• Tous chasseurs cueilleurs !
    https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/comme-un-bruit-qui-court/comme-un-bruit-qui-court-08-juin-2019

    Quand la civilisation menace l’#environnement... retour à la chasse et la cueillette. Entretien avec James C. Scott autour de son livre "#HomoDomesticus, une histoire profonde des premiers Etats".

    On a tous en tête des souvenirs d’école sur les débuts de l’Histoire avec un grand H. Quelque part entre le Tigre et l’Euphrate il y a 10 000 ans, des chasseurs-cueilleurs se sont peu à peu sédentarisés en domestiquant les plantes et les animaux, inventant dans la foulée l’#agriculture, l’écriture et les premiers Etats. C’était l’aube de la #civilisation et le début de la marche forcée vers le #progrès.

    Cette histoire, #JamesScott, anthropologue anarchiste et professeur de sciences politiques, l’a enseignée pendant des années à ses élèves de l’Université de Yale. Mais les découvertes archéologiques dans l’actuel Irak des dernières années l’ont amené à réviser complètement ce « storytelling » du commencement des sociétés humaines, et par là même remettre en question notre rapport au monde dans son dernier livre : Homo Domesticus, une histoire profonde des premiers Etats (Ed. La Découverte).

    Alors même que climat et biodiversité sont aujourd’hui plus que jamais menacés par les activités humaines, James C. Scott propose de réévaluer l’intérêt des sociétés d’avant l’Etat et l’agriculture. Car ces chasseurs-cueilleurs semi-nomades ont longtemps résisté face aux civilisations agraires, basées sur les céréales et qui, en domestiquant le monde, se sont domestiqués eux-mêmes, en appauvrissant leur connaissance du monde.

    Un reportage de Giv Anquetil.
    Les liens

    James C. Scott : « Le monde des chasseurs-cueilleurs était un monde enchanté » (Le grand entretien) par Jean-Christophe Cavallin, Diakritik

    Plutôt couler en beauté que flotter sans grâce, Réflexions sur l’effondrement, Corinne Morel Darleux, Editions Libertalia

    "Amador Rojas invite Karime Amaya" Chapiteau du Cirque Romanès - Paris 16, Paris. Prochaine séance le vendredi 14 juin à 20h.

    Homo Domesticus, une histoire profonde des premiers Etats, James C. Scott (Editions La Découverte)

    Eloge des chasseurs-cueilleurs, revue Books (mai 2019).

    HOMO DOMESTICUS - JAMES C. SCOTT Une Histoire profonde des premiers États [Fiche de lecture], Lundi matin

    Bibliographie de l’association Deep Green Resistance
    Programmation musicale

    "Mesopotamia"- B52’s

    "Cholera" - El Rego et ses commandos

    #podcast @cdb_77

    • Homo Domesticus. Une histoire profonde des premiers États

      Aucun ouvrage n’avait jusqu’à présent réussi à restituer toute la profondeur et l’extension universelle des dynamiques indissociablement écologiques et anthropologiques qui se sont déployées au cours des dix millénaires ayant précédé notre ère, de l’émergence de l’agriculture à la formation des premiers centres urbains, puis des premiers États.
      C’est ce tour de force que réalise avec un brio extraordinaire #Homo_domesticus. Servi par une érudition étourdissante, une plume agile et un sens aigu de la formule, ce livre démonte implacablement le grand récit de la naissance de l’#État antique comme étape cruciale de la « #civilisation » humaine.
      Ce faisant, il nous offre une véritable #écologie_politique des formes primitives d’#aménagement_du_territoire, de l’« #autodomestication » paradoxale de l’animal humain, des dynamiques démographiques et épidémiologiques de la #sédentarisation et des logiques de la #servitude et de la #guerre dans le monde antique.
      Cette fresque omnivore et iconoclaste révolutionne nos connaissances sur l’évolution de l’humanité et sur ce que Rousseau appelait « l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes ».


      https://www.editionsladecouverte.fr/homo_domesticus-9782707199232

      #James_Scott #livre #démographie #épidémiologie #évolution #humanité #histoire #inégalité #inégalités #Etat #écologie #anthropologie #ressources_pédagogiques #auto-domestication

    • Fiche de lecture: Homo Domesticus - James C. Scott

      Un fidèle lecteur de lundimatin nous a transmis cette fiche de lecture du dernier ouvrage de James C. Scott, (on peut la retrouver sur le blog de la bibliothèque fahrenheit) qui peut s’avérer utile au moment l’institution étatique semble si forte et fragile à la fois.
      « L’État est à l’origine un racket de protection mis en œuvre par une bande de voleurs qui l’a emporté sur les autres »
      À la recherche de l’origine des États antiques, James C. Scott, professeur de science politique et d’anthropologie, bouleverse les grands #récits_civilisationnels. Contrairement à bien des idées reçues, la #domestication des plantes et des animaux n’a pas entraîné la fin du #nomadisme ni engendré l’#agriculture_sédentaire. Et jusqu’il y a environ quatre siècles un tiers du globe était occupé par des #chasseurs-cueilleurs tandis que la majorité de la population mondiale vivait « hors d’atteinte des entités étatiques et de leur appareil fiscal ».
      Dans la continuité de #Pierre_Clastres et de #David_Graeber, James C. Scott contribue à mettre à mal les récits civilisationnels dominants. Avec cette étude, il démontre que l’apparition de l’État est une anomalie et une contrainte, présentant plus d’inconvénients que d’avantages, raison pour laquelle ses sujets le fuyait. Comprendre la véritable origine de l’État c’est découvrir qu’une toute autre voie était possible et sans doute encore aujourd’hui.

      La première domestication, celle du #feu, est responsable de la première #concentration_de_population. La construction de niche de #biodiversité par le biais d’une #horticulture assistée par le feu a permis de relocaliser la faune et la flore désirable à l’intérieur d’un cercle restreint autour des #campements. La #cuisson des aliments a externalisé une partie du processus de #digestion. Entre 8000 et 6000 avant notre ère, Homo sapiens a commencé à planter toute la gamme des #céréales et des #légumineuses, à domestiquer des #chèvres, des #moutons, des #porcs, des #bovins, c’est-à-dire bien avant l’émergence de sociétés étatiques de type agraire. Les premiers grands établissements sédentaires sont apparus en #zones_humides et non en milieu aride comme l’affirment les récits traditionnels, dans des plaines alluviales à la lisière de plusieurs écosystèmes (#Mésopotamie, #vallée_du_Nil, #fleuve_Indus, #baie_de_Hangzhou, #lac_Titicata, site de #Teotihuacan) reposant sur des modes de subsistance hautement diversifiés (sauvages, semi-apprivoisés et entièrement domestiqués) défiant toute forme de comptabilité centralisée. Des sous-groupes pouvaient se consacrer plus spécifiquement à une stratégie au sein d’un économie unifiée et des variations climatiques entraînaient mobilité et adaptation « technologique ». La #sécurité_alimentaire était donc incompatible avec une #spécialisation étroite sur une seule forme de #culture ou d’#élevage, requérant qui plus est un travail intensif. L’#agriculture_de_décrue fut la première à apparaître, n’impliquant que peu d’efforts humains.
      Les #plantes complètement domestiquées sont des « anomalies hyperspécialisées » puisque le cultivateur doit contre-sélectionner les traits sélectionnés à l’état sauvage (petite taille des graines, nombreux appendices, etc). De même les #animaux_domestiqués échappent à de nombreuses pressions sélectives (prédation, rivalité alimentaire ou sexuelle) tout en étant soumis à de nouvelles contraintes, par exemple leur moins grande réactivité aux stimuli externes va entraîner une évolution comportementale et provoquer la #sélection des plus dociles. On peut dire que l’espèce humaine elle-même a été domestiquée, enchaînée à un ensemble de routines. Les chasseurs-cueilleurs maîtrisaient une immense variété de techniques, basées sur une connaissance encyclopédique conservée dans la mémoire collective et transmise par #tradition_orale. « Une fois qu’#Homo_sapiens a franchi le Rubicon de l’agriculture, notre espèce s’est retrouvée prisonnière d’une austère discipline monacale rythmée essentiellement par le tic-tac contraignant de l’horloge génétique d’une poignée d’espèces cultivées. » James C. Scott considère la #révolution_néolithique récente comme « un cas de #déqualification massive », suscitant un #appauvrissement du #régime_alimentaire, une contraction de l’espace vital.
      Les humains se sont abstenus le plus longtemps possible de faire de l’agriculture et de l’élevage les pratiques de subsistance dominantes en raison des efforts qu’elles exigeaient. Ils ont peut-être été contraints d’essayer d’extraire plus de #ressources de leur environnement, au prix d’efforts plus intenses, à cause d’une pénurie de #gros_gibier.
      La population mondiale en 10 000 avant notre ère était sans doute de quatre millions de personnes. En 5 000, elle avait augmenté de cinq millions. Au cours des cinq mille ans qui suivront, elle sera multipliée par vingt pour atteindre cent millions. La stagnation démographique du #néolithique, contrastant avec le progrès apparent des #techniques_de_subsistance, permet de supposer que cette période fut la plus meurtrière de l’histoire de l’humanité sur le plan épidémiologique. La sédentarisation créa des conditions de #concentration_démographique agissant comme de véritables « parcs d’engraissement » d’#agents_pathogènes affectant aussi bien les animaux, les plantes que les humains. Nombre de #maladies_infectieuses constituent un « #effet_civilisationnel » et un premier franchissement massif de la barrière des espèces par un groupe pathogènes.
      Le #régime_alimentaire_céréalier, déficient en #acides_gras essentiels, inhibe l’assimilation du #fer et affecte en premier lieu les #femmes. Malgré une #santé fragile, une #mortalité infantile et maternelle élevée par rapport aux chasseurs-cueilleurs, les agriculteurs sédentaires connaissaient des #taux_de_reproduction sans précédent, du fait de la combinaison d’une activité physique intense avec un régime riche en #glucides, provoquant une #puberté plus précoce, une #ovulation plus régulière et une #ménopause plus tardive.

      Les populations sédentaires cultivant des #céréales domestiquées, pratiquant le commerce par voie fluviale ou maritime, organisées en « #complexe_proto-urbain », étaient en place au néolithique, deux millénaires avant l’apparition des premiers États. Cette « plateforme » pouvait alors être « capturée », « parasitée » pour constituer une solide base de #pouvoir et de #privilèges politiques. Un #impôt sur les céréales, sans doute pas inférieur au cinquième de la récolte, fournissait une rente aux élites. « L’État archaïque était comme les aléas climatiques : une menace supplémentaire plus qu’un bienfaiteur. » Seules les céréales peuvent servir de base à l’impôt, de part leur visibilité, leur divisibilité, leur « évaluabilité », leur « stockabilité », leur transportabilité et leur « rationabilité ». Au détour d’un note James C. Scott réfute l’hypothèse selon laquelle des élites bienveillantes ont créé l’État essentiellement pour défendre les #stocks_de_céréales et affirme au contraire que « l’État est à l’origine un racket de protection mis en œuvre par une bande de voleurs qui l’a emporté sur les autres ». La majeure partie du monde et de sa population a longtemps existé en dehors du périmètre des premiers États céréaliers qui n’occupaient que des niches écologiques étroites favorisant l’#agriculture_intensive, les #plaines_alluviales. Les populations non-céréalières n’étaient pas isolées et autarciques mais s’adonnaient à l’#échange et au #commerce entre elles.
      Nombre de #villes de #Basse_Mésopotamie du milieu du troisième millénaire avant notre ère, étaient entourées de murailles, indicateurs infaillibles de la présence d’une agriculture sédentaire et de stocks d’aliments. De même que les grandes #murailles en Chine, ces #murs d’enceinte étaient érigés autant dans un but défensif que dans le but de confiner les paysans contribuables et de les empêcher de se soustraire.
      L’apparition des premiers systèmes scripturaux coïncide avec l’émergence des premiers États. Comme l’expliquait #Proudhon, « être gouverné, c’est être, à chaque opération, à chaque transaction, à chaque mouvement, noté, enregistré, recensé, tarifé, timbré, toisé, coté, cotisé, patenté, licencié, autorisé, apostillé, admonesté, empêché, réformé, redressé, corrigé ». L’#administration_étatique s’occupait de l’#inventaire des ressources disponibles, de #statistiques et de l’#uniformisation des #monnaies et des #unités_de_poids, de distance et de volume. En Mésopotamie l’#écriture a été utilisée à des fins de #comptabilité pendant cinq siècle avant de commencer à refléter les gloires civilisationnelles. Ces efforts de façonnage radical de la société ont entraîné la perte des États les plus ambitieux : la Troisième Dynastie d’#Ur (vers 2100 avant J.-C.) ne dura qu’à peine un siècle et la fameuse dynastie #Qin (221-206 avant J.-C.) seulement quinze ans. Les populations de la périphérie auraient rejeté l’usage de l’écriture, associée à l’État et à l’#impôt.

      La #paysannerie ne produisait pas automatiquement un excédent susceptible d’être approprié par les élites non productrices et devait être contrainte par le biais de #travail_forcé (#corvées, réquisitions de céréales, #servitude pour dettes, #servage, #asservissement_collectif ou paiement d’un tribu, #esclavage). L’État devait respecter un équilibre entre maximisation de l’excédent et risque de provoquer un exode massif. Les premiers codes juridiques témoignent des efforts en vue de décourager et punir l’#immigration même si l’État archaïque n’avait pas les moyens d’empêcher un certain degré de déperdition démographique. Comme pour la sédentarité et la domestication des céréales, il n’a cependant fait que développer et consolider l’esclavage, pratiqué antérieurement par les peuples sans État. Égypte, Mésopotamie, Grèce, Sparte, Rome impériale, Chine, « sans esclavage, pas d’État. » L’asservissement des #prisonniers_de_guerre constituait un prélèvement sauvage de main d’œuvre immédiatement productive et compétente. Disposer d’un #prolétariat corvéable épargnait aux sujets les travaux les plus dégradants et prévenait les tensions insurrectionnelles tout en satisfaisant les ambitions militaires et monumentales.

      La disparition périodique de la plupart de ces entités politiques était « surdéterminée » en raison de leur dépendance à une seule récolte annuelle d’une ou deux céréales de base, de la concentration démographique qui rendait la population et le bétail vulnérables aux maladies infectieuses. La vaste expansion de la sphère commerciale eut pour effet d’étendre le domaine des maladies transmissibles. L’appétit dévorant de #bois des États archaïques pour le #chauffage, la cuisson et la #construction, est responsable de la #déforestation et de la #salinisation_des_sols. Des #conflits incessants et la rivalité autour du contrôle de la #main-d’œuvre locale ont également contribué à la fragilité des premiers États. Ce que l’histoire interprète comme un « effondrement » pouvait aussi être provoqué par une fuite des sujets de la région centrale et vécu comme une #émancipation. James C. Scott conteste le #préjugé selon lequel « la concentration de la population au cœur des centres étatiques constituerait une grande conquête de la civilisation, tandis que la décentralisation à travers des unités politiques de taille inférieure traduirait une rupture ou un échec de l’ordre politique ». De même, les « âges sombres » qui suivaient, peuvent être interprétés comme des moments de résistance, de retours à des #économies_mixtes, plus à même de composer avec son environnement, préservé des effets négatifs de la concentration et des fardeaux imposés par l’État.

      Jusqu’en 1600 de notre ère, en dehors de quelques centres étatiques, la population mondiale occupait en majorité des territoires non gouvernés, constituant soit des « #barbares », c’est-à-dire des « populations pastorales hostiles qui constituaient une menace militaire » pour l’État, soit des « #sauvages », impropres à servir de matière première à la #civilisation. La menace des barbares limitait la croissance des États et ceux-ci constituaient des cibles de pillages et de prélèvement de tribut. James C. Scott considère la période qui s’étend entre l’émergence initiale de l’État jusqu’à sa conquête de l’hégémonie sur les peuples sans État, comme une sorte d’ « âge d’or des barbares ». Les notions de #tribu ou de peuple sont des « #fictions_administratives » inventées en tant qu’instrument de #domination, pour désigner des #réfugiés politiques ou économiques ayant fuit vers la périphérie. « Avec le recul, on peut percevoir les relations entre les barbares et l’État comme une compétition pour le droit de s’approprier l’excédent du module sédentaire « céréales/main-d’œuvre ». » Si les chasseurs-cueilleurs itinérants grappillaient quelques miettes de la richesse étatique, de grandes confédérations politiques, notamment les peuples équestres, véritables « proto-États » ou « Empires fantômes » comme l’État itinérant de #Gengis_Kahn ou l’#Empire_Comanche, constituaient des concurrents redoutables. Les milices barbares, en reconstituant les réserves de main d’œuvre de l’État et en mettant leur savoir faire militaire au service de sa protection et de son expansion, ont creusé leur propre tombe.

      Dans la continuité de Pierre Clastres et de David Graeber, James C. Scott contribue à mettre à mal les récits civilisationnels dominants. Avec cette étude, il démontre que l’apparition de l’État est une #anomalie et une #contrainte, présentant plus d’inconvénients que d’avantages, raison pour laquelle ses sujets le fuyait. Comprendre la véritable origine de l’État c’est découvrir qu’une toute autre voie était possible et sans doute encore aujourd’hui.

      https://lundi.am/HOMO-DOMESTICUS-Une-Histoire-profonde-des-premiers-Etats
      #historicisation

  • #Genève : Vers une #carte_d’identification_universelle en Ville ?

    Une #motion demande à l’exécutif de la Ville d’étudier la création d’un document permettant l’accès à tous les services municipaux, quel que soit le statut légal.

    Après Zurich et La Chaux-de-Fonds, la Ville de Genève se lancera-t-elle dans la création d’un document d’identification communale ? Ce projet, déjà adopté dans la capitale économique suisse et que la Métropole horlogère a mis à l’étude la semaine dernière, vise à élaborer une carte accessible à tous les habitants, quel que soit leur statut légal, pour pouvoir bénéficier de l’ensemble des services municipaux. Une motion déposée par le conseiller municipal socialiste Pascal Holenweg au début du mois demande au Conseil administratif de se pencher sur la question.

    Cette carte « permettrait un accès facilité aux soins, à l’inscription dans des #services_municipaux ainsi qu’aux lieux culturels, sportifs, sociaux, le cas échéant à partir d’un guichet unique les rassemblant tous », explique le texte. « L’initiative part du constat qu’une partie de la population rencontre des difficultés à accéder aux #services offerts par la Ville, que ce soit faute de #statut_légal, d’#adresse ou de #papiers_d’identité, affirme Pascal Holenweg.
    Sur l’exemple d’autres villes, en Suisse mais aussi aux Etats-Unis, nous proposons d’étudier la possibilité d’établir un #document_d’identification – et non pas d’identité, ce qui est de
    compétence fédérale – et d’#accès_universel aux prestations municipales, qui pourrait servir à tous les habitants, comme carte d’accès aux piscines, aux bibliothèques, etc. »

    Le MCG opposé

    Autre avantage avancé par Pascal Holenweg : « Si la Ville décidait de rendre payants aux habitants d’autres communes les services qu’elle propose actuellement gratuitement à tout le canton ou d’instaurer des tarifs différenciés, cette carte permettrait aux habitants de la
    commune de bénéficier de la gratuité ou de tarifs réduits. »

    La proposition devrait être soutenue par la gauche, majoritaire au Conseil municipal, comme l’espère #Pascal_Holenweg, mais elle ne rencontre en tout cas pas l’adhésion du Mouvement citoyens genevois (MCG). « Le sujet avait déjà fait l’objet de discussions par le passé. Au MCG, nous sommes contre, explique Daniel Sormanni, chef de groupe au délibératif municipal. Ce n’est pas vraiment une pièce d’identité mais ça y ressemble. C’est surtout destiné aux clandestins, avec l’argument d’améliorer leur accès aux services municipaux. En réalité, ils l’ont déjà. Je ne vois donc pas l’utilité. Et puis ça donnerait un faux sentiment de légitimité à des gens qui ne devraient pas être sur notre territoire. » Du côté de la conseillère municipale démocrate-chrétienne Alia Chaker Mangeat, on attend d’en savoir plus. « Je ne suis pas opposée au principe, mais j’aimerais qu’on étudie en commission l’apport réel d’un tel outil », affirme-t-elle.

    Le maire favorable

    Si la motion passe la rampe du délibératif, elle obtiendra une oreille attentive de la part de l’exécutif communal. Collaborateur personnel de Sami Kanaan, Félicien Mazzola affirme en effet que « le maire est favorable au projet ». « La Ville s’était déjà intéressée à la question il y
    a quelques années, poursuit-il, quand New York a développé sa City Card. Puis Zurich a lancé sa propre carte destinée aux sans-papiers. De notre côté, nous avons approché les associations qui travaillent avec eux, pour connaître les besoins. Après l’#opération_Papyrus, qui a permis un grand nombre de régularisations, une carte spécifique pour les sans-papiers n’apparaissait pas vraiment appropriée. »

    En revanche, une carte universelle, qui permette l’accès à l’ensemble des services municipaux et aux démarches en ligne pour tous les habitants, quel que soit leur statut, et réduisant ainsi les risques de traçage des sans-papiers, se révèle très intéressante, explique Félicien Mazzola.

    https://lecourrier.ch/2021/02/26/vers-une-carte-didentification-universelle-en-ville
    #ville-refuge #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Suisse #citoyenneté #citoyenneté_urbaine

    Genève après :
    #Berne : https://seenthis.net/messages/801885
    #Zurich : https://seenthis.net/messages/889029
    #La_Chaux-de-Fonds : https://seenthis.net/messages/896514

    –—

    Ajouté au fil de discussion sur les cartes d’identification universelle en Suisse :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/801885

    ... qui, lui-même, est ajouté à la métaliste sur les villes-refuge :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/759145#message801886

  • Sur le droit d’asile, les migrations et les frontières... sur le droit et les violations du droit...

    Maître #François_Sureau, avocat, sur France culture, pour que ça soit dit et redit et re-redit...

    à partir de la minute 18’45 :

    "L’origine de l’#imposture, on la voit fonctionner dans le discours préfectoral qui dit « Il y a un droit : si ils franchissent la #frontière en #fraude, ils sont en situation irrégulière, on les reconduit dehors ». Cela n’est pas le droit. Le droit c’est que toute personne qui demande l’#asile a droit de voir sa demande examinée sur le territoire de la République, a fortiori lorsqu’il est mineur.
    Tous les gens qui demandent l’asile sont en situation, par hypothèse, irrégulière, puisque la France n’autorise pas les #visas_asilaires, ne permet à personne de rentrer pour demande l’asile de manière régulière et que, surplus, quand vous avez été persécuté dans le pays d’origine, la première chose que vous faites au moment de vous en aller, ne consiste pas à vous précipiter à la police pour demander un passeport en bonne et due forme.
    Tout le monde sait, depuis la création de la Convention de Genève, depuis l’époque du passeport Nansen, depuis les républicains espagnols, depuis les Arméniens, depuis les juifs, depuis l’entre-deux-guerres, tout le monde sait que quelqu’un qui arrive pour demander l’asile est nécessairement en situation irrégulière. Si on excipe de cette situation irrégulière, pour lui interdire de demander l’asile en le reconduisant à la frontière, on viole à la fois la #Constitution et la #Convention_de_Genève. C’est une chose que rappelle la quasi-totalité des juridictions française depuis près d’une dizaine d’années. Il a fallu que la Grande Chambre de la #Cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l'homme intervienne pour interdire à la France de renvoyer des gens jusqu’en Grèce, parce que la Grèce ne traitait pas sérieusement les demandes d’asile.
    La France ne traite pas davantage sérieusement les demandes d’asile lorsqu’elle reconduit des gens, y compris des #mineurs en pleine nuit dans la #montagne, en leur disant ’Marche devant toi, là-bas c’est l’Italie’".

    https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-humeur-vagabonde/l-humeur-vagabonde-27-fevrier-2021

    #frontières #droit_d'asile #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • LES ENFANTS DE LA CLARÉE

    #Raphaël_Krafft part à la rencontre de ceux qui accueillent et de ceux qui s’exilent. Un reportage littéraire et humain.

