• Néfastes effets de l’idéologie politico-médiatique, par François Brune (Le Monde diplomatique, mai 1993)
    https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1993/05/BRUNE/45324

    L’exagération médiatique des « contraintes » qui interdiraient d’agir et la fabrication d’une réalité télévisée sans rapport avec la vie des téléspectateurs ont accéléré la dépolitisation de l’opinion. Comment réagir quand l’occultation de l’essentiel et l’amplification de l’accessoire conjuguent leurs effets narcotiques ?


    Faire l’opinion - P.Champagne. éd.de minuit
    http://www.leseditionsdeminuit.fr/livre-Faire_l_opinion-3118-1-1-0-1.html

    Les sondeurs et la #télévision ne sont pas deux acteurs de plus dans le jeu politique. Ils contribuent à mettre en place un système politico-médiatico-sondagier dans lequel ils jouent un rôle de premier plan. Omniprésents, les sondeurs revendiquent officiellement le monopole de la connaissance scientifique de la « volonté populaire » et proposent officieusement aux partis politiques les moyens pour la manipuler. Par ailleurs, la médiatisation de la politique et notamment des manifestations de rue, et leur accompagnement par les sondages et les baromètres de notoriété, ont contribué à redéfinir ce qu’on met aujourd’hui sous l’expression « faire de la politique ».

    https://www.acrimed.org/-Sondologie-et-sondomanie-Sondages-en-tous-genres-


    Sondologie et sondomanie : Sondages en tous genres
    #sophisme #idéologie_spectaculaire

  • Migrations : l’agence européenne #Frontex mise en cause pour des #refoulements en mer

    Des investigations menées par plusieurs médias dénoncent les pratiques illégales des #gardes-frontières_grecs impliquant parfois l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières.

    Une enquête de plusieurs médias, dont le magazine allemand Spiegel, affirme que Frontex, l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières, est impliquée dans plusieurs incidents de refoulement en mer de bateaux de demandeurs d’asile traversant la mer Egée entre la Turquie et la Grèce.

    Les investigations menées « montrent pour la première fois que les responsables de Frontex sont conscients des pratiques illégales des gardes-frontières grecs – et sont en partie impliqués dans les refoulements eux-mêmes », écrit le Spiegel dans un article disponible en ligne samedi 24 octobre.
    Les journalistes assurent avoir documenté six cas survenus depuis avril en mer Egée dans lesquels des équipes de Frontex ont au minimum assisté sans réagir à des refoulements vers la Turquie de bateaux de réfugiés se trouvant dans les eaux grecques, une pratique illégale. Dans un cas, en juin, une vidéo montre un navire de Frontex bloquant un bateau de réfugiés, puis, dans une autre scène enregistrée, passant devant le bateau de réfugiés à grande vitesse avant de quitter les lieux.

    Des dizaines de vidéos, d’images satellites, de récits comparés

    Outre le Spiegel, les recherches ont été menées par un magazine de la chaîne allemande ARD, le collectif de journalistes Lighthouse Reports, la plate-forme d’investigations Bellingcat et la chaîne de télévision japonaise TV Asahi. Les auteurs expliquent avoir comparé des « dizaines » de vidéos, d’images satellites, de récits de témoins oculaires, dont des réfugiés et des employés de Frontex. L’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières a engagé plus de 600 agents en Grèce, une des portes d’entrée de l’Union européenne, ainsi que des bateaux, des drones et des avions, selon l’article.

