key role in implementing the EU strategy on return by providing technical and operational support the Member States in the whole return process, including on voluntary returns, post arrival and reintegration.”

    “With our support, the number of people who return to their countries of origin keeps growing. This year, people who returned voluntarily make up for 58% of the total number of persons returned by scheduled flights,” he added.

    The agency also continued to increase the number of flights with forced-return monitors on board. Out of 136 forced return operations coordinated by Frontex in the first half of this year, 104 had monitors on board.

    In April, Frontex has started providing reintegration assistance to migrants returned to their countries of origin and already more than 200 people have received assistance. The Frontex Joint Reintegration Services already covers 26 countries and will be further expanded.

    In 2022, there has been a significant increase in the number of voluntary returns supported by the agency and their number keeps growing. So far this year, Frontex supported the voluntary return of 5327 non-EU nationals, compared to 4589 the year before. We also provide experts who work at the main international airports in the EU to support with return-related matters.

    Frontex is responsible for the coordination of return operations, but it is crucial to understand that the decision about who should be returned is always taken by the judicial or administrative authorities of the Member States.

    https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/eu-commissioner-johansson-opens-first-frontex-return-network-BGbBhM
    #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #réfugiés #EU #UE #Frontex
    #dignité (sic) #efficacité (sic) #rapidité (sic) #Mari_Juritsch #Lars_Gerdes #réintégration #post-arrivée #retours_volontaires #retours_forcés #Frontex_Joint_Reintegration_Services #aéroports

    ping @isskein @_kg_ @karine4 @rhoumour