    En novembre 2017, Raphaël Krafft part en reportage dans les Alpes à la frontière franco-italienne. Il accompagne un habitant de la région parti en maraude à la rencontre d’éventuels migrants perdus dans la montagne. Les premières neiges viennent de tomber. Ce soir-là, ils découvrent cachés dans un bosquet quatre #mineurs . Alors qu’ils les emmènent dans un lieu dédié à l’accueil des personnes migrantes, la gendarmerie les arrête avant d’abandonner les adolescents dans la montagne au niveau de la borne frontière. Trois d’entre eux sont guinéens, comme la majorité des jeunes migrants qui passent par ce col.

    Marqué par cette expérience, Raphaël Krafft se lie d’amitié avec les habitants du village de #Névache situé juste en dessous du col et propose aux enfants de l’école communale de partir en Guinée réaliser des reportages et les aider ainsi à comprendre pourquoi tant de jeunes décident de quitter leur foyer. Là-bas, il découvre un pays démuni, marqué par des années de dictature.

    https://editions-marchialy.fr/livre/les-enfants-de-la-claree

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Hautes-Alpes #Briançonnais #France #sauvetage #montagne #Alpes #frontières

    –—

    Un reportage de Raphaël Krafft, passé sur France Culture en 2017 :
    Quand les mineurs africains sont abandonnés dans la montagne
    https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/le-magazine-de-la-redaction/quand-les-mineurs-africains-sont-abandonnes-dans-la-montagne

    Et signalé sur seenthis :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/642301#message645671
    https://seenthis.net/messages/645699

    • Raphaël Krafft part à la rencontre de ceux qui accueillent et de ceux qui s’exilent

      En novembre 2017, Raphaël Krafft part en reportage dans les Alpes à la frontière franco-italienne. Il accompagne un habitant de la région parti en maraude à la rencontre d’éventuels migrants perdus dans la montagne. Les 1ères neiges viennent de tomber. Ce soir-là, ils découvrent ,cachés dans un bosquet, 4 mineurs....

      Disparu durant l’été 2018, Bernard Liger était un personnage respecté du village de Névache, près de la frontière italienne. Ancien officier d’active, installé dans les Hautes Alpes à sa retraite, il avait mis en place ces dernières années un véritable réseau d’aide aux migrants tentant de passer en France par le #Col_de_l’Echelle. Exactement comme les marins sur les océans, les #montagnards ne peuvent en effet pas imaginer ne pas porter #secours à des humains mourant de froid dans leurs montagnes. Guides, pompiers, médecins ou simples citoyens, ceux qui recueillent, réchauffent, nourrissent et tentent d’amener à Briançon les réfugiés désireux de demander asile en France, savent qu’ils s’exposent aux tracasseries des forces de police qui traquent les clandestins et les Français accusés de #délit_de_solidarité.

      En 2017 Raphaël Krafft, grand reporter, dont l’on entend souvent les documentaires sur les ondes de France Culture, se fera lui-même arrêter par la gendarmerie après avoir participé au sauvetage en montagne de quatre mineurs africains, dont trois guinéens. Choqué d’apprendre que les policiers les avaient ramené la nuit même en Italie par le col de l’Echelle, sans prendre en considération leur statut de mineur isolé, Raphaël Krafft va raconter l’histoire et enquêter jusqu’en Guinée pour tenter de comprendre ce qui pousse ces enfants à entreprendre une telle odyssée. Ses reportages sont à écouter en ligne sur le site de France Culture et de France Inter et son livre, Les enfants de La Clarée, vient de paraître aux éditions Marchialy.

      https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-humeur-vagabonde/l-humeur-vagabonde-27-fevrier-2021
      #solidarité #accueil #religion #catholicisme #dissuasion #politique_de_dissuasion

    • Un autre livre de Raphaël Krafft, à la frontière dite « basse » (#Alpes-Maritimes, #Vintimille, #Menton)

      Passeur

      Automne 2015. Raphaël Krafft, journaliste indépendant, est à la frontière franco-italienne des Alpes-Maritimes, entre Menton et Vintimille. Il réalise un reportage sur les exilés bloqués là dans l’attente de passer en France pour demander l’asile ou de continuer vers un autre pays.

      Il rencontre tour à tour des militants, des policiers, des fonctionnaires, une avocate spécialiste des Droits de l’homme pour constater le drame de la situation. Et décide, par un acte de désobéissance civile, d’aider deux Soudanais, « Satellite » et Adeel, à franchir la frontière.

      À pied, Raphaël Krafft, son ami Thomas et les deux réfugiés entreprennent une ascension dans le #parc_du_Mercantour, jusqu’au #col_de_Fenestre, qui culmine à 2 474 mètres, pour atteindre la France.

      http://www.buchetchastel.fr/passeur-raphael-krafft-9782283029572

  • 1) #Marco_Minniti si dimette da parlamentare. Sarà presidente della fondazione Leonardo (#Finmeccanica)

    2) Chissà a che punto è quel progetto per il controllo delle frontiere libiche il cui valore è passato da 300 a 900 milioni. Era il 2017...

    https://twitter.com/nelloscavo/status/1365621593171517442

    #Minniti #Fondazione_Leonardo #fondation

    #frontières #business #contrôles_frontaliers #asile #migrations #réfugiés #complexe_militaro-industriel

    –—
    Pour rappel, c’est Minniti qui avait déclaré que « la frontière Sud de la Libye est la frontière sud de l’Europe » :

    Il ministro dell’interno italiano, Minniti, dichiara al Corriere che:
    «Il confine sud della Libia è il confine sud dell’Europa»

    https://seenthis.net/messages/604039

    –---

    voir aussi ce long fil de discussion (2017) à partir de cet article :
    Migranti, vertice al Viminale dei ministri dell’Interno di Italia, Ciad, Libia e Niger


    https://seenthis.net/messages/600874

    –—

    Le site de la Fondation Leonardo :
    https://www.fondazioneleonardo-cdm.com

  • ’Pushbacks’ in the French Alps : Migrants report immediate deportations to Italy

    Many migrants complain that they have not been able to apply for asylum when they cross the border into France. According to them, the French border police (PAF) refuse to take their asylum applications and immediately send them back to neighboring Italy.

    Paul*, a young 24-year-old Cameroonian, remembers every moment of a long night in February, when he was lost somewhere in the Alps near Montgenèvre. The young man was trying to enter France from neighboring Italy when border police officers stopped him.

    “I saw policemen coming towards me and they stopped me. It was my first attempt crossing the border. When I saw them, I immediately said ’asylum, asylum’. They said, ’No, you can’t ask for asylum’. And they sent me straight back to Italy.”

    Paul was not deterred. A few days later, he tried to cross the Alps again and this time managed to enter France without being stopped. “I’d like to settle in Brittany,” confides the Cameroonian. “I’m going to file my asylum application in the next few days and if everything goes well, I’ll make my new home there.”

    This type of behavior by French police - who turn some migrants back without letting them apply for asylum - is reportedly frequent according to the migrants InfoMigrants interviewed.

    “This pushback from France to Italy, we all know about it before we even try to make the crossing, that’s why we are so afraid of meeting police in the mountains. Because they won’t listen to anything we say,” explains Mohamed*, a Tunisian, InfoMigrants met at the Refuge Solidaire in Briançon.

    Unlike Paul, Mohamed succeeded and crossed the Alps on his first attempt, without encountering PAF or any marauders (the name used by volunteers who roam the Alpine border to help those in need). “We were lucky. We walked for 8 hours and everything went well despite the cold. We could see the police cars passing, but we were well hidden, so they didn’t see us.”

    ’Very frequent refusals’

    PAF’s refusal to respect the right to asylum is loudly denounced by the members of the association Tous Migrants. “Refusals are very frequent here [...] What usually happens is that the police arrest migrants in the mountains in France, take them to the PAF office in Montgenèvre and give them OQTF (official orders to leave France). Then they call the Italian police who come to bring the migrants back to Italy [...] All this takes place in less than 5 hours,” sums up Pâquerette Forest, the co-president of the association.

    According to law, border police are authorised to check the papers of people entering French territory, and can therefore expel any person in an irregular situation. This is referred to as “non-admittance.” However, they cannot expel a foreigner who is applying for asylum. In this specific case, they must register the asylum application and transmit the file to the Minister of the Interior, who is the only one in the position to accept or refuse entry into France, on the advice of OFPRA.

    https://gw.infomigrants.net/media/resize/my_image_big/6d68e39854af6f16750a94ceac03740d6aa512bc.jpeg

    “There is a real denial of rights here,” Forest continues, although she does qualify her remarks. “It’s important to add that not all policemen behave like this. There are those who let migrants cross through so that they can apply for asylum, but there are those who are relentless.”

    According to her, “those who are persistent” are “rare” but their behavior has serious consequences. “There have been reports of police officers tearing up migrants’ official documents, such as their birth certificates,” documents that are crucial to beginning any administrative procedures in France.
    ’Pushbacks don’t discourage anyone’

    “As a result of the fear of pushbacks, migrants are now taking more and more risks,” says Juliette, one of the association’s marauders, who knows the mountains and their dangers very well. “Migrants are going up steeper and steeper paths, getting more and more remote,” she says.

    “PAF has to stop thinking that pushbacks discourage them. They don’t discourage anyone. We’re talking about migrants who have been turned back to Bosnia, to Croatia as many as 10 times, even 20 times before managing to get through! It’s not the Alps and these policemen who are going to stop them!”

    Approached by InfoMigrants, PAF refused to let us enter their premises in Montgenèvre, less than 5 kilometers from Italy, and they refused to answer any questions.

    The Prefecture of the Hautes-Alpes region also refused to answer our requests, but they did give us some statistics. In 2020, there were 80 refusals of residence and OQTF in the Hautes-Alpes. A total of 1576 people were “not admitted” into French territory in that period.

    *First names have been changed

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/30195/pushbacks-in-the-french-alps-migrants-report-immediate-deportations-to

    #Hautes-Alpes #Briançon #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #frontière_sud-alpine #France #Italie #secours #harcèlement_policier #montagne #Alpes #Italie #push-backs #renvois #expulsions #refoulements

    –—

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur les Hautes-Alpes :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/733721#message886920

  • Concerns raised over ’squalid’ #Serco asylum seeker housing in #Derby

    Council arranging inspection as photos show missing plaster, rubble in shower and hole in ceiling

    A council is arranging an urgent inspection of asylum seeker accommodation in Derby after concerns were raised about conditions there.

    Photos of the property seen by the Guardian show part of the kitchen ceiling missing, rubble in the base of a shower, cracked and missing tiles, rusted pipes and plaster missing from walls where wallpaper has peeled off. The garden is strewn with litter and discarded furniture.

    There are about 64,000 people in Home Office accommodation. The majority are in shared housing, and about 10,000 are in hotel accommodation.

    It has been reported that the Home Office is planning to accelerate moving people out of hotels and into housing, known as dispersed accommodation, in a scheme called Operation Oak.

    One of the asylum seekers in the house in Derby was moved from a hotel in Birmingham just over a week ago. He said: “The conditions in this house are so bad they make normal life impossible. I have not been able to take a bath for a week because water was pouring from the bathroom through the kitchen ceiling.”

    Serco, the company that has the Home Office contract for provision of accommodation in this part of the UK, was last year fined £2.6m for failings on a Home Office accommodation contract between September 2019 and January 2020. It had previously received a fine of £1m on another asylum seeker accommodation contract.

    Serco told the Guardian last year it was broadly meeting its performance standards and had improved performance on addressing emergency maintenance issues and resolving people’s complaints.

    Clare Moseley, the founder of the charity Care4Calais, which is providing support for many asylum seekers in various kinds of Home Office accommodation, said: “I am disgusted to see anyone living in conditions as squalid as these. We have recently witnessed the Home Office’s uncaring attitude towards asylum seekers in hotel accommodation. What are we going to see next in dispersal accommodation?”

    Sarah Burnett, Serco’s operations director for immigration, said: “Looking after the asylum seekers in our care and ensuring that they are kept safe is always our first priority. When complaints are raised our team of professional housing officers, maintenance and gas engineers responds and investigates and corrects the problems as and where they exist. We do this within strict timetables laid down in our contract.”

    Serco sources said one communal bathroom was working and one was being “isolated” to stop leaks going through the ceiling into the kitchen and that part of the kitchen ceiling had been removed to fix the leaks. The sources acknowledged that the working shower cubicle, which is covered in black mould, was in need of minor repairs and a thorough clean.

    “There is rubbish in the garden, which is partly due to refurbishment work and partly due to previous occupants leaving it there; Covid has prevented the timely removal of all this, but that will be put right in the coming days,” Burnett added. She said the kitchen had been fully refurbished last summer.

    A spokesperson for Derby city council said: “Based on the evidence provided in the photos, Derby city council does have concerns regarding the condition of the property. The council’s housing standards team will be inspecting this property as a matter of urgency. A discussion has taken place with Serco and we are in the process of arranging an inspection.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/25/concerns-raised-over-squalid-serco-asylum-seeker-housing-in-derby?__twi

    #logement #hébergement #UK #Angleterre #asile #réfugiés #privatisation #migrations

  • Fled civil war in Myanmar, lost job to coronavirus and died in Malaysia: young mother’s suicide highlights refugees’ plight | South China Morning Post
    https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3122990/fled-civil-war-myanmar-lost-job-coronavirus-and-died-malaysia

    A day before Malaysia deported more than 1,000 people to Myanmar
    in defiance of a court order and protests from human rights groups, a young mother worried about her illegal status killed herself by jumping from the first floor of her apartment building in Kuala Lumpur. The woman, who was not one of those targeted for Tuesday’s mass deportation, had fled civil war in Myanmar’s Kachin state. She is thought to have become depressed after both she and her husband lost their jobs to the coronavirus pandemic.Her death on Monday was the latest in a string of suicides by refugees and migrant workers from Myanmar to have occurred in Malaysia since the pandemic began.“The couple were facing money problems, had debts and she worried over her undocumented status,” said Nang Moon, who works with refugee groups and belongs to the Malaysia branch of the Myanmar political party National League for Democracy.“She is also believed to have been suffering from postpartum depression.”She estimated this was the 24th such suicide since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic last year, though added, “We don’t know the exact figure.”La Seng, head of the Kachin Refugee Organisation in Malaysia, said the woman had been in Malaysia since 2014, was 28 years old and left behind a 3-month-old daughter. “Her husband is very depressed,” said La Seng.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#malaisie#myanmar#sante#santementale#suicide#refugie#pandemie#emploi#vulnerabilite

  • 6-year-old refugee boy dies in blaze in #Thiva accommodation camp

    A 6-year-old boy died on Tuesday night when a fire broke out in a refugee camp on the town on Thiva, some 60 km north of Athens.

    The boy was reportedly leaving with his parents and 4 siblings in a container. Local media reported that the mother reportedly managed to bring another boy and three girls outside but not the boy. The father was not there at the time of the blaze. The family are asylum-seekers from Iran.

    The fire broke out around 9 o’ clock under unknown circumstances. Footage taken at the time of the fire shows a lot of residents to have gathered outside the building on fire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD28yBy7k8Q&feature=emb_logo

    According to local media radiothiva, and the Fire Service, it was the camp residents who pulled the dead body of the boy from the spot.

    The Fire Service said firefighters had to be accompanied by police to get into the camp after residents initially prevented them from entering.

    The refugees claimed that firefighters arrived with delay, reportedly threw stones and other items at the trucks, smashing the front window in one of them.

    Eight firemen with four fire engines were finally able to extinguish the blaze in a building in the camp.

    The Fire Service was reportedly not able to conduct inspection due to the angry crowd, a small police unit remains in the area.

    https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2021/02/24/refugee-boy-dies-fire-camp-thiva

    #incendie #feu #réfugiés #camps_de_réfugiés #décès #mort #Grèce

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste des incendies dans les camps de réfugiés, notamment en Grèce :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/851143

    • Grèce : incendie dans un camp au nord d’Athènes, un enfant de 6 ans décède

      Un enfant kurde de 6 ans est mort mardi soir dans l’incendie d’un camp de migrants situé à Thèbes, au nord d’Athènes. Les exilés accusent les autorités d’avoir trop tardé à intervenir, mettant plus d’une heure à rejoindre les lieux.

      Un incendie s’est déclaré dans la soirée de mardi 23 février dans un camp de migrants de Thèbes, au nord d’Athènes, provoquant la mort d’un enfant kurde de 6 ans, ont annoncé les pompiers grecs dans un communiqué. Lorsque ces derniers sont arrivés sur les lieux, l’enfant ne respirait déjà plus. Les causes de l’incendie sont pour l’heure inconnues.

      https://twitter.com/AntonisRepanas/status/1364324710901813251

      Selon des témoins cités par le site d’information kurde Pishti News, l’enfant se trouvait à l’intérieur du camp avec sa mère, son frère et ses trois sœurs quand le feu s’est déclenché. La mère aurait réussi à faire sortir quatre de ses enfants mais n’a pas pu sauver son autre fils. Toujours d’après le même média, le corps de l’enfant a été enlevé du bâtiment par les migrants eux-mêmes une heure après le drame.

      Les exilés accusent les pompiers d’avoir tardé à réagir, mettant plus d’une heure à rejoindre les lieux. Les autorités, elles, donnent une autre version. Elles racontent que la police a dû également intervenir car les migrants bloquaient l’accès à la structure qui avait pris feu, empêchant les pompiers de se rendre sur place.

      Les camps de migrants sont régulièrement touchés par des incendies, la plupart accidentels. Il y a trois jours, deux incendies ont détruit deux tentes sans faire de victime dans deux camps de migrants sur l’île de Lesbos.

      L’hiver, quand il fait froid sous les tentes des camps, de nombreux exilés font des feux de bois pour se réchauffer ou utilisent des poêles à l’intérieur de leur habitation précaire, ce qui provoque souvent des accidents.

      Des ONG de défense des droits de l’Homme ont tiré la sonnette d’alarme ces derniers jours sur la détérioration des conditions avec le froid dans les camps de migrants à travers le pays.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/30459/grece-incendie-dans-un-camp-au-nord-d-athenes-un-enfant-de-6-ans-deced

  • KACHACH, AU-DESSUS DE #ZAATARI

    Dans le camp de réfugiés de Zaatari, l’exil n’en finit plus de durer. Parmi les réfugiés, une communauté s’est reformée : les #Kachach, les éleveurs d’#oiseaux culturellement méprisés, font revivre une tradition millénaire délaissée , dans ce camp planté au milieu du désert et que nul n’est censé quitter. Et leurs oiseaux ramènent une part de #rêve qui éclaire cette longue #attente.

    https://vimeo.com/297919049


    #film #film_documentaire #camps_de_réfugiés #réfugiés #asile #migrations

  • Combien de requérant·e·s d’asile y a-t-il en Suisse ?

    Fin 2019, il y avait en Suisse 11’700 requérant·e·s d’asile (permis N) et 48’000 personnes au bénéfice d’une admission provisoire (permis F). Par rapport à l’année précédente, le nombre de personnes titulaires d’un permis F a augmenté et le nombre de requérant·e·s d’asile a diminué. Dans l’ensemble, les effectifs sont légèrement inférieurs à ceux de 2018. Cela représente au total une proportion de 0,7 % de la population permanente et de 2,7 % de la population étrangère.

    Les requérant·e·s d’asile et les personnes admises à titre provisoire sont attribué·e·s aux différents cantons en fonction de la taille de la population cantonale. Cette clé de répartition explique la faible variation entre les cantons. En 2019, la proportion de requérant·e·s / personnes admises provisoirement variait peu, entre 8,8 (Glarus) et 8,7 (Berne) pour 1’000 habitant·e·s (Berne) et 3,6 pour 1’000 (Thurgovie). Les variations découlent des départs de Suisse ou des décisions d’octroi d’une autorisation de séjour par les autorités dans le cadre de la procédure d’asile.

    À l’échelle des communes, en revanche, les variations sont considérables, puisqu’un nombre élevé de requérant·e·s d’asile est attribué à un centre d’accueil. De nombreuses communes n’ont dénombré aucune personne en procédure d’asile dans leur population fin 2019. D’autres communes accueillent en revanche un·e requérant·e d’asile ou personne admise provisoirement pour sept habitant·e·s.

    https://nccr-onthemove.ch/indicators/combien-de-requerant%c2%b7e%c2%b7s-dasile-y-a-t-il-en-suisse/?lang=fr

    #cartographie #Suisse #demandeurs_d'asile #visualisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #statistiques #chiffres #densité #taux #distribution #répartition #répartition_territoriale #communes #cantons #clé_de_distribution

  • L’OIM lance un appel pour fournir une aide vitale à plus d’un demi-million de migrants déplacés et vulnérables au Niger | Organisation internationale pour les migrations
    https://www.iom.int/fr/news/loim-lance-un-appel-pour-fournir-une-aide-vitale-plus-dun-demi-million-de-migra

    Niamey - Le Niger, l’un des pays de transit des migrants les plus fréquentés de la région du Sahel, est confronté à de multiples situations d’urgence. La COVID-19, les menaces permanentes à la sécurité et des générations de pauvreté profondément enracinée ont contribué à une crise humanitaire croissante, avec plus d’un demi-million de déplacés internes et leurs communautés d’accueil ayant besoin de services essentiels. En 2021, 135 000 autres migrants vulnérables auront également besoin d’une aide au Niger. Afin de pouvoir fournir l’aide indispensable, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) lance aujourd’hui un appel de 121 millions de dollars pour apporter une aide essentielle aux migrants, aux déplacés internes et aux communautés d’accueil en 2021.
    Les retours continus de migrants d’Algérie - ainsi que les mouvements migratoires à travers le Niger, à la fois vers et depuis l’Algérie et la Libye - laissent les migrants sans abri, sans nourriture, sans eau et sans aide sanitaire. En plus de ces interventions humanitaires essentielles, l’OIM s’engage également à promouvoir la stabilité et la cohésion sociale entre les communautés d’accueil, les déplacés internes et les migrants. Malgré la fermeture officielle des frontières terrestres depuis le 19 mars, les migrants continuent de se rendre au Niger, de le traverser et de le quitter en empruntant des itinéraires migratoires de longue date, principalement vers la Libye et l’Algérie. L’OIM aide les migrants bloqués dans le cadre de ses opérations humanitaires (à la frontière avec l’Algérie) et de ses opérations de recherche et de sauvetage dans la région d’Agadez, au nord du Niger, après quoi de nombreux migrants reçoivent une aide dans l’un des six centres de transit de l’OIM au Niger.L’année dernière, une évaluation de l’OIM a conclu qu’au moins 2,7 millions de migrants étaient bloqués, dans l’impossibilité de retourner dans leur pays de résidence en raison des restrictions de mobilité imposées par la COVID-19.« En 2020, l’OIM a aidé plus de 9 000 migrants bloqués au Niger, dont la majorité provenait de pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest et d’Afrique centrale », a déclaré Barbara Rijks, chef de mission de l’OIM au Niger. « Beaucoup de ces migrants ont été aidés à retourner volontairement dans leurs pays d’origine respectifs, malgré la fermeture officielle des frontières, par le biais d’un couloir humanitaire établi avec le gouvernement du Niger ».Plus de 2 100 Nigériens de retour ont également été aidés pour leur isolement face à la COVID-19 et ont bénéficié d’une aide ultérieure dans leur région d’origine une fois arrivés au Niger. Des convois officiels pour les nigériens bloqués ont été organisés à partir de divers pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest par d’autres bureaux de l’OIM en collaboration avec le gouvernement du Niger, y compris ses missions consulaires. Quelque 3,8 millions de Nigériens auront besoin d’aide en 2021, selon l’aperçu des besoins humanitaires publié par l’équipe de pays chargée de l’action humanitaire au Niger. L’OIM au Niger prévoit d’accroître son niveau d’assistance dans les zones qui ont été touchées par différentes crises, notamment les catastrophes naturelles et l’insécurité résultant de l’activité croissante des organisations extrémistes violentes au Niger.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#niger#sante#personnedeplacee#refugie#afrique#insecurite#frontiere#humanitaire

  • Weaponizing a River

    The Dam

    On the 10th of March, news reports emerged suggesting that Bulgaria had released water downstream from the Ivaylovgrad Dam on the Ardas, a tributary of the Evros (also Meriç, and Maritsa),
    and flooded the river border at the request of the Greek government. This intentional flooding of the border was subsequently denounced as fake news by the Bulgarian authorities and remains unverified. Yet due to the increasing severity of spring floods, including as recently as 2018, the release of water from Bulgarian dams has been a subject of friction between Greece, Turkey, and their upstream riparian neighbor. On the 27th of February, Turkey decided to effectively suspend the 2016 EU-Turkey deal and in doing so directed thousands of asylum seekers to the border with Greece. In the context of Greece’s military response, the recent reports have revealed a hidden violence designed into the environment of the Evros river. In the weeks since, there have been two confirmed casualties from the use of either live or rubber rounds—Muhammad al Arab and Muhammad Gulzar.