    Frontex n’a pas commenté les cas précis soulevés par la recherche, explique le Spiegel, mais a déclaré que ses agents étaient liés par un code de conduite en matière de droits de l’homme et respectaient l’interdiction des refoulements. Sans mentionner l’article, Frontex a annoncé vendredi soir sur son compte Twitter avoir été « en contact avec les autorités grecques à propos d’incidents en mer ces derniers mois » et qu’Athènes avait ouvert une « enquête interne ». Frontex agit « dans le respect des droits fondamentaux et de la loi internationale », souligne l’agence sur Twitter.
    Le gouvernement conservateur grec a toujours rejeté les allégations de refoulements illégaux à ses frontières dont font régulièrement état plusieurs organisations non gouvernementales.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2020/10/24/migrations-l-agence-europeenne-frontex-mise-en-cause-pour-des-refoulements-e
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #push-backs #refoulements #Mer_Egée #Grèce #Turquie

    ping @isskein @karine4

    • Frontex at Fault : European Border Force Complicit in ‘Illegal’ Pushbacks

      Vessels from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, have been complicit in maritime “pushback” operations to drive away refugees and migrants attempting to enter the European Union via Greek waters, a joint investigation by Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, ARD and TV Asahi has found.

      Open source data suggests Frontex assets were actively involved in one pushback incident at the Greek-Turkish maritime border in the Aegean Sea, were present at another and have been in the vicinity of four more since March.

      Although Frontex assets were not at the immediate scene of those latter four incidents, the signature of a pushback is distinctive, and would likely have been visible on radar, with visual tools common on such vessels or to the naked eye.

      The Greek Coast Guard (HCG) has long been accused of illegal pushbacks.

      These are described by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), a legal and educational non-profit, as incidents where refugees and migrants are forced back over a border without consideration of individual circumstances and without any possibility to apply for asylum or to put forward arguments against the measures taken.

      In the Aegean Sea, pushbacks generally occur in two ways. The first type is the most common: Dinghies travelling from Turkey to Greece are blocked from landing on Greek soil by the HCG. This could mean either physically blocking the dinghy until it runs out of fuel, or disabling the engine. After the engine no longer works the dinghy can then either be pushed back into Turkish territorial water with waves, or towed if the wind is not favourable.

      The second type of pushback is employed when people have managed to land on Greek soil. In this case they are detained, placed in a liferaft with no means of propulsion, towed into the middle of the Aegean Sea and then abandoned.

      Pushbacks will often result in standoffs between the HCG and Turkish Coast Guard (TCG), both of which will standby, refusing to aid dinghies in distress and carrying out unsafe manoeuvres around them.

      The role of Frontex assets in such incidents, however, has never been recorded before.

      Dana Schmalz, an international law expert at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg said the incidents highlighted in this investigation were likely “illegal” and “violate the prohibition of refoulement and maritime law.” The prohibition of refoulement refers to rules banning the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers and is described by the UN Refugee Agency as a “rule of customary international law.”

      Schmalz added that if Frontex personnel stopped an overcrowded dinghy of the type seen in footage documented during this investigation, they would be obliged to rescue its occupants immediately. “If they don’t do that, even make waves [or] instead drive away and then let the Greeks do the dirty work – then they are involved in the illegal pushback.”

      Despite being presented with numerous examples of the practice, a spokesperson for the Greek Maritime Ministry Greek denied claims of pushbacks, describing allegations of illegal actions relating to the incidents documented in this article as “tendentious.” They added that HCG officers act in compliance with the country’s international obligations.

      Frontex said that the host states it works with have the final say in how operations on its territory or search and rescue zone are carried out. However, it added that Frontex had notified HCG which confirmed an internal inquiry had been launched into each of the reported incidents. Yet Frontex did not say when it notified HCG or when the inquiry had begun.

      On July 24, the director of Frontex, Fabrice Leggeri, told the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) at the European Parliament that the agency had observed and recorded just a single incident which may have been a pushback in the Aegean.

      Our investigation — which looked at the presence of Frontex assets in the Aegean Sea and observed their movements over many months — appears to contradict that assertion.

      This was despite the difficulty in tracking many Frontex assets because their transponder information was either not registered, not turned on, or was out of range. As such, we were only able to view a snapshot of Frontex operations.