    The alleged opening of the dam and these shootings are not distinct but are in continuity with the long-term, albeit previously low intensity, weaponization of the river. These exceptional events prove the more insidious use of the Evros as an ecological border infrastructure extending to its entire floodplain.

    The intentional flooding of the valley, and its entanglement with border defense strategies, testifies to Evros as an arcifinious space. Derived from the legal heredity of international border law, according to legal scholar John W. Donaldson, the term “arcifinious” is the territorial concept whereby a state is bounded by geophysical limits with defensive capabilities, or “natural” boundaries “fit to keep the Enemy out,” such as seas, rivers, deserts, and mountains.
    According to eighteenth-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius and his followers, rivers are “part of ’arcifinious’ or ’natural’ military frontier zones that are ‘indetermined,’ and flexible based on the application of force.” While rivers shift of their own volition, they are also manipulated, like straightening. Perhaps more tellingly, the very flexibility of a river—its interstitial condition between water and sediment—is useful in the production of an “indeterminate” space that is materially porous, shifting, and thus difficult for trespassers to cross. This material ambiguity also makes river boundaries unstable in the eyes of international jurisprudence. The hostile characteristics of arcifinious boundaries are mobilized in naturalizing processes central to sovereign claims to territory in a practice that enables states to obscure their agency in relation to border deaths.Some days before the 10th, word had been circulating inside the Fylakio registration and pre-removal detention center in the north of the Evros region that the dam would be opened to make the river more difficult to cross. The dam being discussed by border guards as part of a border defense strategy emphasizes the river not as “natural” but, to the contrary, always flexible to force. Fylakio, also located near the Ardas river, would be one the first villages reached when onrushing water from the dam crosses the Bulgarian-Greek border. Before these waters arrive at the “Karaağaç Triangle,” the Ardas serves as the Greek-Turkey border for one kilometer, after which it meets the Evros/Meriç between the Greek villages of Marasia and Kastanies. This is the northwestern point of the Karaağaç Triangle, which was the only segment of the Greece-Turkey border not originally delimited by the Evros/Meriç river in the 1926 Athens Protocol, an annex to the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Instead, it is today a stretch of deforested land with an eleven-kilometer-long deterrent fence. Proposed in 2011 and completed in 2012, the fence directs border crossers to more dangerous routes across the river, and to deadlier maritime crossing routes in the Aegean sea. Fittingly, the fence is mentioned as a “technical obstacle” in FRONTEX Serious Incident Reports (SIR).The Karaağaç Triangle is where refugees were directed by the Turkish government on the 27th of February, and where they found themselves trapped between Greek forces who would not let them cross and Turkish forces who prevented them from returning to Istanbul and the Turkish mainland. It is where Muhamad Gulzar, a young man from Pakistan, was shot dead, and five more were injured on the 4th of March. During our visit to the Evros in early March, we witnessed trucks carrying fencing towards strategic—yet unfortified—parts of the river. The fence is currently being elongated by forty kilometers, particularly along parcels of Greek land that sit on the Turkish side of the river, and vice versa.In the war of words exchanged by the two sides, the Greek government and far right Twitter has been using the term “hybrid war” to describe what they perceive as a Turkish attempt to “intrude” on Greek territory through indirect means, here with refugee bodies instead of bullets. In response to Turkey’s weaponization of refugees, Greece and the EU are also employing a form of hybrid warfare explicitly incorporating the river ecology itself. Where so many people were—and still are—trapped in spaces along the frontier, like at Karaağaç, they are exposed to a hybrid form of border violence involving farmers spraying pesticides onto refugees across the fence, the deployment of large fans to direct teargas back to the Turkish side, and the use of water cannons to spray blue liquid across the fence so those who make it onto the Greek side can be easily identified. In addition to these assembled elements, on the night of the 26th of March, the impromptu camp that had been set up in Pazarkule, on the Turkish side of the border, caught fire. In videos that were circulated, witnesses claim that the fires were lit by Turkish authorities (jandarma) in their attempts to remove asylum seekers from the border (a measure supposed to counter the spread of COVID-19).Authors in critical border studies refer to the mobilization of geophysical and environmental features either as a hybrid collectif, an assemblage of actants, landscape as space of moral alibi,

    or what we call border natures. The border’s ecology of exception is made possible by both the river’s adaptability to force and flexibility, and contributes to the production of an ambiguous space in which multiple modes of violence are perpetrated with impunity. Methods of hybrid warfare are unambiguously mobilizing environmental elements. As such, “nature” can no longer be an alibi but is directly incorporated in the production of death at the border.

    What is the role of water in the politics of death at the border? Here river waters stand at the intersection of connection-division, and life-death.
    The fluvial frontier is a complex and nuanced territorial condition braiding together multiple elements including conservation, transboundary river management, military technology, the geopolitics of resource logistics, and the divergently visible and opaque politics of border crossing. Thinking against material and discursive reproductions of both rivers and borders as “natural” phenomena, the Evros/Meriç/Maritsa river is the result of multiple organizational technologies of territorial sovereignty. Primary amongst these is the mobilization of major infrastructure: the dam and the contingent release of waters downstream would be a direct threat to the lives of asylum seekers attempting to enter the EU. If Bulgaria, as a member state, had opened the dam, this would have been premised on its contribution to the fortification of the external borders of fortress Europe.

    2. A Shifting Border

    The Evros/Meriç/Maritsa has its source in the Rila mountains. It runs for 310 of its 528 kilometers through Bulgaria, with the final 210 kilometers forming a border, initially between Bulgaria and Greece, and then for the last 192 kilometers between Greece and Turkey before reaching its delta and emptying into the Thracian Sea in the Aegean. The river is fast, with a mean annual flow rate of 103 cubic meters per second (a rate which can increase twofold between December and April). Its course flows over sandy and malleable soil, and annually discharges approximately 3.2 million tons of sediment and 9.5 billion cubic meters of freshwater into the sea.
    This results in frequent erosion that alters its banks. Capricious shifts of the river produce islands of stranded land; there are expanses of “Turkish” earth on the “wrong” side of the river, and elsewhere, land has been ceded by the river to Greece. These stranded territories are also points where fatalities become concentrated. Pavlos Pavlidis, coroner at the University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, capital of the Evros prefecture, and Maria-Valeria Karakasi have identified a particular parcel of land near Feres, the entry point to the Delta, as the location where seventy-two bodies were recovered between 2000 and 2014. This is also where refugees were recently directed by geographers aligned with Turkish authorities,

    and where a young man from Aleppo, Muhammad al Arab, was shot dead by Greek soldiers standing inside the dry river bed of the 1926 border, which now acts as little more than a trench. Within the above calculations of river flow and sediment transportation is concealed a deadly politics of bordering that incorporates the full spectrum of the Evros’s hydrology and manipulates the ambiguities produced by rivers.

    The river’s movements occupy a central role in the territorial disputes between the riparian states of Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, and compound what is already a militarized terrain. Due to these shifts, and the river’s own agency, many have considered rivers as inadequate political boundaries. Donaldson words it thus: “the presence of water makes a boundary river unstable, forceful, and risky; incompatible with the legal fiction of a fixed boundary line that would prefer the stability of land over the dynamism of water.”
    This instability lies behind the fantasies of territorial control implied by the international committee assembled in 1926 with the task of determining the precise course of the border between Greece and Turkey at the end of the Ottoman Empire.The 1926 committee, headed by Dutch colonel J. Backer, deemed that the border follow the median line between the banks throughout the course of the river, or its main “branch,” when the river splits. The border was marked with red ink on ten maps that were attached as annexes to the protocol, and the first twenty-six demarcation “pyramids” were installed. Delimited in such an inflexible way, like many river borders, it could not respond to shifts in the median line and changes in the course of the river. Instead, the demarcation of the protocol fixed the river in time and to an abstract line. Consequently, efforts to enforce the demarcation of the border have long been hampered by the agency of the river itself. As early as 1965, markers installed to designate part of the border along the Evros/Meriç by a joint Greek-Turkish committee were quickly carried away by the river. Similarly, in 2015, parts of the fence were carried away by flood waters released from the Ivaylovgrad dam. As recently as October 2017, Turkish authorities dug trenches underneath the fence to prevent flooding.

    There is now almost 100 years of geomorphological variation between the drawn border and the current course of the river. Islands that used to be there are no longer; banks have moved and canalizations have directed the river in divergent ways. Two rivers and two borders exist at the Evros/Meriç: the cartographic border of the old median line (featuring now almost unmoving oxbow lakes) and the water of the new trespass line. It comes with little surprise then that stabilizing the river banks to the 1926 condition has been a concern of both Greece and Turkey. Since 1936, the two countries have made efforts to draft plans for common flood defense, most notably the study undertaken in 1953 by the Chicago-based Harza Engineering Company. None of these plans were fully implemented, and after the 1970s, bilateral communication ceased for decades.

    In addition to the proposal of the fence in 2011, the Hellenic Army General Staff planned an unfulfilled project to dig a “120-kilometer-long, thirty-meter-wide, and seven-meter-deep” “moat.”

    Officially an “anti-tank trap” functioning primarily as a defense against Turkish invasion, in the context of increased crossings in 2011, the “moat” would have only been a further technical barrier for border crossers.

    Where rivers appear at first glance as “natural,” they are, to greater and lesser extents, the result of centuries of small and large-scale engineering interventions. In Stefan Helmreich’s concept of “infranature,” second nature—that which is always produced as socio-technical—is “folded” back into first or organic nature.
    What appears as “natural” or “organic” is therefore actually a mask for the production of techno-natural infrastructures. Helmreich echoes a famous passage in Michel Serres’s The Natural Contract where he describes the birth of geometry emerging from the calculations of Nile floods. Out of the “chaos” and “disorder” of flood events, Serres proposes that measurements made by surveyors, for irrigation purposes, reordered nature to give “it a new birth into culture.”

    Such culture, however, may itself produce violent effects. The measurements that reorder the river waters of the Evros are born into a culture that takes the form of a hybrid military-natural assemblage.

    Understanding the often intentionally ambiguous calculations of infranature in its combative applications helps to clarify how rivers are technologized through overt human interventions, such as dams and other large engineering projects, as well as in less overt ways. Rivers and their flows respond to assemblages of smaller scale and almost invisible interventions or those that occur far up river, like the opening of a dam. In these ways, the very speed at which water travels, or the amount of sediment that accumulates in the muddy delta, are part of the measurements of the infrantural technology of the arcifinious river. In these border environments, the river itself is potentially armed and dangerous.

    The river and its imagined doubling as a moat instrumentalizes the already treacherous route for asylum seekers beyond the scale of a “deterrent” into an engineered space unconcerned with fatalities. Stepping back from the Hellenic Army General Staff’s imagination, the Evros already performs the arcifinious role of a moat at the EU’s fluvial frontier. The drawing of a fixed, yet imaginary line along the central course of the river effectively produced the river as a frontier, whereby its movements and muds become spaces where sovereign territorial imaginaries are projected with horrifyingly real effects.

    3. Flood

    The risk of major flood events has long been one of the primary transboundary concerns in the Evros/Meriç/Maritsa. Such events have increased in frequency over the last twenty-five years, leading to a once in a thousand-year flood in 2005, severe events in 2006, 2007, 2011, 2014, and 2015, and a “state of emergency” announced by the Greek Government in March and April 2018.
    Flooding in the region is closely tied to the politics of hydro-electric infrastructure. The majority of large dams and reservoirs in the basin are concentrated on Bulgarian territory (as many as 722), while Turkey has built sixty, and Greece just five (mainly for irrigation purposes, as opposed to energy production). Flow variability is central to many transboundary agreements whereby upstream riparian nations either force or allow downstream riparians to adapt to seasonal changes in both wet and dry conditions.

    This is a concern for hyrdrodiplomatic relations between Greece, Turkey, and Bulgaria.

    When a tri-lateral working group met in October 2006 in Alexandroupolis, Turkey made a written demand, supported by Greece, that the reservoir storage capacity of large dams situated on the Ardas tributary in Bulgaria be regulated to “minimize water discharges downstream and reduce flow at Edirne,” a densely populated area, near to the border fence, and a major confluence where the Ardas and another tributary, the Tundzha, meet the Evros/Meriç/Maritsa. The Bulgarian delegation refused to respond and cancelled future working groups. Bulgaria is resistant to such regulation because of the role that the private sector plays in managing hydro-electric infrastructure.
    To maximize energy productivity and profits, their primary interest is to maintain the highest possible water level in the dam reservoirs all year round. Under previous conditions, this would have been in direct opposition to the interests of the downstream nations who want to regulate reservoir storage in wet seasons so they have the capacity to accommodate potential increases in volume that risk overtopping dams and result in flooding. The events of the past month, however, show that within the context of Bulgaria’s entrance into the EU in 2007, upstream storage of high levels of water is also part of military contingency planning to flood the valley and safeguard what is now a common European frontier.

    Recent attempts at hydrodiplomacy in the region include the 2016 “Joint Declaration Between the Government of the Hellenic Republic and the Government of the Republic of Turkey” signed by Prime Ministers Alexis Tsipras and Ahmet Davutoglu.

    This agreement incorporated multiple political and hydrographical issues that fold onto the frontier, including a Joint Action Plan to “stem migration flows,” with the implied proviso that Greece will support Turkey in EU visa liberalization dialogue. While this proviso has since been forgotten, the lubrication of one form of movement was unambiguously exchanged for the curtailment of another. This is followed by a section on flooding, acknowledging the damage caused each year and expressing a joint commitment to adhering to the centralized European Water Directive. As downstream nations, Greece and Turkey agreed and welcomed faintly veiled “goodwill and cooperation” from the “other relevant parties,” intimating Bulgaria, to whom they direct much of the blame.

    The overlaps between a river that regularly floods and a territory where border crossers are at the mercy of systematic violence resonates troublingly with nationalist media and governmental rhetoric of “flows,” “floods,” or “surges” and the “stemming” of migrants.”
    Naturalizing metaphors such as these emerge wherever border regimes are discursively or materially constructed to ensure the illegality of movement across borders, and in doing so, racially “other” border crossers. Indeed, hydrologic metaphors are evoked to draw a distinction between those who do not belong and those who do within a sedentary notion of territory. In light of the events of March 2020, the material movement of water out of place is not perceived as a threat that must be contained to prevent it seeping into discourses that legally and culturally ground the nation-state. Instead, the movement of these waters are deployed in the very efforts to exclude others from the space of the nation-state.Joint Operation Poseidon Land, EU border agency Frontex’s Evros operation, began in 2011. The name conjures a pathologic mythology, casting border crossers as mortals committing the hubris of seeking refuge in Europe, while Frontex claims the role of chastising deity. Here Poseidon, god of both the sea and rivers, intervenes at the land-water divide. In mythology, where his trident struck, land quakes and flooding and drowning ensues. Echoing a crude sketch of the hydrologic cycle, Operation Poseidon Land transposes border violence in liquid form from the Aegean—where Operation Poseidon Sea is enacted—to the headwaters of the Evros/Meriç/Maritsa and back down along its course. The rumored intentional flooding of the valley from the Ivaylovgrad dam brings Frontex’s troubling mythological sensibility into reality.

    4. Anachoma

    A week before the flooding made the headlines, and a day after Muhammad al Arab’s killing, the European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen visited Evros, along with three EU leaders and the Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Following the visit, they gave a joint statement in which der Leyen thanked Greece for being Europe’s aspida, using the Greek word for “shield” (ασπίδα).

    Der Leyen’s choice of vocabulary uncannily echoes local military discourse, in which the region is often called Greece’s ανάχωμα (anachoma), or embankment, against Turkish invasion, and more recently against asylum seekers. The landscape of the Evros/Meriç/Maritsa is entirely sculpted to either contain or facilitate movement, be it of military personnel, people, or water. The berm, a versatile and ambiguous military-ecological technology, is the physical embodiment of the ανάχωμα. There are multiple types of berms, each of which is designed to perform distinct functions. There are surpassable/summer berms, main berms, tertiary berms for flood defense, raised rail lines and roads enabling movement during flood periods, irrigation, and, most explicitly in the delta, anti-tank installations. A hierarchy is designed into the system of flood control to allow water, armies, and people to penetrate the frontier space to varying degrees.

    The military imaginary of Evros as an ανάχωμα also refers to a more nuanced politics of demographic engineering. The delimitation of the border in the 1920s coincided with the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, a process which created imagined communities that the river division helped crystalize. The process intended to produce a Greek Christian population along the border as a demographic buffer—or embankment—against invasion. This began with the transfer of Greek-speaking populations from what became Turkish territory on the shores of the Aegean and the Anatolian peninsula, as well as Pontic Greeks from the shores of the Black Sea. In return, Turkish-speaking and other Muslim populations from Greek territory were moved to Turkey, although significant minority populations still remain in western Thrace. In the century since, Turkish, Pomak, Bektashi, and other Muslim minorities in western Thrace have been the focus of multiple marginalizing practices. A system of checkpoints (barres) was put in place in 1936 to isolate these communities, the last of which were removed as recently as 1995.
    When we visited the Bektashi villages of Roussa and Goniko in Evros, we saw the check point still standing, an abandoned yet powerful reminder of the state as an ambient presence.

    As embankments of wet earth, berms are concentrations of these politics of demographic engineering and territorial control. They are ground engineered in excess. They are routes of control through the floodplain for the police, military, and local farmers, and they figure within the imaginary of the moat as obstacles for invading forces. The berms reveal the border regime’s deployment of the environment as defensive “infranatural” technology.

    Corresponding to the engineered limits of the floodplain, berms are often placed along the edge of the military buffer zone that runs along the Greek side of the Evros border, also known as ZAP (Zoni Asfaleias Prokalypsis). As human rights reports have been claiming for years, where the floodplain/buffer zone broadens, the river becomes a site where human rights violations occur. These include the failure to rescue and illegal pushbacks of border crossers back to Turkey.
    A case on May 8, 2018 involving a group of fourteen people attempting to cross during a flood event speaks directly to the overlapping of flooding with the operations of the border. The attempt failed and resulted in one fatality. Once the group returned to Turkey, they attempted to contact Greek authorities with a picture of the ID card and the GPS location of the body. Greek police stated that the flooding was too severe to attempt a recovery, and over the next few days, no confirmation of the recovery of the body was received. In other examples, the police have refuted the possibility of pushbacks because the water is too high or the geomorphology makes it impossible. In this way, the behavior of water in excess is co-opted as an obviatory device; a mask in the construction of denial. The flood is an alibi for border violence. Consequently, the berm infrastructure marks the limit of the flood and acts as a container for this riverine geography of exception.

    5. The Delta

    The Evros Delta, where the river meets the Thracian Sea, covers a surface area of 111,937 square kilometers. A protected conservation area designated as a wetland of international importance by the 1971 Ramsar treaty, the delta’s saline waters, ponds, and islands are home to a number of migratory bird species. Since last month, however, it has hosted a different kind of migration, with army and police units operating side by side with local, self-proclaimed “frontiersmen,” “guardians of the border,” and hunting clubs from all over Greece arriving to prevent what they understand to be an “intrusion” of “illegal aliens” (“lathrometanastes”) into Greece. Joining them are far-right and neo-nazi militants from Europe and the US who have flocked there to demonstrate their support, and “safeguard Europe’s borders.” Showing little regard for human life, they describe their operations as “hunting” for refugees. The ongoing dehumanization of asylum seekers using both language and physical force permeates the region. Detainees in the recently exposed border guard center at Poros, have described guards treating them “like animals.”
    The violent events of the past month, including the killings of Muhammad al Arab inside the Evros delta and Muhamad Gulzar in the Karaağaç Triangle, as well as the reports of the opening of the Ivaylovgrad dam, are punctuating moments that bring to the fore the slower environmental processes mobilized against asylum seekers at the border. The Evros catchment basin is currently a densely braided space of border violence and death, incorporating military personnel, nationalist and neo-nazi paramilitaries, local farmers and hunters, as well as the very ecology of this deltaic marshland, such as temperature and meteorological conditions. Indeed, rather than being a “natural” border, the Evros is an exemplary case of a borderized nature, where environmental elements, which are not deadly on their own, are made deadly by forcing people to traverse them under treacherous conditions. We have spoken with asylum seekers who have described the fog that hangs above the Evros. Fog, like clothes sodden from swimming across the river, and combined with freezing winter temperatures, contribute to the threat of hypothermia for border crossers, which, after drowning, is the second highest cause of death at Evros. As reported in the media, paramilitaries who have been recently drawn to the area to hunt people who cross “at night and in the fog,” are transposing the old Nazi directive for disappearing bodies “Nacht und Nebel” (“Night and Fog”) onto the Evros Delta.Through the waters of the river, amongst the impacted earth of the berms, and under the veil of the heavy airs of teargas and pesticides, complex forces are deployed and emerge from the fog of the Evros/Meriç/Maritsa. Understanding the complexity of the river as a weaponized border ecology is crucial to reveal the ongoing and intensifying violence that unfolds across different scales in this region. To confront the far-right that is currently assembling its forces rhetorically, environmentally, and in person in the Evros delta and all along the fluvial frontier, and to counter the obfuscating tactics long deployed by the police in their use of the river as alibi, requires understanding how this border is constructed. When considering the Evros border, we must learn to perceive the entire floodplain as a border technology. This, in turn, involves striving to see the river as a spectrum, from freezing fog in the valley, dew in the field, and mud in the floodplain as clearly as it sees water flowing between the riverbanks themselves.To assist migrants in defending their rights, and to resist the far-right seeping out of border regions into increasingly xenophobic societies, the very concept of “nature” needs to be reframed to encompass the ways it is deployed within the military imaginary of borderized environments. Practices must be developed to perceive how border regimes harness environmental processes. Such practices reveal the varying watery states of the Evros/Meriç/Maritsa as what they are: the riverine arsenal of a deadly defense architecture. The border regime operates as an expanded or “dispersed” territorial technology: an entire region designed as a violent ανάχωμα.

    https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/at-the-border/325751/weaponizing-a-river

    #weaponization #Evros #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #Thrace #Grèce #Turquie #architecture_forensique #Forensic_Architecture #rivière

    • GEOGRAPHY OF EVROS/MERIÇ RIVER PUSHBACKS

      Across January, BVMN collected testimonies
      documenting pushbacks over the Evros/
      Meriç river on the Greek-Turkish border,
      impacting over 500 people-on-the-move.
      These incidents validate a pattern identified
      by BVMN of Greek authorities using small
      islands in the river to stage pushbacks, often
      leaving groups stranded there for indefinite
      periods. Beyond inhumane treatment –
      pregnant women have been left without food,
      water or shelter – several reports indicate
      that people are placed at direct risk of
      drowning (see 8.4) in the river.
      Ironically, Greece has cited flooding as a
      reason not to mount rescue operations or
      recover the bodies of those who have
      drowned, while using the riverʼs water level
      and challenging geomorphology to refute the
      possibility of pushbacks.
      One testimony (see 8.5) offers a compelling
      example of the dangers associated with this
      practice. It describes how eight North African
      men were driven into the middle of the Evros
      river and ordered to jump in. With “water
      reaching their chests ”, the men were forced
      to wade to an island from where they could
      swim to Turkish shores. While attempting the
      crossing, however, one man was swept away
      by the overwhelming current, only managing
      to survive by grabbing onto a fallen tree.
      Witnessing this scene, the remaining men on
      the island feared to cross as they could not
      swim. With soaking wet clothes, they were
      stuck there for three days in sub-zero
      temperatures, until they were eventually
      retrieved by Greek police and pushed back to
      Turkey.
      Perhaps most unsettling is that the officers
      allegedly watched this scene unfold and took
      over 72 hours to intervene. Hypothermia is
      the second highest killer of transit groups in
      the Evros region. Reminiscent of the triborder
      area between Bulgaria, Greece and
      Turkey, which is being used to stage indirect
      chain pushbacks, this phenomenon
      represents a weaponization of geography, or
      as one commentator eloquently wrote, ʻa
      form of hybrid border violence that explicitly
      incorporates the river ecology itselfʼ.

      https://www.borderviolence.eu/balkan-region-report-january-2021
      –-> pp.7-8

  • Decolonisation and humanitarian response

    As part of our annual Careers in Humanitarianism Day, we were joined by:

    #Juliano_Fiori (Save the Children, and PhD Candidate at HCRI)
    – Professor #Patricia_Daley (Oxford University)
    – Professor #Elena_Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (UCL)

    in discussion (and sometimes disagreement!) on the notions of humanitarianism and decolonisation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLcf7O1Y_SOZQ24s6vCT8rtR9ANGs0nzEi&v=BSTjc3YCH9I&feature=youtu.b


    #décolonialité #décolonialisme #humanitaire #conférence

    ping @cede @isskein @karine4

    • Migration, Humanitarianism, and the Politics of Knowledge —> An Interview with #Juliano_Fiori.

      Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh: In this issue of Migration and Society we are interested in the overarching theme of “Recentering the South in Studies of Migration.” Indeed, it is increasingly acknowledged that studies of and policy responses to migration and displacement often have a strong Northern bias. For instance, in spite of the importance of different forms of migration within, across, and between countries of the “global South” (i.e., “South-South migration”), there is a significant tendency to focus on migration from “the South” to countries of “the North” (i.e., South-North migration), prioritizing the perspectives and interests of stakeholders associated with the North. Against this backdrop, what is your position with regard to claims of Eurocentrism in studies of and responses to migration?

      Juliano Fiori: To the extent that they emerge from immanent critiques of colonialism and liberal capitalism, I am sympathetic toward them.1 Decentering (or provincializing) Europe is necessarily an epistemological project of deconstruction. But to contribute to a counterhegemonic politics, this project must move beyond the diagnosis of epistemicide to challenge the particular substance of European thought that has produced systems of oppression.

      The idea of “decolonizing the curriculum” is, of course, à la mode (Sabaratnam 2017; Vanyoro 2019). It is difficult to dispute the pedagogical necessity to question epistemic hierarchies and create portals into multiple worlds of knowledge. These endeavors are arguably compatible with the exigencies of Enlightenment reason itself. But, though I recognize Eurocentrism as an expression of white identity politics, I am wary of the notion that individual self-identification with a particular body of knowledge is a worthy or sufficient end for epistemic decolonization—a notion I associate with a prevalent strain of woke post-politics, which, revering the cultural symbols of late capitalism but seeking to resignify them, surely produces a solipsistic malaise. Decolonization of the curriculum must at least aim at the reconstruction of truths.

      Eurocentrism in the study of human migration is perhaps particularly problematic—and brazen—on account of the transnational and transcultural histories that migrants produce. Migrants defy the neat categorization of territories and peoples according to civilizational hierarchies. They redefine the social meaning of physical frontiers, and they blur the cultural frontier between Self and Other. They contribute to an intellectual miscegenation that undermines essentialist explanations of cultural and philosophical heritage. Migration itself is decentering (Achiume 2019).

      And it is largely because of this that it is perceived as a threat. Let’s consider Europe’s contemporary backlash against immigration. The economic argument about the strain immigration places on the welfare state—often framed in neo-Malthusian terms—can be readily rebutted with evidence of immigrants’ net economic contribution. But concerns about the dethroning of “European values” are rarely met head-on; progressive political elites have rather responded by doubling down on calls for multiculturalism from below, while promoting universalism from above, intensifying the contradictions of Eurocentricity.

      It is unsurprising that, in the Anglophone world, migration studies developed the trappings of an academic discipline—dedicated university programs, journals, scholarly societies—in the late 1970s, amid Western anxieties about governing increased emigration from postcolonial states. It quickly attracted critical anthropologists and postcolonial theorists. But the study of the itinerant Other has tended to reinforce Eurocentric assumptions. Migration studies has risen from European foundations. Its social scientific references, its lexicon, its institutional frameworks and policy priorities, its social psychological conceptions of identity—all position Europe at the zero point. It has assembled an intellectual apparatus that privileges the Western gaze upon the hordes invading from the barrens. That this gaze might be cast empathetically does nothing to challenge epistemic reproduction: Eurocentrism directs attention toward the non-Western Other, whose passage toward Europe confirms the centrality of Europe and evokes a response in the name of Eurocentrism. To the extent that Western scholars focus on South-South migration, the policy relevance of their research is typically defined by its implications for flows from South to North.

      The Eurocentrism of responses to forced migration by multinational charities, UN agencies, and the World Bank is not only a product of the ideological and cultural origins of these organizations. It also reflects the political interests of their principal donors: Western governments. Aid to refugees in countries neighboring Syria has been amply funded, particularly as the European Union has prioritized the containment of Syrians who might otherwise travel to Europe. Meanwhile, countries like India, South Africa, and Ivory Coast, which host significant numbers of regional migrants and refugees, receive proportionally little attention and support.

      It is an irony of European containment policies that, while adopted as a measure against supposed threats to Europeanness, they undermine the moral superiority that Eurocentrism presupposes. The notion of a humanitarian Europe is unsustainable when European efforts to deter immigration are considered alongside the conditions accepted for other regions of the world. A continent of more than half a billion people, Europe hosts just under 2.3 million refugees; Lebanon, with a population of six million, hosts more than 1.5 million refugees from Syria alone. It should be noted that, in recent years, European citizens’ movements have mobilized resources to prevent the death of people crossing the Mediterranean. Initiatives like Alarm Phone, Open Arms, Sea Watch, and SOS MEDITERRANEE seem to represent a politicized humanitarianism for the network age. But in their overt opposition to an emboldened ethnonationalist politics, they seek to rescue not only migrants and refugees, but also an idea of Europe.

      EFQ: How, if at all, do you engage with constructs such as “the global North,” “the global South,” and “the West” in your own work?

      JF: I inevitably use some of these terms more than others, but they are all problematic in a way, so I just choose the one that I think best conveys my intended meaning in each given context. West, North, and core are not interchangeable; they are associated with distinct, if overlapping, ontologies and temporalities. As are Third World, South, and developing world.

      I try to stick to three principles when using these terms. The first is to avoid the sort of negative framing to which your work on South-South encounters has helpfully drawn attention (i.e., Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2015, 2018; Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley 2018). When we come across one of these terms being deployed negatively, it invariably describes that which is not of the West or of the North. As such, it centers Europe and North America, and it opens up an analytical terrain on which those residing beyond the imagined cultural bounds of these regions tend to be exoticized. When I need to frame something negatively, I try to do so directly, using the appropriate prefix.

      Second, I try to avoid setting up dichotomies and continuities. Placing East and West or North and South in opposition implies entirely dissimilar bodies, separated by a definite, undeviating frontier. But these terms are mutually constitutive, and it is rarely clear where, or even if, a frontier can be drawn. Such dichotomies also imply a conceptual equilibrium: that what lies on one side of the opposition is ontologically equivalent to what lies on the other. But the concept of the West is not equivalent to what the East represents today; indeed, it is questionable whether a concept of the East is now of much analytical value. South, West, North, and East might be constructed dialectically, but their imagined opposites are not necessarily their antitheses. Each arguably has more than one counterpoint.

      Similarly, I generally don’t use terms that associate countries or regions with stages of development—most obviously, least developed, developing, and developed. They point toward a progressivist and teleological theory of history to which I don’t subscribe. (The world-systems concepts of core, semiperiphery, and periphery offer a corrective to national developmental mythologies, but they are nonetheless inscribed in a systemic teleology.) The idea of an inexorable march toward capitalist modernity—either as the summit of civilization or as the point of maximum contradiction—fails to account for the angles, forks, and dead ends that historical subjects encounter. It also tends to be founded on a Eurocentric and theological economism that narrows human experience and, I would argue, mistakenly subordinates the political.

      Third, I try to use these terms conceptually, without presenting them as fixed unities. They must be sufficiently tight as concepts to transmit meaning. But they inevitably obscure the heterogeneity they encompass, which is always in flux. Moreover, as concepts, they are continuously resignified by discursive struggles and the reordering of the interstate system. Attempts to define them too tightly, according to particular geographies or a particular politics, can give the impression that they are ahistorical. Take Boaventura de Sousa Santos’s definition of the South, for example. For Santos, the South is not a geographical concept: he contends that it also exists in the geographical North (2014, 2016). Rather, it is a metaphor for the human suffering caused by capitalism and colonialism. It is anticapitalist, anticolonialist, antipatriarchal, and anti-imperialist. According to this definition, the South becomes representative of a particular left-wing politics (and it is negative). It thus loses its utility as a category of macrosociological analysis.

      Ultimately, all these terms are problematic because they are sweeping. But it is also for this reason that they can be useful for certain kinds of systemic analysis.

      EFQ: You have written on the history of “Western humanitarianism” (i.e., Fiori 2013; Baughan and Fiori 2015). Why do you focus on the “Western” character of humanitarianism?

      JF: I refer to “Western humanitarianism” as a rejoinder to the fashionable notion that there is a universal humanitarian ethic. Within both the Anglophone academy and the aid sector, it has become a commonplace that humanitarianism needs to be decolonized, and that the way to do this is to recognize and nurture “local” humanitarianisms around the world. In the last decade and a half, enthusiasm for global history has contributed to broader and more sophisticated understandings of how humanitarian institutions and discourses have been constructed. But it has also arguably contributed to the “humanitarianization” of different altruistic impulses, expressions of solidarity, and charitable endeavors across cultures.

      The term “humanitarian” was popularized in English and French in the first half of the nineteenth century, and it soon became associated with humanistic religion. It thus connoted the existence of an ideal humanity within every individual and, as Didier Fassin (2012) has argued, it has come to represent the secularization of the Christian impulse to life. It was used to describe a wide range of campaigns, from abolition and temperance to labor reform. But all promoted a rationalist conception of humanity derived from European philosophy. That is, an abstract humanity, founded upon a universal logos and characterized by the mind-body duality. What is referred to today as the “humanitarian system”—of financial flows and liberal institutions—has been shaped predominantly by Western power and political interests. But the justification for its existence also depends upon the European division between the reasoned human and the unreasoned savage. The avowed purpose of modern humanitarianism is to save, convert, and civilize the latter. To cast modern humanitarian reason as a universal is to deny the specificity of ethical dispositions born of other conceptions of humanity. Indeed, the French philosopher François Jullien (2014) has argued that the concept of “the universal” itself is of the West.

      Of course, there are practices that are comparable to those of Western humanitarian agencies across different cultures. However, claiming these for humanitarianism sets them on European foundations, regardless of their author’s inspiration; and it takes for granted that they reproduce the minimalist politics of survival with which the Western humanitarian project has come to be associated.

      So why not refer to “European humanitarianism”? First, because it must be recognized that, as a set of evolving ethical practices, humanitarianism does not have a linear intellectual genealogy. European philosophy itself has of course been influenced by other traditions of thought (see Amin 1989; Bevilacqua 2018; Hobson 2004; Patel 2018): pre-Socratic Greek thinkers borrowed from the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Egyptians; Enlightenment philosophes had exchanges with Arab intellectuals. Second, reference to the West usefully points to the application of humanitarian ideas through systems of power.

      Since classical antiquity, wars and ruptures have produced various narratives of the West. In the mid-twentieth century, essentialist histories of Western civilization emphasized culture. For Cold War political scientists, West and East often represented distinct ideological projects. I refer to the West as something approaching a sociopolitical entity—a power bloc—that starts to take form in the early nineteenth century as Western European intellectuals and military planners conceive of Russia as a strategic threat in the East. This bloc is consolidated in the aftermath of World War I, under the leadership of the United States, which, as net creditor to Europe, shapes a new liberal international order. The West, then, becomes a loose grouping of those governments and institutional interests (primarily in Europe and North America) that, despite divergences, have been at the forefront of efforts to maintain and renew this order. During the twentieth century, humanitarians were sometimes at odds with the ordering imperatives of raison d’état, but contemporary humanitarianism is a product of this West—and a pillar of liberal order.2

      EFQ: With this very rich historically and theoretically grounded discussion in mind, it is notable that policy makers and practitioners are implementing diverse ways of “engaging” with “the global South” through discourses and practices of “partnership” and supporting more “horizontal,” rather than “vertical,” modes of cooperation. In turn, one critique of such institutionalized policy engagement is that it risks instrumentalizing and co-opting modes of so-called South-South cooperation and “hence depoliticising potential sources of resistance to the North’s neoliberal hegemony” (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley 2018: 2). Indeed, as you suggested earlier, it has been argued that policy makers are strategically embracing “South-South migration,” “South-South cooperation,” and the “localisation of aid agenda” as efficient ways both “to enhance development outcomes” and to “keep ‘Southerners’ in the South,” as “part and parcel of Northern states’ inhumane, racist and racialised systems of border and immigration control” (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley 2018: 19). What, if any, are the dangers of enhancing “policy engagement” with “the South”? To what extent do you think that such instrumentalization and co-option can be avoided?

      JF: The term “instrumentalization” gives the impression that there are circumstances under which policy engagement can be objectively just and disinterested. Even when framed as humanitarian, the engagement of Western actors in the South is inspired by a particular politics. Policy engagement involves an encounter of interests and a renegotiation of power relations; for each agent, all others are instruments in its political strategy. Co-option is just a symptom of negotiation between unequal agents with conflicting interests—which don’t need to be stated, conscious, or rationally pursued. It is the means through which the powerful disarm and transform agendas they cannot suppress.

      The “localization agenda” is a good example. Measures to enable effective local responses to disaster are now discussed as a priority at international humanitarian congresses. These discussions can be traced at least as far back as Robert Chambers’s work (1983) on participatory rural development, in the 1980s. And they gathered momentum in the mid-2000s, as a number of initiatives promoted greater local participation in humanitarian operations. But, of course, there are different ideas about what localization should entail.

      As localization has climbed the humanitarian policy agenda, the overseas development divisions of Western governments have come to see it as an opportunity to increase “value for money” and, ultimately, reduce aid expenditure. They promote cash transfer programming as the most “empowering” aid technology. Localization then becomes complementary to the integration of emergency response into development agendas, and to the expansion of markets.

      Western humanitarian agencies that call for localization—and there are those, notably some branches of Médecins Sans Frontières, that do not—have generally fallen in line with this developmental interpretation, on account of their own ideological preferences as much as coercion by donor governments. But they have also presented localization as a moral imperative: a means of “shifting power” to the South to decolonize humanitarianism. While localization might be morally intuitive, Western humanitarians betray their hubris in supposing that their own concessions can reorder the aid industry and the geostrategic matrix from which it takes form. Their proposed solutions, then, including donor budgetary reallocations, are inevitably technocratic. Without structural changes to the political economy of aid, localization becomes a pretext for Western governments and humanitarian agencies to outsource risk. Moreover, it sustains a humanitarian imaginary that associates Westerners with “the international”—the space of politics, from which authority is born—and those in disaster-affected countries with “the local”—the space of the romanticized Other, vulnerable but unsullied by the machinations of power. (It is worth stating that the term “localization” itself implies the transformation of something “global” into something local, even though “locals”—some more than others—are constitutive of the global.)

      There are Southern charities and civil society networks—like NEAR,3 for example—that develop similar narratives on localization, albeit in more indignant tones. They vindicate a larger piece of the pie. But, associating themselves with a neomanagerial humanitarianism, they too embrace a politics incapable of producing a systemic critique of the coloniality of aid.

      Yet demands for local ownership of disaster responses should also be situated within histories of the subaltern. Some Western humanitarian agencies that today advocate for localization, including Save the Children, once faced opposition from anticolonial movements to their late imperial aid projects. More recently, so-called aid recipient perception surveys have repeatedly demonstrated the discontent of disaster-affected communities regarding impositions of foreign aid, but they have also demonstrated anguish over histories of injustice in which the Western humanitarian is little more than an occasional peregrine. It is the structural critique implicit in such responses that the localization agenda sterilizes. In the place of real discussion about power and inequalities, then, we get a set of policy prescriptions aimed at the production of self-sufficient neoliberal subjects, empowered to save themselves through access to markets.

      While some such co-option is always likely in policy engagement, it can be reduced through the formation of counterhegemonic coalitions. Indeed, one dimension of what is now called South-South cooperation involves a relatively old practice among Southern governments of forming blocs to improve their negotiating position in multilateral forums. And, in the twenty-first century, they have achieved moderate successes on trade, global finance, and the environment. But it is important to recognize that co-option occurs in South-South encounters too. And, of course, that political affinities and solidarity can and do exist across frontiers.

      EFQ: You edited the first issue of the Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, which focused on “humanitarianism and the end of liberal order” (see Fiori 2019), and you are also one of the editors of a forthcoming book on this theme, Amidst the Debris: Humanitarianism and the End of Liberal Order. New populisms of the right now challenge the liberal norms and institutions that have shaped the existing refugee regime and have promoted freer movement of people across borders. Can decolonial and anticolonial thinking provide a basis for responses to displacement and migration that do more than resist?

      JF: Any cosmopolitan response to migration is an act of resistance to the political organization of the interstate system.4 As blood-and-soil politicians now threaten to erect walls around the nation-state, the political meaning and relevance of cosmopolitan resistance changes. But if this resistance limits itself to protecting the order that appears to be under threat, it is likely to be ineffective. Moreover, an opportunity to articulate internationalisms in pursuit of a more just order will be lost.

      In recent years, liberal commentators have given a great deal of attention to Trump, Salvini, Duterte, Orbán, Bolsonaro, and other leading figures of the so-called populist Right. And these figures surely merit attention on account of their contributions to a significant conjunctural phenomenon. But the fetishization of their idiosyncrasies and the frenzied investigation of their criminality serves a revanchist project premised on the notion that, once they are removed from office (through the ballot box or otherwise), the old order of things will be restored. To be sure, the wave that brought them to power will eventually subside; but the structures (normative, institutional, epistemological) that have stood in its way are unlikely to be left intact. Whether the intention is to rebuild these structures or to build new ones, it is necessary to consider the winds that produced the wave. In other words, if a cosmopolitan disposition is to play a role in defining the new during the current interregnum, resistance must be inscribed into strategies that take account of the organic processes that have produced Trumpism and Salvinism.

      French geographer Christophe Guilluy offers an analysis of one aspect of organic change that I find compelling, despite my discomfort with the nativism that occasionally flavors his work. Guilluy describes a hollowing out of the Western middle class (2016, 2018). This middle class was a product of the postwar welfarist pact. But, since the crisis of capitalist democracy in the 1970s, the internationalization of capital and the financialization of economies have had a polarizing effect on society. According to Guilluy, there are now two social groupings: the upper classes, who have profited from neoliberal globalization or have at least been able to protect themselves from its fallout; and the lower classes, who have been forced into precarious labor and priced out of the city. It is these lower classes who have had to manage the multicultural integration promoted by progressive neoliberals of the center-left and center-right. Meanwhile, the upper classes have come to live in almost homogenous citadels, from which they cast moral aspersions on the reactionary lower classes who rage against the “open society.” An assertion of cultural sovereignty, this rage has been appropriated by conservatives-turned-revolutionaries, who, I would argue, represent one side of a new political dichotomy. On the other side are the progressives-turned-conservatives, who cling to the institutions that once seemed to promise the end of politics.

      This social polarization would appear to be of significant consequence for humanitarian and human rights endeavors, since their social base has traditionally been the Western middle class. Epitomizing the open society, humanitarian campaigns to protect migrants deepen resentment among an aging precariat, which had imagined that social mobility implied an upward slope, only to fall into the lower classes. Meanwhile, the bourgeois bohemians who join the upper classes accommodate themselves to their postmodern condition, hunkering down in their privileged enclaves, where moral responses to distant injustices are limited to an ironic and banalizing clicktivism. The social institutions that once mobilized multiclass coalitions in the name of progressive causes have long since been dismantled. And, despite the revival of democratic socialism, the institutional Left still appears intellectually exhausted after decades in which it resigned itself to the efficient management of neoliberal strategies.

      And yet, challenges to liberal order articulated through a Far Right politics create a moment of repoliticization; and they expose the contradictions of globalization in an interstate system, without undermining the reality of, or the demand for, connectivity. As such, they seem to open space for the formulation of radical internationalisms with a basis in the reconstruction of migrant rights. In this space, citizens’ movements responding to migration have forged a politics of transnational solidarity through anarchistic practices of mutual aid and horizontalism more than through the philosophizing of associated organic intellectuals. Fueled by disaffection with politics, as much as feelings of injustice, they have attracted young people facing a precarious future, and migrants themselves; indeed, there are movements led by migrants in Turkey, in Germany, in Greece, and elsewhere. They construct social commons with a basis in difference, forming “chains of equivalence.” Decolonial and anticolonial thinking is thus more likely to influence their responses to migration and displacement than those of Western governments and conventional humanitarian agencies. Indeed, beyond the political inspiration that horizontalism often draws from anticolonial struggles, decolonial and postcolonial theories offer a method of deconstructing hierarchy from the inside that can transform resistance into the basis for a pluralist politics built from the bottom up. But for this sort of internationalism to reshape democratic politics, the movements promoting it would need to build bridges into political institutions and incorporate it into political strategies that redress social polarization. To the extent that this might be possible, it will surely dilute their more radical propositions.

      I rather suspect that the most likely scenario, in the short term at least, involves a political reordering through the reassertion of neoliberal strategies. We could see the development of the sort of political economy imagined by the early neoliberal thinker Gottfried Haberler (1985): that is, one in which goods, wages, and capital move freely, but labor doesn’t. This will depend on the consolidation of authoritarian states that nonetheless claim a democratic mandate to impose permanent states of emergency.

      https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/migration-and-society/3/1/arms030114.xml

      #migrations

    • Conceptualising the global South and South–South encounters

      Long before the institutional interest in ‘engaging with’, and ostensibly mobilising and co-opting actors from across the global South, rich, critical literatures have been published in diverse languages around the world, demonstrating the urgency of developing and applying theoretical and methodological frameworks that can be posited as Southern, anti-colonial, postcolonial and/or decolonial in nature.[1] These and other approaches have traced and advocated for diverse ways of knowing and being in a pluriversal world characterised (and constituted) by complex relationalities and unequal power relations, and equally diverse ways of resisting these inequalities – including through historical and contemporary forms of transnational solidarities.

      Of course, the very term ‘South’ which is included not once but twice in the title of the Handbook of South-South Relations, is itself a debated and diversely mobilised term, as exemplified in the different usages and definitions proposed (and critiqued) across the Handbook’s constituent chapters.

      For instance, a number of official, institutional taxonomies exist, including those which classify (and in turn interpellate) different political entities as ‘being’ from and of ‘the South’ or ‘the North’. Such classifications have variously been developed on the basis of particular readings of a state’s geographical location, of its relative position as a (formerly) colonised territory or colonising power, and/or of a state’s current economic capacity on national and global scales.[2]

      In turn, Medie and Kang (2018) define ‘countries of the global South’ as ‘countries that have been marginalised in the international political and economic system’. Indeed, Connell (2007) builds upon a long tradition of critical thinking to conceptualise the South and the North, respectively, through the lens of the periphery and the metropole, as categories that transcend fixed physical geographies. And of course, as stressed by Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni and Kenneth Tafira in their contribution to the Handbook, such geographies have never been either static or defined purely through reference to physical territories and demarcations:

      ‘imperial reason and scientific racism were actively deployed in the invention of the geographical imaginaries of the global South and the global North.’

      Through conceptualising the South and North through the lenses of the periphery and metropole, Connell argues that there are multiple souths in the world, including ‘souths’ (and southern voices) within powerful metropoles, as well as multiple souths within multiple peripheries. As Sujata Patel notes in her chapter in the Handbook, it is through this conceptualisation that Connell subsequently posits that

      ‘the category of the south allows us to evaluate the processes that permeate the non-recognition of its theories and practices in the constitution of knowledge systems and disciplines’.

      It enables, and requires us, to examine how, why and with what effect certain forms of knowledge and being in the world come to be interpellated and protected as ‘universal’ while others are excluded, derided and suppressed ‘as’ knowledge or recognisable modes of being.[3] Indeed, in her chapter, Patel follows both Connell (2007) and de Sousa Santos (2014) in conceptualising ‘the South’ as ‘a metaphor’ that ‘represents the embeddedness of knowledge in relations of power’.