      Frontex, an agency of the European Union, is tasked with border control of the Schengen Area. Its activities in the Aegean are called Operation Poseidon.
      How we Recorded Pushbacks: Identification of Assets

      There were two main steps to establishing that Frontex had participated in pushback operations. The first was to identify what assets had been deployed in Operation Poseidon. The second was to establish whether these assets had participated in pushback operations.

      The first step was carried out using open sources. These included social media posts, vessel tracking sites and information published by Frontex itself. We were also able to establish the number of personnel and assets present in the operational area thanks to questions asked in the European Parliament.

      According to this response, Operation Poseidon has 185 personnel, one offshore patrol vessel (OPV), eight coastal patrol boats (CPB), one coastal patrol vessel (CPV), four thermal vision vehicles (TVV) and three patrol cars.

      There is also a “Rapid Border Intervention”, which contains additional assets on top of those dedicated to Operation Poseidon. This includes 74 personnel, two CPBs, two CPVs, one helicopter and three TVVs.

      In total we used open sources to identify 22 assets, including vessels, helicopters and planes, which operated in the Aegean during 2020. Although this is more than the total given in the answer to parliamentary questions above, some of these assets were rotating in or out of theater.
      Tracking Assets

      Some assets featured regularly on the open source record. For example, Romanian and Bulgarian vessels regularly transit through the Bosphorus strait, where there is an active ship-spotting community. As such it was possible to identify their operational rotations, including vessels heading to and returning from deployments roughly every three months. However, other assets were more difficult to track, and their presence on the open source record consisted of a single image or video.


      https://twitter.com/YorukIsik/status/1262417193083510784

      In order to track these assets and identify if they had participated in pushbacks, we required far more data than was available on social media. As such, we turned to AIS and transponder data, publicly available information about the location of particular ships or aircraft, available through sites such as Marine Traffic or Flight Radar 24.

      Many of the assets we identified either did not have their information publicly listed, or appeared to only turn on their transponders under certain circumstances, such as when in port. This made them extremely difficult to track. However, some assets did have their transponders on. We began to collect this data, buying additional, more granular data from ship and flight tracking companies on dates when pushbacks had been reported.

      We combined this tracking data with our own database of reported pushbacks, which we obtained through both public reports and information collected by NGOs such as Consolidated Rescue Group (CRG), Monitoring Rescue Cell (MRC) and Alarm Phone, who track these events. These included the coordinates of reported pushback events, frequently sent by the occupants of the dinghies. By overlaying these datasets we identified multiple pushback incidents in which Frontex assets were in the vicinity. Once we had identified these priority incidents we could then examine the specifics of what had happened.
      Incidents

      Using this data we identified six pushback incidents since March in which Frontex assets were either in the vicinity or participated directly. We have separated these into four “proximity incidents,” where Frontex assets were within five kilometers of the incident, and two “confirmed incidents,” where we can be certain that Frontex were present at the site of pushbacks themselves.
      Proximity Incidents

      April 28-29: In an incident we have previously reported, a group of refugees and migrants made landfall on Samos. They claim they were then detained, placed in a life-raft without any means of propulsion and towed into the middle of the Mycale Strait. A surveillance plane overflew the area twice while this pushback took place.

      June 4: Two dinghies were reported to have been pushed back from Northern Lesbos. Portuguese vessel Nortada appears to have been present around 15 kilometers from the first incident and just over one kilometer away from the second.

      June 5: A dinghy was reported to have been pushed back from Northern Lesbos. Portuguese vessel Nortada was approximately two to three kilometers away.

      August 19: A dinghy was reported to have been pushed back from Northern Lesbos. Portuguese vessel Molivos was five kilometers away and appears to have changed course and headed towards the pushback before its transponder either lost signal or was turned off.

      In these cases, Frontex assets were recorded as being within a certain range, rather than participating directly. Their exact knowledge of what was happening at these distances is difficult to confirm. Operation Poseidon’s mission includes a significant number of tasks requiring surveillance, and its assets are able to use both radar and visual tools, such as low-light or infrared cameras, to observe the environment around them.