      In turn, in their contribution to the Handbook, Dominic Davies and Elleke Boehmer centralise the constitutive relationality of the South by drawing on Grovogu (2011), who defines ‘the term “Global South” not as an exact geographical designation, but as “an idea and a set of practices, attitudes, and relations” that are mobilised precisely as “a disavowal of institutional and cultural practices associated with colonialism and imperialism”’ (cited in Davies and Boehmer). Viewing the South, or souths, as being constituted by and mobilising purposeful resistance to diverse exploitative systems, demonstrates the necessity of a contrapuntal reading of, and through, the South.

      As such, as Ndlovu-Gatsheni and Tafira powerfully argue in their chapter,

      ‘the global South was not only invented from outside by European imperial forces but it also invented itself through resistance and solidarity-building.’

      In this mode of analysis, the South has been constituted through a long history of unequal encounters with, and diverse forms of resistance to, different structures and entities across what can be variously designated the North, West or specific imperial and colonial powers. An analysis of the South therefore necessitates a simultaneous interrogation of the contours and nature of ‘the North’ or ‘West’, with Mignolo arguing (2000) that ‘what constitutes the West more than geography is a linguistic family, a belief system and an epistemology’.

      Indeed, the acknowledgement of the importance of relationality and such mutually constitutive dynamics provides a useful bridge between these rich theoretical and conceptual engagements of, with and from ‘the South’ on the one hand, and empirically founded studies of the institutional interest in ‘South–South cooperation’ as a mode of technical and political exchange for ‘international development’ on the other. In effect, as noted by Urvashi Aneja in her chapter, diverse policies, modes of political interaction and ‘responses’ led by political entities across the South and the North alike ‘can thus be said to exist and evolve in a mutually constitutive relationship’, rather than in isolation from one another.

      An important point to make at this stage is that it is not our aim to propose a definitive definition of the South or to propose how the South should be analysed or mobilised for diverse purposes – indeed, we would argue that such an exercise would be antithetical to the very foundations of the debates we and our contributors build upon in our respective modes of research and action.

      Nonetheless, a common starting point for most, if not all, of the contributions in the Handbook is a rejection of conceptualisations of the South as that which is ‘non-Western’ or ‘non-Northern’. As noted by Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (here and in the Handbook), it is essential to continue actively resisting negative framings of the South as that which is not of or from ‘the West’ or ‘the North’ – indeed, this is partly why the (still problematic) South/North binary is often preferred over typologies such as Western and non-Western, First and Third World, or developed and un(der)developed countries, all of which ‘suggest both a hierarchy and a value judgment’ (Mawdsley, 2012).

      In effect, as Fiddian-Qasmiyeh argues in the Handbook (drawing on Brigg), such modes of negative framing risk ‘maintaining rather than disrupting the notion that power originates from and operates through a unidirectional and intentional historical entity’. She – like other contributors to the Handbook addressing the relationships between theoretical, conceptual and empirical dynamics and modes of analysis, response and action – advocates for us to ‘resist the tendency to reconstitute the power of “the North” in determining the contours of the analysis’, while simultaneously acknowledging the extent to which ‘many Southern-led responses are purposefully positioned as alternatives and challenges to hegemonic, Northern-led systems’.

      This is, in many ways, a ‘double bind’ that persists in many of our studies of the world, including those of and from the South: our aim not to re-inscribe the epistemic power of the North, while simultaneously acknowledging that diverse forms of knowledge and action are precisely developed as counterpoints to the North.

      As noted above, in tracing this brief reflection on conceptualisations of the South it is not our intention to offer a comprehensive definition of ‘the South’ or to posit a definitive account of Southern approaches and theories. Rather, the Handbook aims to trace the debates that have emerged about, around, through and from the South, in all its heterogeneity (and not infrequent internal contradictions), in such a way that acknowledges the ways that the South has been constructed in relation to, with, through but also against other spaces, places, times, peoples, modes of knowledge and action.

      Such processes are, precisely, modes of construction that resist dependence upon hegemonic frames of reference; indeed, the Handbook in many ways exemplifies the collective power that emerges when people come together to cooperate and trace diverse ‘roots and routes’ (following Gilroy) to knowing, being and responding to the world – all with a view to better understanding and finding more nuanced ways of responding to diverse encounters within and across the South and the North.

      At the same time as we recognise internal heterogeneity within and across the South/souths, and advocate for more nuanced ways of understanding the South and the North that challenge hegemonic epistemologies and methodologies, Ama Biney’s chapter in the Handbook reminds us of another important dynamic that underpins the work of most, perhaps all, of the contributors to the Handbook. While Biney is writing specifically about pan-Africanism, we would argue that the approach she delineates is essential to the critical theoretical perspectives and analyses presented throughout the Handbook:

      ’Pan-Africanism does not aim at the external domination of other people, and, although it is a movement operating around the notion of being a race conscious movement, it is not a racialist one … In short, pan-Africanism is not anti-white but is profoundly against all forms of oppression and the domination of African people.’

      While it is not our aim to unequivocally idealise or romanticise decolonial, postcolonial, anti-colonial, or Southern theories, or diverse historical or contemporary modes of South South Cooperation and transnational solidarity – such processes are complex, contradictory, and at times are replete of their own forms of discrimination and violence – we would nonetheless posit that this commitment to challenging and resisting all forms of oppression and domination, of all peoples, is at the core of our collective endeavours.

      With such diverse approaches to conceptualising ‘the South’ (and its counterpoint, ‘the North’ or ‘the West’), precisely how we can explore ‘South–South relations’ thus becomes, first, a matter of how and with what effect we ‘know’, ‘speak of/for/about’, and (re)act in relation to different spaces, peoples and objects around the world; subsequently, it is a process of tracing material and immaterial connections across time and space, such as through the development of political solidarity and modes of resistance, and the movement of aid, trade, people and ideas. It is with these overlapping sets of debates and imperatives in mind, that the Handbook aims to explore a broad range of questions regarding the nature and implications of conducting research in and about the global South, and of applying a ‘Southern lens’ to such a wide range of encounters, processes and dynamics around the world.[4]

      […]

      From a foundational acknowledgement of the dangers of essentialist binaries such as South–North and East–West and their concomitant hierarchies and modes of exploitation, the Handbook aims to explore and set out pathways to continue redressing the longstanding exclusion of polycentric forms of knowledge, politics and practice. It is our hope that the Handbook unsettles thinking about the South and about South–South relations, and prompts new and original research agendas that serve to transform and further complicate the geographic framing of the peoples of the world for emancipatory futures in the 21st century.

      This extract from Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Patricia Daley’s Introduction to The Handbook of South-South Relations has been slightly edited for the purposes of this blog post. For other pieces published as part of the Southern Responses blog series on Thinking through the Global South, click here.

      References cited

      Anzaldúa, G., 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.

      Brigg, M., 2002. ‘Post-development, Foucault and the Colonisation Metaphor.’ Third World Quarterly 23(3), 421–436.

      Chakrabarty, D., 2007. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

      Connell, R., 2007. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. London: Polity.

      Dabashi, H., 2015. Can Non-Europeans Think? London: Zed Books.

      de Sousa Santos, B., 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

      Dussel, E., 1977. Filosofía de Liberación. Mexico City: Edicol.

      Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., 2015. South-South Educational Migration, Humanitarianism and Development: Views from the Caribbean, North Africa and the Middle East. Oxford: Routledge.

      Gilroy, P., 1993. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. London: Verso.

      Grosfoguel, R., 2011. Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political-Economy: Transmodernity, Decolonial Thinking, and Global Coloniality. Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1(1). Available from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/21k6t3fq [Accessed 7 September 2018].

      Grovogu, S., 2011. A Revolution Nonetheless: The Global South in International Relations. The Global South 5(1), Special Issue: The Global South and World Dis/Order, 175–190.

      Kwoba, B, Nylander, O., Chantiluke, R., and Nangamso Nkopo, A. (eds), 2018. Rhodes Must Fall: The Struggle to Decolonise the Racist Heart of Empire. London: Zed Books.

      Mawdsley, E., 2012. From Recipients to Donors: The Emerging Powers and the Changing Development Landscape. London: Zed Books.

      Medie, P. and Kang, A.J., 2018. Power, Knowledge and the Politics of Gender in the Global South. European Journal of Politics and Gender 1(1–2), 37–54.

      Mignolo, W.D., 2000. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

      Mignolo, W.D., 2015. ‘Foreword: Yes, We Can.’ In: H. Dabashi, Can Non-Europeans Think? London and New York: Zed Books, pp. viii–xlii.

      Minh-ha, Trinh T., 1989. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

      Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J., 2013. Empire, Global Coloniality and African Subjectivity. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

      Quijano, A., 1991. Colonialidad y Modernidad/Racionalidad. Perú Indígena 29, 11–21.

      Said, E., 1978. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. New York: Vintage Books.

      Spivak, G.C., 1988. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. New York: Routledge.

      Sundberg, J., 2007. Reconfiguring North–South Solidarity: Critical Reflections on Experiences of Transnational Resistance. Antipode 39(1), 144–166.

      Tuhiwai Smith, L., 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.

      wa Thiong’o, N., 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London: Heinemann Educational.

      Wynter, S., 2003. Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation – An Argument. The New Centennial Review 3(3), 257–337.

      * Notes

      [1] For instance, see Anzaldúa 1987; Chakrabarty 2007; Connell 2007; de Sousa Santos 2014; Dussell 1977; Grosfoguel 2011; Kwoba et al. 2018; Mignolo 2000; Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2013; Quijano 1991, 2007; Said 1978; Spivak 1988; Sundberg 2007; Trinh T. Minh-ha 1989; Tuhiwai Smith 1999; wa Thiong’o 1986; Wynter 2003.

      [2] Over 130 states have defined themselves as belonging to the Group of 77 – a quintessential South–South platform – in spite of the diversity of their ideological and geopolitical positions in the contemporary world order, their vastly divergent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per capita income, and their rankings in the Human Development Index – for a longer discussion of the challenges and limitations of diverse modes of definition and typologies, see Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2015.

      [3] Also see Mignolo 2000; Dabashi 2015.

      [4] Indeed, Connell notes that ‘#Southern_theory’ is a term I use for social thought from the societies of the global South. It’s not necessarily about the global South, though it often is. Intellectuals from colonial and postcolonial societies have also produced important analyses of global-North societies, and of worldwide structures (e.g. Raúl Prebisch and Samir Amin).

      https://southernresponses.org/2018/12/05/conceptualising-the-global-south-and-south-south-encounters
      #développement

    • Exploring refugees’ conceptualisations of Southern-led humanitarianism

      By Prof Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Principal Investigator, Southern Responses to Displacement Project

      With displacement primarily being a Southern phenomena – circa 85-90% of all refugees remain within the ‘global South – it is also the case that responses to displacement have long been developed and implemented by states from the South (a construct we are critically examining throughout the Southern Responses to Displacement project – see here). Some of these state-led responses to displacement have been developed and implemented within the framework of what is known as ‘South-South Cooperation’. This framework provides a platform from which states from the global South work together to complement one another’s abilities and resources and break down barriers and structural inequalities created by colonial powers. It can also be presented as providing an alternative mode of response to that implemented by powerful Northern states and Northern-led organisations (see here).

      An example of this type of South-South Cooperation, often driven by principles of ‘internationalism,’ can be found in the international scholarship programmes and schools established by a number of Southern states to provide primary, secondary and university-level education for refugees from across the Middle East and North Africa. In particular, since the 1960s, Cuba has provided free education through a scholarship system for Palestinian refugees based in camps and cities across the Middle East following the Nakba (the catastrophe) and for Sahrawi refugees who have lived in desert-based refugee camps in Algeria since the mid-1970s.

      In line with the Southern Responses to Displacement project, which aims to purposefully centralise refugees’ own experiences of and perspectives on Southern-led initiatives to support refugees from Syria, throughout my previous work I have examined how Palestinian and Sahrawi refugees have conceptualised, negotiated or, indeed, resisted, diverse programmes that have been developed and implemented ‘on their behalf.’ While long-standing academic and policy debates have addressed the relationship between humanitarianism, politics and ideology, few studies to date have examined the ways in which refugee beneficiaries – as opposed to academics, policymakers and practitioners – conceptualise the programmes which are designed and implemented ‘for refugees’. The following discussion addresses this gap precisely by centralising Palestinian and Sahrawi graduates’ reflections on the Cuban scholarship programme and the extent to which they conceptualise political and ideological connections as being compatible with humanitarian motivations and outcomes.

      This blog, and my previous work (here and here) examines how Palestinian and Sahrawi refugees have understood the motivations, nature and impacts of Cuba’s scholarship system through reference to identity, ideology, politics and humanitarianism. Based on my interviews with Palestinians and Sahrawis while they were still studying in Cuba, and with Palestinian and Sahrawi graduates whom I interviewed after they had returned to their home-camps in Lebanon and Algeria respectively, this short piece examines the complex dynamics which underpin access to, as well as the multifaceted experiences and outcomes of, the scholarship programme on both individual and collective levels.
      Balancing ‘the humanitarian’

      Although both Palestinian and Sahrawi interviewees in Cuba and Sahrawi graduates in their Algeria-based home-camps repeatedly asserted the humanitarian nature of the Cuban scholarship programme, precisely what this denomination of ‘humanitarianism’ might mean, and how compatible it could be given the ideological and political links highlighted by Palestinian graduates whom I interviewed in a range of refugee camps in Lebanon, requires further discussion.

      The contemporary international humanitarianism regime is habitually equated with the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence (Ferris 2011: 11), and a strict separation is firmly upheld by Western humanitarian institutions between morality and politics (as explored in more detail by Pacitto and Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2013). However, many critics reject the assertion that humanitarianism can ever be separated from politics, since ‘“humanitarianism” is the ideology of hegemonic states in the era of globalisation’ (Chimni 2000:3). Recognising the extent to which the Northern-led and Northern-dominated humanitarian regime is deeply implicated in, and reproduces, ‘the ideology of hegemonic [Northern] states’ is particularly significant since many (Northern) academics, policymakers and practitioners reject the right of Southern-led initiatives to be denominated ‘humanitarian’ in nature on the basis that such projects and programmes are motivated by ideological and/or faith-based principles, rather than ‘universal’ humanitarian principles.

      Palestinians who at the time of our interviews were still studying in Cuba, in addition to those who had more recently graduated from Cuban universities, medical and dentistry schools and had ‘returned’ to their home-camps in Lebanon, repeatedly referred to ‘ideology’, ‘politics’, ‘humanitarianism’ and ‘human values’ when describing the Cuban scholarship programme. Yet, while they maintained that Cuba’s programme for Palestinian refugees is ‘humanitarian’ in nature, Palestinian graduates offered different perspectives regarding the balance between these different dimensions, implicitly and at times explicitly noting the ways in which these overlap or are in tension.

      Importantly, these recurrent concepts are to be contrasted with the prevalent terminology and frames of reference arising in Sahrawi refugees’ accounts of the Cuban educational programme. Having also had access to the Cuban educational migration programme, Sahrawi graduates’ accounts can perhaps be traced to the continued significance of Spanish – the language learned and lived (following Bhabha 2006:x) in Cuba – amongst graduates following their return to the Sahrawi refugee camps, where Spanish is the official language used in the major camp-based Sahrawi medical institutions.

      As such, in interviews and in informal conversations in the Sahrawi camps, Cuban-educated Sahrawis (commonly known as Cubarauis) consistently used the Spanish-language term solidaridad (solidarity) to define both the nature of the connection between the Sahrawi people and Cuba, and the nature of the scholarship programme; they also regularly cited Cuban revolutionary figures such as José Martí and Fidel Castro. In contrast, no such quotes were offered by the Palestinian graduates I interviewed in Lebanon, even if the significance of Fidel Castro and Ché Guevara was noted by many during our interviews in Cuba.

      Explaining his understanding of the basis of the scholarship programme for Palestinians, Abdullah elaborated that this was:

      ‘mainly prompted because Cuban politics is based upon human values and mutual respect, and in particular upon socialism, which used to be very prominent in the Arab world during that time.’

      In turn, referring to the common visions uniting both parties and facilitating Cuba’s scholarship programme for Palestinian refugees, Hamdi posited that:

      ‘Certain ideological and political commonalities contributed to this collaboration between the Cuban government and the PLO. However, the humanitarian factor was present in these negotiations.’ (Emphasis added)

      These accounts reflect the extent to which ideology and humanitarianism are both recognised as playing a key role in the scholarship programme, and yet Hamdi’s usage of the term ‘however’, and his reference to ‘the humanitarian factor’, demonstrate an awareness that a tension may be perceived to exist between ideology/politics and humanitarian motivations.

      Indeed, rather than describing the programme as a humanitarian programme per se, eight of my interviewees offered remarkably similar humanitarian ‘qualifiers’: the Cuban education programme is described as having ‘a humanitarian component’ (Marwan), ‘a humanitarian dimension’ (Younis), a ‘humanitarian aspect’ (Saadi), and ‘humanitarian ingredients’ (Abdel-Wahid); while other interviewees argued that it is ‘a mainly humanitarian system’ (Nimr) which ‘carr[ies] humanitarian elements’ (Hamdi) and ‘shares its humanitarian message in spite of the embargo [against Cuba]’ (Ibrahim).

      As exemplified by these qualifiers, Palestinians who participated in this programme themselves recognise that humanitarianism was not the sole determining justification for the initiative, but rather that it formed part of the broader Cuban revolution and a particular mode of expressing support for other liberation movements, including the Palestinian cause.

      In terms of weighting these different motivating and experiential elements, Mohammed argued that the ‘humanitarian aspect outweighs the ideological one’, emphasising the ‘programme’s strong humanitarian aspect’. In turn, Ahmed and Nimr declared that the Cuban scholarships were offered ‘without conditions or conditionalities’ and without ‘blackmailing Palestinians to educate them’.

      These references are particularly relevant when viewed alongside critiques of neoliberal development programmes and strategies which have often been characterised by ‘tied aid’ or diverse economic, socio-political and gendered conditionalities which require beneficiaries to comply with Northern-dominated priorities vis-à-vis ‘good governance’ – all of which are, in effect, politically and/or ideologically driven.

      Concurrently, Khalil argued that the programme is ‘humanitarian if used correctly’, thereby drawing attention to the extent to which the nature of the programme transcends either Cuba’s or the PLO’s underlying motivating factors per se, and is, rather, characterised both by the way in which the programme has been implemented since the 1970s, and its longer-term impacts.

      With reference to the former, claims regarding the absence of conditionalities on Cuba’s behalf must be viewed alongside the extent to which Palestinians could only access the scholarships if they were affiliated with specific Palestinian factions (as I explore in the book): can the programme be ‘truly’ humanitarian if individual participation has historically been contingent upon an official declaration of ideological commonality with a leftist faction and/or the Cuban internationalist project?

      With universality, neutrality and impartiality being three of the core ‘international’ humanitarian principles, a tension is apparent from the perspective of ‘the Northern relief elite’ who arguably monopolise the epithet humanitarian (Haysom, cited in Pacitto and Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2013: 6). Indeed, although José Martí’s humanitarian principle to ‘compartir lo que tienes, no dar lo que te sobra’ (‘to share what you have, not what is left over’) has historically guided many of the Cuban state’s revolutionary programmes on national(ist) and international(ist) levels, precisely who Cuba should share with (on a collective) has often been geopolitically framed. Whilst designed to overcome the historical legacy of diverse exclusionary processes in Cuba, the programme could itself be conceptualised as being guided by an ideological commitment to inclusion with exclusionary underpinnings.

      The imposition of a hegemonic discourse leaves people out, primarily on ideological grounds. Ideological repression means that everybody who questions the regime in a fundamental way is basically left out in the dark. There is a creation of boundaries between Self and Other that leaves very little room for fundamental critique. However, the existence of a hegemonic discourse, and demands for students to publicly assert their affiliation to an official ideological stance, whether this refers to Cuban or Palestinian discourses, should not necessarily be equated with the exclusion of individuals and groups who do not share particular opinions and beliefs.

      In the case explored in this blog and in the book it is based on, a distinction can therefore perhaps be usefully made between the collective basis of scholarships primarily being offered to groups and nations with political and ideological bonds to Cuba’s revolutionary project, and the extent to which individual Palestinian students have arguably negotiated the Cuban system and the factional system alike to maximise their personal, professional and political development. To achieve the latter, individuals have developed official performances of ideological loyalty to access and complete their university studies in Cuba, whilst ultimately maintaining or developing political and ideological opinions, and critiques, of their own.

      With reference to the broader outcomes of the programme, is it sufficient to announce, as seven Palestinian graduates did, that the project was ‘humanitarian’ in nature precisely because the beneficiaries of the scheme were refugees, and the overarching aim was to achieve professional self-sufficiency in refugee camps?

      In effect, and as explored in my other research (here) Cuba’s programme might appear to fall under the remit of a developmental approach, rather than being ‘purely’ humanitarian in nature, precisely due to the official aim of maximising self-sufficiency as opposed to addressing immediate basic needs in an emergency phase (with the latter more readily falling under the remit of ‘humanitarian’ assistance).

      Nonetheless, Cuba’s aim to enhance refugees’ self-sufficiency corresponds to the UNHCR’s well-established Development Assistance to Refugees approach, and programmes supporting medium- and long-term capacity building are particularly common in protracted refugee situations. At the same time, it could be argued that the distinction between humanitarianism and development is immaterial given that the rhetoric of solidarity underpins all of Cuba’s internationalist projects, whether in contexts of war or peace, and, furthermore, since Cuba has offered scholarships not only to refugees but also to citizens from across the Global South.

      Related to the programme’s reach to citizens and refugees alike, and simultaneously to the nature of the connection between humanitarianism and politics, Younis drew attention to another pivotal dimension: ‘although the educational system had a humanitarian dimension, I don’t think it is possible to separate the human being from politics’. Cuba’s political (in essence, socialist) commitment to the ‘human being’ was reasserted throughout the interviews, with Saadi, for instance, referring to Cuba’s prioritisation of the ‘relationship between a human being and a fellow human being’, and Khalil explaining that Cuba had adopted ‘the cause of the human being, and that’s why it supported Palestinians in their struggle’.

      While critiques of Northern-led human rights discourses have been widespread, and such critiques have often paralleled or influenced critical analyses of humanitarianism (as I explore elsewhere), in their responses Palestinian graduates invoked an alternative approach to supporting the rights of human beings.

      By conceptualising Cuba’s commitment to human beings as being inherently connected to politics, graduates, by extension, also highlighted that politics cannot be separated from approaches geared towards supporting humanity, whether external analysts consider that such approaches should be labelled ‘development’ or ‘humanitarianism’. Whilst absent from the terminology used by Palestinian graduates, it can be argued that the notion of solidarity centralised in Cubaraui (and Cuban) accounts captures precisely these dimensions of Cuba’s internationalist approach.
      Moving Forward

      These dynamics – including conceptualisations of the relationship between politics, ideology, and humanitarianism; of short-, medium- and long-term responses to displacement; and how refugees themselves negotiate and conceptualise responses developed by external actors ‘on their behalf’ – will continue to be explored throughout the Southern Responses to Development from Syria project. This ongoing research project aims, amongst other things, to examine how people displaced from Syria – Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Kurds … -, experience and perceive the different forms of support that ‘Southern’ states, civil society groups, and refugees themselves have developed in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey since the outbreak of the Syrian conflict in 2011. This will include reflections on how refugees conceptualise (and resist) both the construct of ‘the South’ itself and diverse responses developed by states such as Malaysia and Indonesia, but also by different groups of refugees themselves. The latter include Palestinian refugees whose home-camps in Lebanon have been hosting refugees from Syria, but also whose educational experiences in Cuba mean that they are amongst the medical practitioners who are treating refugees from Syria, demonstrating the complex legacies of the Cuban scholarship programme for refugees from the Middle East.

      *

      For more information on Southern-led responses to displacement, including vis-à-vis South-South Cooperation, read our introductory mini blog series here, and the following pieces:

      Carpi, E. (2018) ‘Empires of Inclusion‘

      Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2019) ‘Looking Forward. Disasters at 40′

      Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2018) Histories and spaces of Southern-led responses to displacement

      Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2018) Internationalism and solidarity

      Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2018) Refugee-refugee humanitarianism

      Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2014) The Ideal Refugees: Islam, Gender, and the Sahrawi Politics of Survival

      Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. and Daley, P. (2018) Conceptualising the global South and South–South encounters

      Featured Image: A mural outside a school in Baddawi camp, N. Lebanon. Baddawi has been home to Palestinian refugees from the 1950s, and to refugees from Syria since 2011 (c) E. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2017

      https://southernresponses.org/2019/04/08/exploring-refugees-conceptualisations-of-southern-led-humanitaria

      #réfugiés #post-colonialisme #ressources_pédagogiques

  • Des équipes sanitaires mobiles fourniront une aide vitale à des milliers de personnes déplacées par le conflit en Arménie | Organisation internationale pour les migrations
    https://www.iom.int/fr/news/des-equipes-sanitaires-mobiles-fourniront-une-aide-vitale-des-milliers-de-perso

    Des dizaines de milliers d’Arméniens ont été déplacés suite au conflit dans le Haut-Karabakh et ses environs l’an dernier. La majorité des déplacés sont des femmes et des enfants, dont bon nombre ont besoin de soins de santé physique et mentale, tandis que le système national de santé arménien est mis à rude épreuve par la pandémie de COVID-19.L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a réagi en s’associant au Ministère de la santé et en soutenant le déploiement d’équipes sanitaires mobiles et pluridisciplinaires là où elles sont le plus nécessaires. La clinique est soutenue par la subvention mondiale de réponse rapide de l’OIM. Au cours des six prochains mois, la clinique fournira des services de soins de santé primaires - y compris une prise en charge psychologique - à plus de 9 000 personnes. Ces soins comprendront un traitement de premiers secours et l’orientation vers des spécialistes si nécessaire.La clinique mobile et son équipe de cinq personnes ont déjà visité 15 communautés et examiné 750 personnes, soit une moyenne de 50 par jour. « Les cliniques mobiles dispensent des soins de santé gratuits et de haute qualité directement aux communautés là où les établissements de santé sont surchargés », a déclaré Nune Asatryan, coordonnateur de projet de l’OIM en Arménie. « Dotées de professionnels de la santé, les cliniques offrent des traitements médicaux de base et des examens préventifs et sont conçues pour identifier les patients qui ont besoin d’une prise en charge supplémentaire ».

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#armenie#hautkarabakh#OIM#personnedeplacee#refugie#sante#systemesante#santementale

  • Over 1,300 IDPs and refugees arrived in Kurdistan Region in January 2021- KUrdistan 24

    “The displacement process is continuing to Kurdistan Region. On January 2021 nearly 1,307 IDPs and Refugees arrived in the Kurdistan Region,” the JCC said.

    According to the JCC report the return to the region’s displacement camps is due to poor living conditions, lack of job opportunities and lack of services, instability, and security in their places of origin.

    Iraq’s economy, including that of the Kurdistan Region, has further suffered from an economic crisis due to the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting drop in oil prices.

    https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/23943-Over-1,300-IDPs-and-refugees-arrived-in-Kurdistan-Region-in-Janua

    #Covid-19#Irak#camp#guerre#Santé#réfugiés#déplacés#migration#KRG

  • IDPs return to camps in Iraq, Kurdistan Region | Rudaw.net

    Internally displaced people (IDPs) from across Iraq are returning to camps in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region amid a lack of services and security in their areas of origin.
    “We don’t live a good life. We are a family of seven and we can’t buy things. We don’t have a house and we can’t afford to rent. The security situation is not good. Even healthcare is not good, and coronavirus has spread. But the situation is better in the camp,”

    https://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/15022021

    #Covid-19#Irak#camp#guerre#Santé#réfugiés#déplacés#migration#KRG

  • #Front-Lex. Traduire l’#UE en #justice

    La #politique_migratoire de l’UE vise à endiguer à tout prix les flux migratoires en provenance d’Afrique. Avec une baisse de 90% des arrivées sur le sol de l’UE, on considère que cette politique est un succès.

    C’est aussi un #génocide. Les coûts en vies humaines et en termes de droits de l’homme sont sans précédent : 20 000 mort-es en Méditerranée et 50 000 survivant-es parqué-es dans les camps de concentration au cours des 5 dernières années. Et ce n’est pas fini.

    La politique migratoire de l’UE constitue une violation flagrante de tous les cadres juridiques internationaux et européens régissant les migrations et les frontières : #droit_des_réfugiés, #droits_de_l’homme, #droit_maritime et #droit_pénal.

    Pour la première fois depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les institutions, les gouvernements et les responsables européens commettent d’innombrables #crimes_contre_l’humanité.

    Ces crimes atroces visent la population la plus vulnérable au monde : les civils qui ont besoin d’une #protection_internationale.

    Front-Lex rétablit la #loi_aux_frontières de l’Europe en demandant des comptes à l’UE, ses États membres et leurs fonctionnaires.

    https://www.front-lex.eu/fran%C3%A7ais
    https://www.front-lex.eu

    #frontex #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #responsabilité

    ping @isskein @karine4 @_kg_

    • The Legal Centre Lesvos and Front-Lex call upon FRONTEX to immediately suspend or terminate its activities in the Aegean Sea region / Legal Center Lesvos et Front-Lex demandent à FRONTEX de suspendre ou de mettre fin immédiatement à ses activités dans la mer Égée.

      This morning, Legal Centre Lesvos and Front-Lex sent a formal request to suspend or terminate Frontex operations in the Aegean Sea to Fabrice Leggeri, the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), pursuant to Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

      The request is based on an accumulation of evidence showing Frontex and its Executive Director have failed to act, in infringement of European Treaties, in relation to fundamental rights and international protection obligations in the Aegean Sea region, including:

      • Failure to decide against launching Frontex’s Rapid Border Intervention Aegean in March 2020. Frontex decided to launch a “rapid border intervention” providing further material assistance to the existing Frontex operation in the Aegean sea region, in response to Greece’s request on 1 March 2020. This Frontex activity was approved a day later, on 2 March, despite the fact that the Greek state had by that time already implemented a set of violent anti-migrant measures, including:

      Unilateral suspension of the right to asylum in flagrant violation of EU asylum law and international law on 1st March;
      Systematically pressing criminal charges against asylum seekers for unlawful entry in violation of Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention;
      Summarily and arbitrarily detaining migrants across the Aegean islands in ports, buses, ships, beaches, where they were denied access to asylum procedures, adequate shelter, sanitation facilities, and medical attention in violation of fundamental rights;
      Increased violence at sea, with at least one instance in which the Greek authorities fired at a rubber dingy.

      As such, it was clear there were “serious reasons at the beginning of the activity to suspend or terminate it because it could lead to violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations of a serious nature”, per Article 46 (5) of EU Regulation 2019/1896 on the European Border and Coast Guard Regulations.

      • Failure to suspend or terminate ongoing Frontex operations in the Aegean (Joint Operation Poseidon) despite well-documented, systematic, collective expulsions. There is insurmountable evidence of Greek authorities systematically conducting collective expulsions, which from March 2020 until the present have been perpetrated pursuant to a consistent modus operandi. This practice has been repeatedly documented and denounced by numerous media outlets, migrant solidarity collectives and human rights organisations, including the Legal Centre Lesvos. As set out in our most recent report at section 3, the constituent elements of the operational pattern of pushbacks on the part of the Greek authorities in the Aegean violate numerous fundamental rights and international protection obligations, and amount to crimes against humanity. The involvement of Frontex vessels in persistent pushbacks in the Aegean sea has been documented by independent investigations. Pursuant to Article 46(4) of EU Regulation 2019/1896, Leggeri in his capacity as Executive Director of Frontex, after consultation with the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer, is required to suspend or terminate the activity of Frontex in a context where violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations related to the Frontex activities are of a serious nature and are likely to persist.

      • Failure to give a transparent, truthful and accurate account of the circumstances and number of pushback incidents recorded in the Aegean sea in which Frontex has been implicated, notably during hearings before the European Parliament.

      • Ongoing and inherent failure of Frontex’s internal reporting and monitoring mechanisms in relation to fundamental rights violations. The internal investigation launched following the Frontex extraordinary Management Board meeting on 10 November 2020 and the creation of a specific Working Group to review evidence of Frontex’s involvement in fundamental rights violations, highlights the longstanding and ongoing deficiencies of the European agency. It demonstrates its inability to operate with transparency, efficient and effective reporting and monitoring mechanisms for fundamental rights violations. In addition to this internal investigation, there are two ongoing investigations into Frontex by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Ombudsman.

      In light of the above failures and the evidence of its direct and indirect involvement in pushbacks, Frontex is complicit in documented state violence against migrants in the Aegean sea region in particular and in Greece more broadly.

      As a European Agency systematically failing to act in accordance with European law, with its governing regulations and internal monitoring mechanisms, Frontex must immediately suspend or terminate its operations in the Aegean sea region.

      These failures are inherent to the functioning of Frontex, its direction and management. Frontex operates with impunity in contexts of flagrant fundamental rights and international protection obligations violations, across Europe’s borders. In the absence of independent and efficient transparency and accountability mechanisms, justice for survivors of collective expulsions in the Aegean must include defunding, demilitarising and dismantling Europe’s violent Border and Coast Guard Agency.
      *******************************************************

      Hier, Legal Centre Lesbos et Front-Lex ont adressé une demande officielle de suspension ou de fin des opérations de Frontex en mer Égée à Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur exécutif de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes (Frontex), conformément à l’article 265 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne.

      La demande est fondée sur une accumulation de preuves démontrant que Frontex et son directeur exécutif n’ont pas agi, en violation des traités européens, concernant les droits fondamentaux et les obligations de protection internationale dans la région de la mer Égée, et notamment:

      • Le défaut de renoncer au lancement de l’intervention rapide aux frontières de Frontex dans la mer Égée en mars 2020. Frontex a décidé de lancer une « intervention rapide aux frontières » fournissant une assistance matérielle supplémentaire à l’opération Frontex déjà existante dans la région de la mer Égée, en réponse à la demande de la Grèce le 1er mars 2020. Cette activité de Frontex a été approuvée un jour plus tard, soit le 2 mars, malgré le fait que l’État grec mettait déjà en œuvre un ensemble de violentes mesures anti-migrants, comptant notamment:

      La suspension unilatérale du droit de demander l’asile le 1er mars, en violation flagrante du droit d’asile de l’Union Européenne et du droit international;
      L’initiation systématique de poursuites pénales à l’encontre de tout demandeur d’asile pour entrée illégale dans le pays en violation de l’article 31 de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés;
      La détention sommaire et arbitraire de migrants sur les îles de la mer Égée, dans des ports, des bus, des bateaux, sur des plages, où ils se sont vu refuser l’accès aux procédures d’asile, à un abri convenable, à des installations sanitaires et à des soins médicaux en violation de tous droits fondamentaux;
      L’augmentation de la violence à la frontière maritime, incluant au moins un cas dans lequel les autorités grecques ont tiré sur un canot pneumatique de migrants.

      Ainsi, il était clair qu’il “exist[ait] déjà, dès le commencement de l’activité, des raisons sérieuses de la suspendre ou d’y mettre un terme parce que cette activité pourrait conduire à des violations graves des droits fondamentaux ou des obligations en matière de protection internationale”, conformément à l’article 46 §5 du Règlement (UE) 2019/1896 relatif au corps européen de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes.

      • Le défaut de suspendre ou mettre fin aux opérations de Frontex en cours dans la mer Égée (“opération Poséidon”) malgré des expulsions collectives systématiques et bien documentées. Il existe des preuves indéniables que les autorités grecques ont systématiquement procédé à des expulsions collectives, qui, de mars 2020 à aujourd’hui, ont été perpétrées selon un mode opératoire cohérent. Cette pratique a été à plusieurs reprises documentée et dénoncée par de nombreux médias, collectifs en solidarité avec les migrants et organisations de défense des droits de l’Homme, y compris le Legal Centre Lesbos. Comme indiqué dans notre rapport le plus récent, les éléments constitutifs du mode opératoire des “pushbacks” par les autorités grecques dans la mer Égée constituent une violation de nombreux droits fondamentaux et obligations de protection internationale et constituent des crimes contre l’humanité. L’implication des navires de Frontex dans les “pushbacks” persistants en mer Égée a été documentée par des enquêtes indépendantes. En vertu de l’article 46 § 4 du Règlement de l’UE 2019/1896, Fabrice Leggeri, en sa qualité de directeur exécutif de Frontex est tenu, après consultation avec l’officier aux droits fondamentaux de Frontex, de suspendre ou de mettre fin à l’activité de Frontex dans un contexte où les violations des droits ou obligations de protection internationale liés aux activités de Frontex sont de nature sérieuse et susceptibles de perdurer.

      • Le défaut de compte-rendu transparent, véridique et précis sur les circonstances et le nombre d’incidents de pushbacks enregistrés en mer Égée dans lesquels Frontex a été impliqué, notamment lors d’auditions devant le Parlement européen.

      • Le défaut continu et intrinsèque de mécanismes internes de signalement et de contrôle de Frontex, propres à empêcher les violations des droits fondamentaux. L’enquête interne lancée à la suite de la réunion extraordinaire du conseil d’administration de Frontex le 10 novembre 2020, et la création d’un groupe de travail dédié à l’examen des preuves de l’implication de Frontex dans des violations des droits fondamentaux, met à nouveau en évidence les carences de longue date et persistantes de l’agence européenne. Cela démontre son incapacité à fonctionner avec des mécanismes de signalement et de contrôle transparents et efficaces des violations des droits fondamentaux. Outre cette enquête interne, Frontex fait l’objet de deux enquêtes en cours devant l’Office européen de lutte antifraude (OLAF) et le Médiateur européen.

      Au regard des carences mentionnées ci-dessus et des preuves de son implication directe et indirecte dans les pushbacks, Frontex est complice des violences étatiques documentées contre les migrants dans la région de la mer Égée et plus largement en Grèce.

      En tant qu’agence européenne agissant en violation systématique du droit européen, de ses propres règlements et de ses mécanismes de contrôle interne, Frontex doit immédiatement suspendre ou mettre fin à ses opérations dans la région de la mer Égée.

      Ces défauts sont inhérents au fonctionnement de Frontex, à sa direction et à sa gestion. Frontex opère en toute impunité dans des contextes de violations flagrantes des droits fondamentaux et des obligations de protection internationale, à travers les frontières de l’Europe. En l’absence de mécanismes de responsabilité et de transparence indépendants et efficaces, la justice pour les survivants d’expulsions collectives dans la mer Égée doit inclure l’arrêt du financement, la démilitarisation et le démantèlement de la violente agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes.

      https://legalcentrelesvos.org/2021/02/15/the-legal-centre-lesvos-and-front-lex-call-upon-frontex-to-immediately-suspend-or-terminate-its-activities-in-the-aegean-sea-region/#create-a-page-jumpa

    • Une plainte contre Frontex pourrait faire son chemin jusqu’aux tribunaux européens

      Trois avocats et deux ONG ont introduit ce lundi un recours, que s’est procuré « Libération », pour demander le départ de l’agence de Grèce et la suspension de ces activités en mer Egée. Pour eux, Frontex est complice de « crime contre l’humanité ».

      Le ciel s’assombrit encore un peu plus pour la direction de Frontex. Après les accusations sur son management brutal, sur ses frais de bouche, l’ouverture d’une enquête de l’Office européen de lutte antifraude (OLAF), c’est désormais devant les tribunaux qu’elle devra peut-être répondre de ses agissements dans les prochains mois. D’après des informations de Libération et du journal allemand Der Spiegel, deux avocats spécialistes de droit international, Omer Shatz et Iftach Cohen, fondateur de l’ONG Front-LEX, et une association grecque, le Legal Centre Lesvos, par l’entremise de son avocate Anastasia Ntailiani, ont mis en demeure ce lundi la super agence de garde-côtes et de garde frontières européens. Leur but ? Obtenir le retrait immédiat des effectifs de Frontex de la mer Egée, un peu à la manière de ce qui s’est déroulé en Hongrie, où l’agence a été contrainte de plier bagage après la condamnation de l’Etat hongrois pour violation des droits de l’homme.

      Dans ce bras de mer, ONG et journalistes dénoncent en effet, depuis des mois, les agissements des garde-côtes hellènes qui, pour empêcher les migrants de rallier la Grèce, les abandonnent en mer, dans de petits canots de sauvetage, le tout sous l’œil de la super agence. « Frontex est complice. Cette pratique systématique d’expulsions collectives équivaut à un crime contre l’humanité », n’hésite pas à affirmer Omer Shatz. La procédure pourrait aboutir au dépôt d’une plainte devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) mi-avril.

      Dans leur mémoire, un réquisitoire de 34 pages très critique à l’égard des activités de l’agence, que Libération a pu consulter, l’argument des avocats est le suivant. Primo, Frontex a l’obligation de respecter et de faire respecter les droits de l’homme partout où elle intervient. Cette obligation est d’ailleurs prévue par l’article 46 de sa régulation, le règlement qui encadre ses activités, dont la dernière version a été publiée le 13 novembre 2019. Ce cadre s’applique évidemment en mer Egée où Frontex codirige depuis 2015, aux côtés des garde-côtes grecs, l’opération Poséidon, une mission dont le but est « de gérer l’afflux massif de migrants en Méditerranée orientale ». Une présence renforcée en mars 2020 par la création d’une « brigade d’intervention rapide » que Frontex coordonne. Secundo, estime le plaidoyer, en ne suivant pas cette obligation, et en se rendant complice des violations des droits de l’homme « répétées au cours des dix dernières années », l’agence se serait rendue coupable d’un défaut de fonctionnement, un délit prévu par l’article 265 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE). N’importe quel tiers est ainsi en droit d’introduire un « recours en carence », indique le texte de loi, pour souligner ce défaut et demander sa résolution.

      A réception du mémoire des avocats, Frontex a ainsi deux mois pour réagir, stipule le TFUE. Faute de quoi, la plainte pourrait faire son chemin jusqu’à la Cour de justice de l’Union Européenne (CJUE). Ce sera alors à elle de décider de son sort et de celui de ses dirigeants.

      Ils n’en oublient pas Fabrice Leggeri

      Omer Shatz n’est pas à son coup d’essai. On retrouve l’avocat israélien derrière une plainte déposée en juin 2019 devant la Cour pénale internationale (CPI). Cette dernière accusait les Etats européens de s’être rendus coupables de meurtres, tortures, traitements inhumains et déplacements forcés, commis à l’encontre de migrants tentant de fuir la Libye. Dans cette procédure, encore en cours, l’homme était accompagné d’un autre avocat médiatique, le français Juan Branco. Avec son ONG, Front-LEX, fondée il y a un peu plus d’un an, il dit se faire un devoir de s’attaquer aux politiques migratoires européennes : « Nous voulons demander des comptes aux responsables et fournir des recours aux innombrables victimes des politiques migratoires de l’UE. »

      La plainte contre Frontex est l’aboutissement de plusieurs mois de travail. Les avocats ont planché pour trouver le moyen de poursuivre l’institution dans son ensemble et pas uniquement ses dirigeants. « C’est très compliqué d’engager la responsabilité de Frontex, poursuit l’avocat, l’agence se cache souvent soit derrière l’état qu’elle aide, dans ce cas précis la Grèce. » Mais les avocats n’en oublient pas pour autant de pointer du doigt Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur exécutif de Frontex, déjà sur la sellette. « L’échec à suspendre cette opération avec les Grecs porte son nom », indique Omer Shatz. La procédure pourrait aboutir à sa destitution, dit l’avocat. Rendez-vous dans deux mois. Contacté par Libération, Frontex n’a pour le moment pas donné suite à nos sollicitations.

      https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/une-plainte-contre-frontex-pourrait-faire-son-chemin-jusquaux-tribunaux-e

  • Les pénuries de médicaments s’aggravent au Liban
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/02/13/les-penuries-de-medicaments-s-aggravent-au-liban_6069844_3210.html

    Aller d’une pharmacie à une autre, s’entendre dire qu’antibiotiques ou sérums médicaux sont indisponibles, poursuivre avec opiniâtreté et inquiétude : Habib Battah passe souvent des journées entières avant de trouver les remèdes pour son père en fin de vie, soigné à domicile faute de place dans les hôpitaux, saturés par les malades du Covid-19. Au Liban, avec l’aggravation de la crise financière, les pénuries chroniques de médicaments se multiplient. « C’est comme chercher une aiguille dans une botte de foin. C’est très angoissant, très chronophage aussi. Mais je n’ai pas d’alternative. On est contraints de s’adapter », dit le jeune quadragénaire, journaliste indépendant et fondateur du site Beirut Report.
    Dans une pharmacie située dans la banlieue est de Beyrouth, une cliente est invitée à revenir une semaine plus tard pour son médicament. « Ne pas pouvoir répondre aux besoins détruit la relation de confiance, se désole Joanna Francis, la pharmacienne. Que peut-on répondre à un parent qui demande “comment vais-je nourrir mon bébé ?”, parce qu’il n’y a pas de lait infantile disponible ? » Sur les étagères, seules quelques rares boîtes de lait sont disposées.
    Se procurer des médicaments, dont plus de 80 % sont importés, est devenu un casse-tête pour de nombreux Libanais. Même le sacro-saint Panadol, un antidouleur très utilisé, est difficile à trouver. Apparues à l’automne 2020, un an après l’éclatement de la crise financière, les pénuries s’aggravent. Face à l’effondrement des réserves en devises de la Banque centrale, ses subventions sur les produits de première nécessité comme les médicaments sont menacées à court terme. Les quantités distribuées aux pharmacies sont rationnées. Un marché noir s’est mis en place. Un cercle vicieux s’est en outre installé. Des fournisseurs ou des pharmacies sont accusés de cacher leurs stocks dans l’optique de réaliser de juteuses marges une fois les subventions levées. Des clients paniqués ont acheté en quantité, accentuant la pression sur le secteur pharmaceutique. Un trafic de contrebande s’est instauré, dont l’échelle est inconnue. « Mais le problème principal est d’ordre financier », assure une source au ministère de la santé.
    Cherchant à anticiper le scénario noir d’une fin ou d’une révision des subventions sans amortisseur, qui frapperait les plus pauvres, un comité a planché sur une rationalisation du système. Mais ses recommandations sont dans les tiroirs du Parlement. « Si les subventions prennent fin brutalement, ce sera un désastre », prédit le docteur Firas Abiad, qui dirige l’hôpital public Rafic-Hariri, à Beyrouth. Bien que celui-ci reçoive des donations internationales, notamment pour la lutte contre le Covid-19 – qui a fait plus de 3 800 morts dans le pays –, il est confronté aux pénuries intermittentes : « Quand un manque apparaît, on le colmate, puis un autre surgit. Il est très difficile de prévoir les pénuries. » Pour poursuivre leur traitement, des Libanais s’appuient sur la solidarité, leurs relations ou les réseaux sociaux. Shaden Fakih, jeune comédienne de stand-up, a ainsi rendu publiques ses difficultés d’approvisionnement sur son compte Instagram. Cela, et des boîtes rapportées d’Europe par un ami, lui a permis de sécuriser pour un temps les médicaments dont elle a besoin, souffrant d’une maladie auto-immune ainsi que de troubles obsessionnels compulsifs. « Trouver les anticoagulants est une priorité absolue. Mais je sais ce que signifie une crise d’angoisse, et j’ai besoin de l’autre médicament aussi. Je me sens toutefois privilégiée, j’appartiens à la classe moyenne, et je suis entourée. »
    D’autres se tournent vers le secteur associatif, qui doit répondre à des besoins grandissants : la société se paupérise à toute vitesse. « Le nombre de nos bénéficiaires a doublé, dit Malak Khiami, pharmacienne à l’ONG Amel, dédiée à la santé. Parmi eux, certains viennent dans nos centres faute de trouver des médicaments ailleurs. Nous avons sécurisé des stocks jusqu’à l’été, en mettant l’accent sur les maladies chroniques et la pédiatrie. Et nous sommes très attentifs à ce que nous prescrivons. »
    Le docteur Jamal Al-Husseini (à gauche) tend une ordonnance à son assistant dans sa clinique, dans le camp de Chatila, Beyrouth, le 9 février 2021.En périphérie de Beyrouth, dans le camp de Chatila, lieu historique des réfugiés palestiniens, où les Syriens sont devenus les plus nombreux, les visages sont fatigués. Pour ceux qui sont aux marges de la société, la crise économique est un rouleau compresseur. Imane, Syrienne, a compté : il ne reste plus que quelques comprimés du traitement de son fils épileptique de 13 ans. « Après, je n’ose imaginer ce qui se passera, dit-elle. Pourvu qu’un médecin puisse trouver un substitut ! » Elle aussi fait le tour des pharmacies, y compris loin du camp aux ruelles étroites.
    Article réservé à nos abonnés Lire aussi Le Liban précipité dans l’abîme
    Des médicaments venus de Syrie, moins coûteux, y sont devenus plus nombreux. Ils parviennent au Liban hors du circuit officiel. « Si leur nombre augmente, et pas seulement dans les camps, c’est faute d’alternative », déplore le docteur palestinien Jamal Al-Husseini, en plaçant sous oxygène un malade du coronavirus. Ces bouteilles proviennent de dons de la diaspora palestinienne. « Jusqu’à présent, on arrive encore à soigner les gens. Mais cela va devenir de plus en plus difficile », redoute-t-il.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#liban#syrie#refugie#camp#chatila#palestien#sante#crise#medicament#circulationthérapeutique#diaspora

  • #Réfugiés_climatiques : quand attiser la « peur du migrant » masque la réalité des phénomènes migratoires

    À chaque vague, Saint-Louis s’enfonce un peu plus sous l’océan, dont le niveau ne cesse de monter ; les eaux qui assuraient jadis les moyens de subsistance de cette ville du nord du Sénégal menacent désormais sa survie même. Les Nations Unies ont déclaré que Saint-Louis était la ville d’Afrique la plus en danger du fait de l’élévation du niveau de la mer : l’Atlantique engloutit jusqu’à deux mètres de côte chaque année. Plusieurs milliers d’habitants ont été contraints de se reloger à l’intérieur des terres suite aux tempêtes et à l’inondation de Doune Baba Dièye, un village de pêcheurs des environs. Pour les personnes qui habitent toujours sur place, la vie devient de plus en plus précaire.

    Des situations comme celles-là se répètent à mesure que la #crise_climatique s’aggrave. La migration et les #déplacements_de_population induits par le climat sont en hausse, de même que l’angoisse et la désinformation qui l’accompagne. Depuis quelques années, nous observons une multiplication des propos sensationnalistes et alarmistes dans les médias et chez les responsables politiques de l’hémisphère nord, qui affirment que le #changement_climatique entraîne directement et automatiquement une #migration_de_masse, et mettent en garde, en usant d’un #vocabulaire_déshumanisant, contre l’imminence des « #flots » ou des « #vagues » de millions, voire de milliards, de migrants ou de réfugiés climatiques au désespoir qui pourraient submerger l’Europe pour fuir un hémisphère sud devenu inhabitable.

    Les prédictions apocalyptiques retiennent peut-être l’attention de l’opinion, mais elles occultent la réalité complexe du terrain et alimentent une #xénophobie et un #racisme déjà profondément enracinés en Europe en jouant sur la #peur du migrant. Elles dressent en outre un tableau très inexact : ce que révèlent les études sur le changement climatique et la migration est très différent des discours alarmistes qui ont pris place.

    Les experts s’accordent à dire que le changement climatique se répercute sur la #mobilité. Cependant, la relation entre ces deux éléments n’est pas directe, comme elle est souvent décrite, mais complexe, résultant de #causes_multiples et propre à un contexte donné. Par ailleurs, les estimations relatives à l’impact du changement climatique sur la mobilité sont mises en doute par les incertitudes quant à la manière dont évolueront à l’avenir le climat, la capacité d’adaptation des pays et les politiques migratoires internationales.

    #Mythe et réalité

    Les prévisions de millions ou de milliards de personnes déplacées au cours des prochaines décennies laissent entendre que le déplacement et la migration induits par le climat se manifesteront dans un futur éloigné alors qu’il s’agit d’une réalité bien présente. À l’échelle mondiale, le nombre de personnes déplacées à l’intérieur de leur propre pays atteint des records : près de 25 millions de personnes ont dû quitter leur foyer en 2019 suite à des catastrophes soudaines. L’aggravation des #phénomènes_météorologiques_extrêmes, comme les #typhons, les #tempêtes et les #inondations, conjuguée aux changements qui s’opèrent plus lentement, tels que l’élévation du niveau de la mer, la dégradation des sols et les variations des précipitations, devrait accroître la mobilité due au climat.

    Traiter la « #migration_climatique » comme une catégorie de migration distincte implique à tort qu’il est possible de différencier le climat des autres facteurs. Or, les décisions de quitter un endroit résultent d’une multitude d’éléments qui sont profondément liés entre eux et qui interagissent de manière complexe. Pour les personnes qui vivent de l’agriculture de subsistance, les conditions environnementales et les résultats économiques ne font qu’un, étant donné que des changements de pluviométrie ou de température peuvent entraîner de graves conséquences économiques. Caroline Zickgraf, directrice adjointe de l’Observatoire Hugo, un centre de recherche basé à l’université de Liège, en Belgique, qui étudie comment l’environnement et le changement climatique agissent sur la migration explique :

    « Si l’on ne voit pas que tous ces facteurs différents sont imbriqués – facteurs sociaux, politiques, économiques, environnementaux et démographiques – on passe vraiment à côté de la situation générale »

    Une autre idée fausse persiste au sujet du changement climatique et de la mobilité des humains, consistant à croire que la plupart des individus qui se déplacent quittent leur pays. Depuis quelque temps, l’attention vis-à-vis des migrants porte largement sur les Africains qui cherchent à aller en Europe. Cette forme de migration internationale de longue distance représente l’image la plus répandue de la migration et, pourtant, les faits indiquent que ce n’est pas la plus fréquente, mais cette réalité est souvent inaudible.

    En Afrique de l’Ouest et centrale, la migration vers l’Afrique du Nord ou l’Europe représente seulement de 10 à 20 % des déplacements, alors que les 80 à 90 % restants s’effectuent à l’intérieur de la région. « Depuis plusieurs années, l’Europe attire de moins en moins les candidats à la migration, en raison des difficultés qu’ils rencontrent pour bénéficier des programmes de régularisation, trouver du travail et rester mobiles », souligne Aly Tandian, président de l’Observatoire sénégalais des migrations et professeur de sociologie associé à l’université Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis. Les pays africains constituent les destinations principales des migrants d’#Afrique_de_l’Ouest parce qu’il n’y a pas de contraintes de visa et qu’il est plus aisé de voyager sur la terre ferme, ce qui facilite la mobilité des personnes en quête d’opportunités, outre la familiarité que procure la proximité socioculturelle et linguistique de nombreux pays d’accueil, explique-t-il.

    Hind Aïssaoui Bennani, spécialiste de la migration, de l’environnement et du changement climatique auprès de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations à Dakar, au Sénégal, affirme que l’ampleur de la #migration_économique est souvent mal reconnue, en dépit de son importance dans l’ensemble de la région. La plupart des migrants économiques partent pour trouver du travail dans le secteur des ressources naturelles, notamment l’agriculture, la pêche et l’exploitation minière. « L’#environnement est non seulement un élément moteur de la migration, qui oblige les personnes à se déplacer mais, en plus, il les attire », précise Mme Bennani. Elle ajoute toutefois que le changement climatique peut également entraîner l’#immobilité et piéger les individus qui ne peuvent pas partir par manque de ressources ou de capacités, c’est-à-dire généralement les plus vulnérables.

    Ce qui alimente la peur

    On ne peut pas savoir combien de personnes ont quitté leur région à cause du changement climatique et, d’après les experts,il est difficile, voire impossible, de prédire avec précision le nombre de citoyens qui devront se déplacer à l’avenir, du fait de la complexité inhérente à la migration et au changement climatique. « Il va y avoir toute une série de scénarios à partir des actions que nous menons en termes de politique et de climat, mais aussi par rapport à la réaction des gens qui, souvent, n’est pas linéaire. Cela ne se résume pas à dire ‘le changement climatique s’intensifie, donc la migration s’intensifie », indique Caroline Zickgraf.

    L’année dernière, un rapport (https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ETR_2020_web-1.pdf) réalisé par le think tank international Institute for Economics and Peace a révélé que les menaces écologiques contraindraient au déplacement 1,2 milliard de personnes d’ici à 2050. Ce chiffre s’est répandu comme une traînée de poudre et a été couvert par les principaux organes de presse à travers le monde, mais plusieurs experts reconnus dans le domaine de la migration récusent ce chiffre, parmi lesquels Caroline Zickgraf, qui estime qu’il n’est pas suffisamment scientifique et qu’il résulte d’une manipulation et d’une déformation des données. À titre de comparaison, un rapport de la Banque mondiale datant de 2018 qui s’appuyait sur des techniques de modélisation scientifiques prévoyait qu’il y aurait 140 millions de migrants climatiques internes d’ici à 2050 si aucune action urgente pour le climat n’était mise en place.

    L’idée selon laquelle « le changement climatique entraîne une migration de masse » est utilisée par la gauche pour alerter sur les conséquences humanitaires du changement climatique et pour galvaniser l’action en faveur du climat, alors qu’elle sert de point de ralliement à la droite et à l’extrême droite pour justifier la militarisation des frontières et les politiques de lutte contre l’immigration. Caroline Zickgraf note :

    « Mentionner la migration dans le but d’accélérer l’action pour le climat et d’attirer l’attention sur l’incidence du changement climatique pour les populations me semble tout à fait bien intentionnée. Mais malheureusement, très souvent, c’est la question de la sécurité qui prend le dessus. On attend une action pour le climat, et on se retrouve avec des politiques migratoires restrictives parce qu’on joue avec la peur des gens. »

    La peur n’incite pas les citoyens ni les gouvernements à agir davantage pour le climat mais a plutôt tendance à exacerber le racisme et la xénophobie et à contribuer à l’édification de la « forteresse Europe ». De surcroît, présenter la « migration climatique » comme un risque pour la sécurité justifie la mise en place de programmes de financement destinés à empêcher la migration en faisant en sorte que les candidats au départ restent chez eux, ce qui est contraire au droit humain fondamental de circuler librement. Alors que l’urgence climatique augmente, la « crise européenne des réfugiés » de 2015 est de plus en plus souvent invoquée pour prédire l’avenir. Caroline Zickgraf pense qu’en recourant à des tactiques qui alarment le public, ce ne sont pas les changements climatiques qui font peur, mais « l’Autre » – celui qui doit se déplacer à cause de ces changements.

    Un autre problème émane de la recherche sur la migration elle-même : quelles études, réalisées par quels chercheurs, sont reconnues et écoutées ? D’après Aly Tandian, étant donné qu’en Europe toutes les causes de la migration ne sont pas prises en considération, les analyses européennes se limitent à leur compréhension des questions migratoires sur le terrain en Afrique. « De plus, c’est souvent l’Europe qui est mandatée pour réaliser des études sur la migration, ce qui appauvrit en partie les résultats et les décisions politiques qui sont prises », observe-t-il.

    La mobilité, une #stratégie_d’adaptation

    La tendance actuelle à présenter la migration en provenance de l’hémisphère sud comme une anomalie, un problème à résoudre ou une menace à éviter ne tient pas compte du fait que la migration n’est pas un phénomène nouveau. Depuis la nuit des temps, la mobilité est une stratégie d’adaptation des humains pour faire face aux changements du climat ou de l’environnement. Et il ne s’agit pas toujours d’un moyen d’échapper à une crise. « La migration est une question de résilience et d’adaptation et, en Afrique de l’Ouest et centrale, la migration fait déjà partie de la solution », note Hind Aïssaoui Bennani.

    Dans certains endroits, nous devrons peut-être, et c’est souhaitable, faciliter la migration de manière préventive, dit Caroline Zickgraf, en veillant à ce que les gens migrent dans les meilleures conditions dans le contexte du changement climatique. « Ce que nous souhaitons vraiment, c’est donner le choix, et si nous considérons seulement la migration comme quelque chose de négatif, ou qui doit toujours être évité, nous ne voyons pas tous les intérêts qu’il peut y avoir à quitter une région vulnérable à l’impact du changement climatique. »

    Étant donné que le changement climatique pèse lourdement sur les fragilités et les inégalités existantes et qu’il frappera de façon disproportionnée les populations de l’hémisphère sud, alors qu’elles en sont le moins responsables, favoriser la mobilité n’est pas une simple stratégie d’adaptation, mais fait partie intégrante de la justice climatique.

    La mobilité peut permettre aux habitants de Saint-Louis et des innombrables lieux qui subissent déjà les effets du changement climatique, en termes de vies humaines et d’opportunités, d’être moins vulnérables et de vivre mieux – un rôle qui se révélera particulièrement essentiel dans un monde de plus en plus marqué par l’instabilité climatique.

    https://www.equaltimes.org/refugies-climatiques-quand-attiser?lang=fr
    #réfugiés #asile #migrations #réfugiés_environnementaux #adaptation

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • European Commission Publishes Findings of the First Annual Assessment of Third Countries’ Cooperation on Readmission

    Following changes to the #Visa_Code in 2019, the Commission (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/pdf/10022021_communication_on_enhancing_cooperation_on_return_and_readmission_) assessed the level of readmission cooperation with third countries and submitted a report to the Council. While the report itself is not public, a Communication published this week summarises the main findings of this assessment and sets out next steps regarding the EU’s own return policy and in relation to third countries.

    The Commission has completed its first factual assessment on readmission cooperation, an obligation that stems from the recently introduced Article 25a of the Visa Code. It is based on quantitative and qualitative data provided by Member States and Schengen Associated Countries and data collected by Eurostat and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) on return and irregular arrivals. The third countries covered by the assessment are not listed but based on the information regarding the selection criteria, it is likely to include around 50 countries.

    While the actual report which the Commission prepared for the consideration of the Council is not publicly available, a Communication published alongside it summarises the challenges of return procedures within the EU and highlights the gap between the number of return orders issues and readmission requests to third countries.

    The different obstacles that Member States face in returning people range from the level of cooperation of third country governments in the identification and issuance of travel documents to the refusal of some countries to accept non-voluntary returnees. Those obstacles are experienced differently, depending on which type of cooperation framework is used. Cooperation on readmission is improved through the deployment of electronic platforms for processing readmission applications (Readmission Case Management Systems – RCMS) and European Return or Migration Liaison Officers who are based in third countries.

    The Communication points out that for almost one third of the countries covered by the assessment, cooperation works well with most Member States, for almost another one third the level of cooperation is average and for more than one third the level of cooperation needs to be improved from the perspective of Member States.

    To address this, the Council will discuss more restrictive or more favourable visa measures for third countries as foreseen under the Visa Code. The Communication also makes reference to the usage of EU funding to support the objective of increasing returns, such as the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), the Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI), the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), and the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA III) as well as changes introduced in the proposal for the recast Return Directive. It recalls that work on readmission will be part of the partnerships the EU is pursuing and the new proposals as set out in the Pact on Migration and Asylum. In relation to this, the model of return sponsorship and the upcoming appointment of the Return Coordinator is mentioned.

    For Further Information:

    – ECRE, Return Policy: Desperately seeking evidence and balance, July 2019: https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Policy-Note-19.pdf
    - ECRE Comments on Recast Return Directive , November 2018: https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ECRE-Comments-Commission-Proposal-Return-Directive.pdf
    - ECRE, Return: No Safety in Numbers, November 2017: https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Policy-Note-09.pdf

    https://www.ecre.org/european-commission-publishes-findings-of-the-first-annual-assessment-of-third

    –-> Dans le bulletin hebdomadaire d’ECRE, il est fait état d’un rapport élaboré par la Commission sur une évaluation factuelle en matière de réadmission. Ecre dit à ce propos que « Les pays tiers couverts par l’évaluation ne sont pas énumérés mais, sur la base des informations relatives aux critères de sélection, il est probable qu’elle inclue une cinquantaine de pays. »
    Ce rapport n’est pas public.

    #externalisation #réadmission #accords_de_réadmission #UE #EU #Union_européenne #asile #migrations #réfugiés #pays_tiers #code_des_visas

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation des frontières :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765331

  • Immigration Enforcement and the Afterlife of the Slave Ship

    Coast Guard techniques for blocking Haitian asylum seekers have their roots in the slave trade. Understanding these connections can help us disentangle immigration policy from white nationalism.

    Around midnight in May 2004, somewhere in the Windward Passage, one of the Haitian asylum seekers trapped on the flight deck of the U.S. Coast Guard’s USCGC Gallatin had had enough.

    He arose and pointed to the moon, whispering in hushed tones. The rest of the Haitians, asleep or pretending to be asleep, initially took little notice. That changed when he began to scream. The cadence of his words became erratic, furious—insurgent. After ripping his shirt into tatters, he gestured wildly at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) watchstanders on duty.

    I was one of them.

    His eyes fixed upon mine. And he slowly advanced toward my position.

    I stood fast, enraptured by his lone defiance, his desperate rage. Who could blame him? Confinement on this sunbaked, congested, malodorous flight deck would drive anyone crazy—there were nearly 300 people packed together in a living space approximately 65 feet long and 35 feet wide. We had snatched him and his compatriots from their overloaded sailing vessel back in April. They had endured week after week without news about the status of their asylum claims, about what lay in store for them.

    Then I got scared. I considered the distinct possibility that, to this guy, I was no longer me, but a nameless uniform, an avatar of U.S. sovereignty: a body to annihilate, a barrier to freedom. I had rehearsed in my mind how such a contingency might play out. We were armed only with nonlethal weapons—batons and pepper spray. The Haitians outnumbered us 40 to 1. Was I ready? I had never been in a real fight before. Now a few of the Haitian men were standing alert. Were they simply curious? Was this their plan all along? What if the women and children joined them?

    Lucky for me, one of the meanest devils on the watch intervened on my behalf. He charged toward us, stepping upon any Haitians who failed to clear a path. After a brief hand-to-hand struggle, he subdued the would-be rebel, hauled him down to the fantail, and slammed his head against the deck. Blood ran from his face. Some of the Haitians congregated on the edge of the flight deck to spectate. We fastened the guy’s wrists with zip ties and ordered the witnesses to disperse. The tension in his body gradually dissipated.

    After fifteen minutes, the devil leaned down to him. “Are you done? Done making trouble?” His silence signified compliance.

    Soon after, the Haitians were transferred to the custody of the Haitian Coast Guard. When we arrived in the harbor of Port-au-Prince, thick plumes of black smoke rose from the landscape. We were witnessing the aftermath of the CIA-orchestrated February coup against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the subsequent invasion of the country by U.S. Marines under the auspices of international “peacekeeping.” Haiti was at war.

    None of that mattered. Every request for asylum lodged from our boat had been rejected. Every person returned to Haiti. No exceptions.

    The Gallatin left the harbor. I said goodbye to Port-au-Prince. My first patrol was over.

    Out at sea, I smoked for hours on the fantail, lingering upon my memories of the past months. I tried to imagine how the Haitians would remember their doomed voyage, their detention aboard the Gallatin, their encounters with us—with me. A disquieting intuition repeated in my head: the USCG cutter, the Haitians’ sailing vessel, and European slave ships represented a triad of homologous instances in which people of African descent have suffered involuntary concentration in small spaces upon the Atlantic. I dreaded that I was in closer proximity to the enslavers of the past, and to the cops and jailors of the present, than I ever would be to those Haitians.

    So, that night, with the butt of my last cigarette, I committed to cast my memories of the Haitians overboard. In the depths of some unmarked swath of the Windward Passage, I prayed, no one, including me, would ever find them again.

    In basic training, every recruit is disciplined to imagine how the USCG is like every other branch of the military, save one principle: we exist to save lives, and it is harder to save lives than to take them. I was never a very good sailor, but I took this principle seriously. At least in the USCG, I thought, I could evade the worst cruelties of the new War on Terror.

    Perhaps I should have done more research on the USCG’s undeclared long war against Haitian asylum seekers, in order to appreciate precisely what the oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” would demand of me. This war had long preceded my term of enlistment. It arguably began in 1804, when the United States refused to acknowledge the newly liberated Haiti as a sovereign nation and did everything it could to insulate its slaving society from the shock waves of Haiti’s radical interpretation of universal freedom. But in our present day, it began in earnest with President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12324 of 1981, also called the Haitian Migrant Interdiction Operation (HMIO), which exclusively tasked the USCG to “interdict” Haitian asylum seekers attempting to enter the United States by sea routes on unauthorized sailing vessels. Such people were already beginning to be derogatorily referred to as “boat people,” a term then borrowed (less derogatorily) into Haitian Kreyòl as botpippel.

    The enforcement of the HMIO and its subsequent incarnations lies almost entirely within the jurisdiction of federal police power acting under the authority of the executive branch’s immigration and border enforcement powers. It does not take place between nations at enmity with one another, but between vastly unequal yet allied powers. Its strategic end is to create a kind of naval blockade, a fluid maritime border around Haiti, which remains under ever-present threat of invasion by a coalition of U.S. and foreign military forces.

    Adding to its asymmetry, the “enemies” to be vanquished on the battlefield are also unconventional: they are not agents of a state, but rather noncombatant individuals who are, in one sense or another, simply acting to save their own lives. During their incarceration aboard USCG cutters, they automatically bear the legal status of “economic migrant,” a person whom authorities deem to be fleeing poverty alone and therefore by definition ineligible for asylum. The meaning of this category is defined solely by reference to its dialectical negation, the “political refugee,” a person whom authorities may (or may not) deem to have a legible asylum claim because they are fleeing state persecution on the basis of race, creed, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. These abstractions are historical artifacts of a half-baked, all-encompassing theory of preemptive deterrence: unless USCG patrols are used to place Haiti under a naval blockade, and unless botpippel are invariably denied asylum, the United States will become flooded with criminals and people who have no means of supporting themselves. By 2003 John Ashcroft and the Bush administration upped the ante, decrying botpippel to be vectors of terrorism. On January 11, 2018, President Donald Trump, during efforts to justify ending nearly all immigration and asylum, described Haiti (which he grouped with African nations) as a “shithole country” where, as he asserted several months prior, “all have AIDS.”

    Haiti is now facing another such crisis. Its president, Jovenel Moïse, having already suspended nearly all elected government save himself, refused to step down at the end of his term on February 7, 2021, despite widespread protests that have shuttered the country. Moïse’s administration is currently being propped up by criminal syndicates, but they are slipping his grasp, and kidnapping for money is now so prevalent that people are terrified to leave their homes. So far, the Biden administration’s response has not been encouraging: though it has instructed ICE to temporarily halt deportations to Haiti, naval blockades remain in force, and the U.S. State Department has expressed the opinion that Moïse should remain in office for at least another year, enforcing the sense that Haiti is once again a U.S. client state.

    With regard to the Coast Guard’s longstanding orders to block Haitians seeking asylum, the modality of killing is not straightforward, but it is intentional. It consists of snatching the Haitian enemy from their vessel, forcing them to subsist in a state of bare life, and finally abandoning them in their home country at gunpoint. Of course, many may survive the ordeal and may even attempt another journey. But especially during acute phases of armed conflict and catastrophe, it is just as likely that—whether at the behest of starvation, disease, or violence—a return to Haiti is a death sentence.

    This banal form of murder is analogous to what Ruth Wilson Gilmore offers as her definition of racism in Golden Gulag (2007): “the state sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death.” Based on the extant documentary record, I estimate that the USCG has interdicted at least 120,000 botpippel since the HMIO of 1981 took effect. Those who fell prey to an untimely demise following deportation died because the United States, though repeatedly responsible for undermining Haitian democracy and economic stability, nonetheless refuses to acknowledge that these actions have made Haiti, for many, mortally unsafe. The true death toll will never be known. Countless botpippel have simply disappeared at sea, plunged into a gigantic watery necropolis.

    Since 2004 U.S. officials have brought their forms of border policing strategies and tactics against Haitians to bear on land-based immigration and refugee policies against non-white asylum seekers. One of the most significant technical innovations of enforcement against Haitians was the realization that by detaining them exclusively within a maritime environment, the United States could summarily classify all of them as economic migrants—whose claims for asylum de facto have no standing—and prevent them from lodging claims as political refugees, which are the only claims with any hope of success. They were thus proactively disabled from advancing a request for asylum in a U.S. federal court, with all claims instead evaluated by an INS-designated official aboard the USCG vessel. The New York Times recently reported that, since late 2009, similar techniques have been adopted by Customs and Border Control agents patrolling sea routes along the California coast, which has resulted in a notable escalation of CBP naval patrols and aerial surveillance of the region. And in fact, the USCG has cooperatively supported these efforts by sharing its infrastructure—ports, cutters, and aircraft—and its personnel with CBP. All of this has been with the aim of making sure that asylum seekers never make it to the United States, whether by land or by sea.

    The Trump administration made the most significant use of this set of innovations to date, insisting that asylum claims must be made from camps on the Mexican side of the U.S. border—and therefore automatically invalid by virtue of being limited to the status of economic migrant. Thus, hundreds of thousands of non-white asylum seekers fleeing material precariousness, yes, but also the threat of violence in the Global South are, and will continue to be, caught in carceral webs composed of ICE/CBP goon squads, ruthless INS officials, and perilous tent cities, not to mention the prison guards employed at one of the numerous semi-secret migrant detention centers operating upon U.S. soil for those few who make it across.

    From the perspective of Haitian immigrants and botpippel, this is nothing new. Thousands of their compatriots have already served time at infamous extrajudicial sites such as the Krome detention center in Miami (1980–present), Guantanamo Bay (1991–93), and, most often, the flight decks of USCG cutters. They know that the USCG has long scoured the Windward Passage for Haitians in particular, just as ICE/CBP goon squads now patrol U.S. deserts, highways, and city streets for the undocumented. And they know that Trump’s fantasy of building a “Great Wall” on the U.S.–Mexico border is not so farfetched, because the USCG continues to enforce a maritime one around Haiti.

    The Biden administration has inherited this war and its prisoners, with thousands remaining stuck in legal limbo while hoping—in most cases, without hope—that their asylum claims will advance. Opening alternative paths to citizenship and declaring an indefinite moratorium on deportations would serve as foundations for more sweeping reforms in the future. But the core challenge in this political moment is to envision nothing less than the total decriminalization and demilitarization of immigration law enforcement.

    Botpippel are not the first undocumented people of African descent to have been policed by U.S. naval forces. The legal architecture through which the USCG legitimates the indefinite detention and expulsion of Haitian asylum seekers reaches back to U.S. efforts to suppress the African slave trade, outlawed by Congress in 1807, though domestic slaveholding would continue, and indeed its trade would be not only safeguarded but bolstered by this act.

    This marked a decisive turning point in the history of maritime policing vis-à-vis immigration. Per the Slave Trade Acts of 1794 and 1800, the United States already claimed jurisdiction over U.S. citizens and U.S. vessels engaged in the slave trade within U.S. territorial borders (contemporaneously understood as extending three nautical miles into the ocean). By 1808, however, the United States sought to extend its jurisdiction over the sea itself. Slaver vessels operating around “any river, port, bay, or harbor . . . within the jurisdictional limits of the United States” as well as “on the high seas” were deemed illegal and subject to seizure without compensation. The actual physical distance from U.S. soil that these terms referred to was left purposefully vague. To board a given vessel, a Revenue Cutter captain only had to suspect, rather than conclusively determine, that that vessel eventually intended to offload “international” (i.e., non-native) enslaved people into the United States. The 1819 iteration of the law further stipulated that U.S. jurisdiction included “Africa, or elsewhere.” Hence, in theory, after 1819, the scope of U.S. maritime police operations was simply every maritime space on the globe.

    Revenue Cutter Service captains turned the lack of any description in the 1808 law or its successive iterations about what should be done with temporarily masterless slaves into an advantage. They did what they would have done to any fugitive Black person at the time: indefinitely detain them until higher authorities determined their status, and thereby foreclose the possibility of local Black people conspiring to shuttle them to freedom. During confinement, captured Africans were compelled to perform labor as if they were slaves. For instance, those captured from the Spanish-flagged Antelope (1820) spent seven years toiling at a military fort in Savannah, Georgia, as well as on the local U.S. marshal’s plantation. As wards of the state, they were human only insofar as U.S. officials had a duty to force them to remain alive. Of those “rescued” from the Antelope, 120 ultimately died in captivity and 2 went missing. Following litigation, 39 survivors were sold to U.S. slaveowners to compensate Spanish and Portuguese claimants who had stakes in the Antelope and her enslaved cargo. Per the designs of the American Colonization Society, the remaining 120 Africans were freed upon condition that they be immediately deported to New Georgia, Liberia.

    This anti-Black martial abolitionism was therefore a project framed around the unification of two countervailing tendencies. While white planters consistently pushed to extend racial slavery into the southern and western frontiers, white northern financiers and abolitionists were in favor of creating the most propitious conditions for the expansion of free white settlements throughout America’s urban and rural milieus. Black people were deemed unfit for freedom not only because of their supposed inborn asocial traits, but because their presence imperiled the possibility for white freedom. To actualize Thomas Jefferson’s “Empire of Liberty,” the United States required immigration policies that foreshortened Black peoples’ capacities for social reproduction and thereby re-whitened America.

    This political aim was later extended in legislation passed on February 19, 1862, which authorized President Abraham Lincoln—who intended to solve the contradictions that led to the Civil War by sending every Black person in America back to Africa—to use U.S. naval forces to capture, detain, and deport undocumented people of East Asian/Chinese descent (“coolies”) while at sea. Henceforth, “the free and voluntary emigration of any Chinese subject” to the U.S. was proscribed unless a ship captain possessed documents certified by a consular agent residing at the foreign port of departure. At the time, the principal means for Chinese emigrants to obtain authorization would have been at behest of some corporation seeking expendable, non-white laborers contractually bound to work to death in mines and on railroads on the western frontiers—Native American lands stolen through imperialist warfare. White settlers presupposed that these Asians’ residency was provisional and temporary—and then Congress codified that principle into law in 1870, decreeing that every person of East Asian/Chinese descent, anywhere in the world, was ineligible for U.S. citizenship.

    Twelve years later, An Act to Regulate Immigration (1882) played upon the notion that non-white immigration caused public disorder. Through the use of color-blind legal language, Section 2 of this law specified that the United States must only accept immigrants who were conclusively not “convict[s], lunatic[s], idiot[s], or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The burden of proof lay on non-white immigrants to prove how their racial backgrounds were not already prima facie evidence for these conditions. Section 4 also stipulated that “all foreign convicts except those convicted of political offenses, upon arrival, shall be sent back to the nations to which they belong and from whence they came.” By which means a non-white person could demonstrate the “political” character of a given conviction were cleverly left undefined.

    It was not a giant leap of imagination for the United States to apply these precedents to the maritime policing of Haitian asylum seekers in the 1980s. Nor should we be surprised that the logic of anti-Black martial abolitionism shapes present-day U.S. immigration policy.

    Political philosopher Peter Hallward estimates that paramilitary death squads executed at least a thousand supporters of Lavalas, President Aristide’s party, in the weeks following Aristide’s exile from Haiti on February 29, 2004. The first kanntè (Haitian sailing vessel) the Gallatin sighted one morning in early April had likely departed shortly thereafter.

    The first people from our ship that the Haitians met were members of the boarding team, armed with pistols, M-16s, shotguns, and zip ties. Their goal was to compel the hundred or so aboard the kanntè to surrender their vessel and allow us to deposit them on the flight deck of our ship. Negotiations can take hours. It is not uncommon for some to jump overboard, rather than allow boarding to occur uninhibited. If immediate acquiescence is not obtained, we will maneuver ourselves such that any further movement would cause the small boat to “ram” the Gallatin—an attack on a U.S. military vessel.

    On the Gallatin, we waited for uptake, outfitted with facemasks and rubber gloves. One at a time, we aided the Haitian adults to make the final step from the small boat to the deck of the cutter. We frisked them for weapons and then marched them to the fantail to undergo initial processing. Most of them appeared exhausted and confused—but compliant. Some may have already been in fear for their lives. One night aboard the USCGC Dallas, which hovered in Port-au-Prince Bay as a deportation coordination outpost and as a temporary detention site for Haitians awaiting immediate transfer to Haitian Coast Guard authorities, my friend and his shipmates asked their Kreyòl interpreter how he managed to obtain compliance from the botpippel. “I tell them you will hurt or kill them if they do not obey,” he joked, “so, of course, they listen.”

    Boarding all the Haitians took from midday until midnight. One of the last ones I helped aboard, a man dressed in a suit two sizes too large, looked into my eyes and smiled. He gently wept, clasped my hand tightly, and embraced me. I quickly pushed him off and pointed to the processing station at the fantail, leading him by the wrist to join the others. He stopped crying.

    Three things happened at the processing station. First, Haitians deposited the last of their belongings with the interpreter, ostensibly for safekeeping. Who knows if anyone got their things back. Second, a Kreyòl translator and one of the officers gave them a cursory interview about their asylum claims, all the while surrounded by armed sentries, as well as other Haitians who might pass that intelligence onto narcotics smugglers, paramilitary gangs, or state officials back in Haiti. Lastly, they received a rapid, half-assed medical examination—conducted in English. So long as they nodded, or remained silent, they passed each test and were shuffled up to the flight deck.

    We retired for the night after the boarding team set fire to the kanntè as a hazard to navigation. The Haitians probably didn’t know that this was the reason we unceremoniously torched their last hope for escape before their very eyes.

    About a week later, we found another kanntè packed with around seventy Haitians and repeated the process. Another USCG cutter transferred a hundred more over to the Gallatin. Our flight deck was reaching full capacity.

    We arrived at one kanntè too late. It had capsized. Pieces of the shattered mast and little bits of clothing and rubbish were floating around the hull. No survivors. How long had it been? Sharks were spotted circling at a short depth below the vessel.

    The Gallatin’s commanders emphasized that our mission was, at its core, humanitarian in nature. We were duty-bound to provide freshwater, food, and critical medical care. During their time aboard, Haitians would be treated as detainees and were not to be treated, or referred to, as prisoners. The use of force was circumscribed within clear rules of engagement. The Haitians were not in any way to be harmed or killed unless they directly threatened the ship or its sailors. Unnecessary violence against them could precipitate an internal review, solicit undue international criticism, and imperil the deportationist efficiency of INS officials. We were told that our batons and pepper spray were precautionary, primarily symbolic.

    It sounded like all I had to do was stand there and not screw anything up.

    Over the course of several watches, I concluded that, in fact, our job was also to relocate several crucial features of the abysmal living conditions that obtained on the kanntè onto the Gallatin’s flight deck. Though the flight deck was 80 feet by 43 feet, we blocked the edges to facilitate the crew’s movement and to create a buffer between us and the Haitians. Taking this into account, their living space was closer to 65 feet by 35 feet. For a prison population of 300 Haitians, each individual would have had only 7 feet 7 inches square to lie down and stand up. On the diagram of the eighteenth-century British slaver Brooks, the enslaved were each allocated approximately 6 feet 10 inches square, scarcely less than on the Gallatin. (Historian Marcus Rediker thinks that the Brooks diagram probably overstates the amount of space the enslaved were given.)

    Although some cutters will drape tarps over the flight deck to shield the Haitians from the unmediated effects of the sun, the Gallatin provided no such shelter. We permitted them to shower, once, in saltwater, without soap. The stench on the flight deck took on a sweet, fetid tinge.

    The only place they could go to achieve a modicum of solitude and to escape the stench was the makeshift metal toilet on the fantail. (On slave ships, solitude was found by secreting away to a hidden compartment or small boat to die alone; the “necessary tubs” that held human excrement were contained in the slave holds below deck.) They were permitted to use the toilet one at a time in the case of adults, and two at a time in the case of children and the elderly. For what was supposed to be no longer than five minutes, they had an opportunity to stretch, relax, and breathe fresh sea air. Nevertheless, these moments of respite took place under observation by the watchstander stationed at the toilet, not to mention the numerous Haitian onlookers at the rear of the flight deck.

    Despite our commanders’ reticence on the matter, the ever-present fear of revolt hovered underneath the surface of our standing orders. We were to ensure order and discipline through counterinsurgency protocols and techniques of incarceration that one might find in any U.S. prison. The military imperative aboard the Gallatin was to produce a sense of radical uncertainty and temporal disorientation in the Haitians, such that they maintain hope for an asylum claim that had already been rejected.

    In this context, there were four overlapping components to the security watch.

    The first component of the ship’s securitization was constant surveillance. We were not supposed to take our eyes off the Haitians for one moment. During the watch, we would regularly survey the flight deck for any signs of general unrest, conspiracy, or organized protest. Any minor infraction could later contribute to the eruption of a larger riot, and thus needed to be quickly identified and neutralized. We also had to observe their behavior for indications that one of them intended to jump overboard or harm another Haitian. All that said, we found a used condom one day. Surveillance is never total.

    The second was the limitation we placed on communication. We shrouded all USCG practices in a fog of secrecy. Conversing with the Haitians through anything other than hand signals and basic verbal commands was forbidden; physical contact was kept at bare minimum. Nonofficial speech among the watch was proscribed. Watchstanders were stripped of their identity, save their uniform, from which our nametags were removed. It was critical that botpippel forever be unable to identify us.

    Secrecy preemptively disabled the Haitians from collectively piecing together fragments of information about where our vessel had been, where it was now, and where it was going. Officially, the concern was that they might exploit the situation to gather intelligence about our patrol routes and pass this information to human or narcotics smugglers. We militated against their mapping out how the ship operated, its layout and complement, where living spaces and the armory were located, and so on. These were standard tactics aboard slaver vessels. As freed slave and abolitionist Olaudah Equiano observed, “When the ship we were in had got in all her cargo . . . we were all put under deck, so that we could not see how they managed the vessel.”

    On the Gallatin, the command also strove to maintain strict control over the narrative. They blocked sailors’ access to the open Internet and censored letters from home that contained news of global or domestic politics (and even just bad personal news). Knowledge of whether a particular asylum claim had failed or succeeded was hidden from all. A watchstander harboring political solidarity with—as opposed to mere empathy and pity for—the Haitians might compromise operational capacities, good judgment, and core loyalty to the USCG.

    Our third securitization strategy was to produce false knowledge of the future. The Haitians were led to believe that they were merely waiting aboard the ship because their asylum claims were still being vigorously debated by diplomatic entities in Washington. Their continued compliance was predicated on this differential of knowledge. They could not realize that they were moving in circles, being returned slowly to Haiti. If they lost all hope, we presumed they would eventually resist their intolerable conditions through violent means.

    Hence, our fourth securitization measure: USCG personnel were permitted to inflict several limited forms of physical and symbolic violence against the Haitians, not only in response to perceived noncompliance, but also as a means of averting the need to inflict even greater violence in the future.

    If it were not classified as a matter of national security, we might have a better grasp of how many times such instances occur aboard USCG vessels. I open this essay with a story of how we subdued and punished one person for resisting the rules. But it is known that punishment is sometimes inflicted on entire groups. A telling example took place on January 30, 1989, when the USCG captured the Dieu Devant with 147 Haitians aboard. One of them, Fitzroy Joseph, later reported in congressional hearings that, after they expressed a fear of being killed if returned to Haiti, USCG personnel “began wrestling with the Haitians and hitting their hands with their flashlights.” This was followed by threats to release pepper spray. Marie Julie Pierre, Joseph’s wife, corroborated his testimony, adding:

    [We were] asked at once if we feared returning to Haiti and everyone said yes we did. We said ‘down with Avril, up with Bush.’ We were threatened with tear gas but they didn’t use it. Many people were crying because they were so afraid. [Ti Jak] was hit by the officers because he didn’t want to go back. They handcuffed him. The Coast Guard grabbed others by the neck and forced them to go to the biggest boat. My older brother was also hit and treated like a chicken as they pulled him by the neck.

    Counterintuitively, our nonlethal weapons functioned as more efficient instruments of counterinsurgency than lethal weapons. Brandishing firearms might exacerbate an already tense situation in which the Haitians outnumbered the entire ship’s complement. It could also provide an opportunity for the Haitians to seize and turn our own guns against us (or one another). In contrast, losing a baton and a can of pepper spray represented a relatively minor threat to the ship’s overall security. In the event of an actual riot, the command could always mobilize armed reinforcements. From the perspective of the command, then, the first responders on watch were, to some extent, expendable. Nevertheless, sentries bearing firearms were on deck when we approached Haiti and prepared for final deportation. That is, the precise moment the Haitians realized their fate.

    Like the enslaved Africans captured by the Revenue Cutter Service, botpippel were human to us only insofar as we had to compel them, through the threat or actuality of violence, to remain alive. The Haitians ate our tasteless food and drank our freshwater—otherwise they would starve, or we might beat them for going on a hunger strike. They tended to remain silent and immobile day and night—otherwise they would invite acts of exemplary punishment upon themselves. The practices of confinement on the Gallatin represent a variant of what historian Stephanie Smallwood describes as a kind of “scientific empiricism” that developed aboard slave ships, which “prob[ed] the limits to which it is possible to discipline the body without extinguishing the life within.” Just as contemporary slavers used force to conserve human commodities for sale, so does the USCG use force to produce nominally healthy economic migrants to exchange with Haitian authorities.

    The rational utilization of limited forms of exemplary violence was an integral aspect of this carceral science. Rediker shows how slaver captains understood violence along a continuum that ranged from acceptably severe to unacceptably cruel. Whereas severity was the grounds of proper discipline as such, an act was cruel only if it led “to catastrophic results [and] sparked reactions such as mutiny by sailors or insurrection by slaves.” In turn, minor acts of kindness, such as dispensing better food or allowing slightly more free time to move above deck, were conditioned by these security imperatives. Furthermore, they exerted no appreciable change to the eventuality that the person would be sold to a slaveowner, for kindness was a self-aggrandizing ritual performance of authority that intended to lay bare the crucial imbalance of power relations at hand. This was, Rediker maintains, “as close as the owners ever came to admitting that terror was essential to running a slave ship.”

    The USCG’s undeclared long war against Haitian asylum seekers is but one front of a much longer war against people of African descent in the Americas. The entangled histories of the African slave trade and anti-Black martial abolitionism reveal how this war intimately shaped the foundations and racist intentions that underlay modern U.S. immigration and refugee policy writ large. And the Gallatin, her sailors, and the Haitians who were trapped on the flight deck, are, in some small way, now a part of this history, too.

    The Biden administration has the power to decisively end this war—indeed, every war against non-white asylum seekers. Until then, botpippel will continue to suffer the slave ships that survive into the present.

    https://bostonreview.net/race/ryan-fontanilla-immigration-enforcement-and-afterlife-slave-ship

    #esclavage #héritage #migrations #contrôles_migratoires #Haïti #gardes-côtes #nationalisme_blanc #USA #Etats-Unis #migrations #frontières #asile #réfugiés #USCG #Haitian_Migrant_Interdiction_Operation (#HMIO) #botpippel #boat_people

    #modèle_australien #pacific solution

    ping @karine4 @isskein @reka

    • Ce décret de #Reagan mentionné dans l’article rappelle farouchement la loi d’#excision_territoriale australienne :

      But in our present day, it began in earnest with President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12324 of 1981, also called the Haitian Migrant Interdiction Operation (HMIO), which exclusively tasked the USCG to “interdict” Haitian asylum seekers attempting to enter the United States by sea routes on unauthorized sailing vessels. Such people were already beginning to be derogatorily referred to as “boat people,” a term then borrowed (less derogatorily) into Haitian Kreyòl as botpippel.

      Excision territoriale australienne :


      https://seenthis.net/messages/416996

      –—

      Citation tirée du livre de McAdam et Chong : « Refugees : why seeking asylum is legal and Australia’s policies are not » (p.3)

      “Successive governments (aided by much of the media) have exploited public anxieties about border security to create a rhetorical - and, ultimately, legislative - divide between the rights of so-called ’genuine’ refugees, resettled in Australia from camps and settlements abroad, and those arriving spontaneously in Australia by boat.”

  • Office of Displaced Designers

    Office of Displaced Designers (ODD) is a design focused creative integration organisation. We use design to bring diverse people together from the displaced and host community to share skills, undertake research and co-create a more equitable and inclusive society. Our activities focus on the built environment, protection issues and cultural understanding.

    http://www.displaceddesigners.org
    #Lesbos #camps_de_réfugiés #solidarité #humanitarian_design #réfugiés #Grèce #asile #migrations #inclusion #architecture

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • Migration and asylum: updates to the EU-Africa ’#Joint_Valletta_Action_Plan' on the way

    In November 2015 European and African heads of state met at a summit in Valletta, Malta, “to discuss a coordinated answer to the crisis of migration and refugee governance in Europe.” Since then joint activities on migration and asylum have increased significantly, according to documents published here by Statewatch. The Council is now examining an update to the ’Joint Valletta Action Plan’ (JVAP) and considering how to give it “a renewed sense of purpose”.

    "The #JVAP has an important bearing within the #GAMM [#Global_Approach_on_Migration_and_Mobility] and in the EU migration policies context, since it established the first ever framework for exchanges and monitoring of migration priorities involving a significant number of both European and African partners. The JVAP plays an important role in the implementation of the proposed new Pact on Migration and Asylum, tabled by the Commission in September 2020.

    “Over the last five years, the JVAP’s operational focus has grown in size and scope, as evidenced by the JVAP database.

    Several other benefits stem from the strategic linkage between the JVAP and the two Processes. One worth mentioning is the growing operationalisation of the regional migration dialogues through, in particular, the development of resources with an operational focus and the participant profiling, increasingly adapted to the stakes of the meetings. For example, the Rabat Process has developed the labelling mechanism, the reference countries system and the laboratory of ideas to step up the implementation and monitoring of each area of the Marrakesh Action Plan.”

    “The JVAP is therefore widely seen as having contributed to shaping the political, technical, and financial architecture of EU-Africa engagement on migration and mobility. At the same time, the JVAP provides a forum of discussion that rises to the political level and so could serve as a forum for debate and discussion in the future, especially should political circumstances call for high-level multilateral engagement on migration.”

    https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/february/migration-and-asylum-updates-to-the-eu-africa-joint-valletta-action-plan

    #update #mise_à_jour #Valletta #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #sommet_de_La_Vallette #La_Vallette #Vallette

    –---

    ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749

  • L’Etat français renvoie illégalement un enfant à la frontière franco-espagnole

    Le mercredi 3 février 2021, vers 12h, le jeune Tidane (prénom d’emprunt) a été interpellé par les forces de l’ordre françaises en gare de #Bayonne. Né en 2005, sa minorité n’a pas été contestée par les autorités françaises. Pourtant, un #arrêté_de_réadmission [1] vers l’Espagne lui a directement été notifié sans indication des délais et voies de recours. Il a immédiatement été remis aux autorités espagnoles, à #Irun, où, après plusieurs heures au poste de police, il a été laissé dans la rue, seul.

    Cette situation est alarmante car un mineur isolé doit faire l’objet d’une prise en charge et de mesures de protection par l’administration française dès lors qu’il est présent sur son territoire. Au lieu d’une réadmission, c’est sa protection qui aurait dû primer dans le respect de son « #intérêt_supérieur », tel que prévu par la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, dont la France est signataire.

    Agé de 16 ans, Tidane vient donc allonger la liste des nombreuses personnes qui, chaque jour, sont victimes de l’#illégalité des pratiques des autorités françaises aux frontières, notamment à la frontière franco-espagnole. Ces pratiques de l’administration française ont notamment pour conséquence de mettre en danger des enfants, à l’image de Tidane.

    Plus largement, cette situation interpelle, une fois de plus, sur les conséquences des contrôles aux frontières intérieures de la France. Instaurés en 2015 et constamment renouvelés, ces contrôles ont pour première conséquence des pratiques illégales de la part des forces de l’ordre aux frontières (contrôles au faciès, procédures irrégulières, violation du droit d’asile, absence de protection des mineurs…), mettant en danger la vie de plusieurs personnes, chaque jour, dont des enfants.

    Une fois de plus, nos associations dénoncent les conséquences de ces #pratiques_illégales qui violent les droits des personnes en migration aux frontières et demandent à ce que les autorités françaises protègent enfin les enfants au lieu de les refouler vers leurs Etats voisins.

    [1] Un arrêté de réadmission est un acte administratif permettant à un État membre de l’espace Schengen de renvoyer une personne étrangère vers un autre État membre de l’espace Schengen, cette personne y étant soit légalement admissible, soit étant en provenance directe de cet État. L’#accord_de_Malaga signé le 26 novembre 2002 entre la France et l’Espagne permet aux deux pays de faire des réadmissions simplifiées pour les personnes qui seraient en provenance directe de l’autre État.

    http://www.anafe.org/spip.php?article591

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #refoulements #Espagne #France #push-backs #réadmission #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés #enfants #enfance

    ping @isskein @karine4

    –—

    ajouté à la liste métaliste sur les accords de réadmission en Europe :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/736091