      For example, we know that the Molivos is equipped with an FLIR camera similar to this one seen on another Portuguese Frontex vessel. This model is capable of x36 magnification, with low light and infrared cameras.

      The boats that migrants use to make this crossing are very basic, inflatable rubber dinghies several meters long with a single outboard motor. Due to their construction, it is unlikely that these boats would be visible on radar. However, pushbacks don’t just involve a single dinghy. By their definition they must involve at least one other vessel. From images and videos of pushbacks we have reviewed, it is clear that they often involve multiple ships from both the Greek and Turkish coast guards.

      As stated above, ships from both Greece and Turkey will frequently attempt to push the dinghies across the sea border using waves. These vessels manoeuvre in a circular pattern at a relatively high speed close to the dinghy. This manoeuvre is not only dangerous because of the risk of collision, the waves it generates also represent a threat to the overcrowded and often fragile dinghies.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8BdEHtBWp4&feature=emb_logo

      As such, although a dinghy itself may not show up on radar, the signature of a pushback would. Multiple large and small vessels from both TCG and HCG, some of which are carrying out unusual manoeuvres in order to create waves, would be very difficult to miss. Indeed you can even see this kind of event from space.

      There’s also the matter of visual range. The same factors that make a pushback visible on radar will also make it visible to the eye or other visual systems such as surveillance cameras. Even at a range of a few kilometers in calm seas and good conditions, a dinghy would likely be visible, although exact details such as the nature of its passengers might not be. The other aspects of pushbacks which we have already described would also certainly be visible.

      The case of the April 28-29 pushback is a good illustration of surveillance assets passing very close to the results of a pushback.
      April 28

      In an incident previously covered by Bellingcat, a group of 22 migrants who landed on Samos were detained by Greek law enforcement. They were then placed on a life raft without any means of propulsion, and towed into the middle of the Mycale Strait by the Greek coast guard. In response to our request for comment at the time, the Greek government denied these people had ever reached Greek territory, despite witness statements, images, and videos showing this had in fact happened.

      As the life raft was floating in the strait, a private sureveillance plane passed over the area twice at 5,000 feet, once at 02:41 AM and once at 03:18 AM. This plane, G-WKTH, belongs to DEA Aviation, which provides aerial surveillance services to Frontex. In a promotional video from Frontex, it is claimed these feeds are live-streamed back to the Frontex HQ in Warsaw

      The plane is reportedly equipped with an MX-15 camera, which has both low-light and infrared sensors. Considering this plane is specifically employed for aerial surveillance, it would be surprising if it did not identify the life raft full of people and, according to one member of this group, the presence of Greek and later Turkish vessels.

      Indeed, the Frontex executive director’s response to the LIBE committee of the European Parliament indicates this may have been the incident Frontex reported as having seen. In this reply a “Serious Incident Report (‘SIR’) was created based on a sighting of an incident by aerial surveillance where people were transferred on a rubber boat from a vessel and later on rescued by Turkish authorities.
      Active incidents

      In two cases on June 8 and August 15, it seems certain that Frontex was aware of pushbacks as they took place. Indeed, on June 8, it appears that a Frontex vessel participated in a pushback, physically blocking a dinghy from reaching Greek territory.

      We will first address the incident on August 15, where a Frontext vessel was present at the scene of a pushback, before examining the June 8, where a Frontex asset appears to have participated in a pushback.
      August 15

      On the morning of August 15 there were reports of a confrontation between the Greek and Turkish coast guards. As well as multiple photos posted to social media by locals, this was also reported as a pushback by CRG, MRC, Alarm Phone and Aegean Boat Report.

      CRG and MRC also posted videos from people on this dinghy, with CRG’s video showing an engine without a starter cord, claiming it had been taken by the Greek Coast Guard. In the videos, the dinghy is surrounded by vessels from both the Greek and Turkish coast guards. We have previously noted that disabling the motor of dinghies is a tactic that has reportedly been used by the Greek Coast Guard.

      Most of the images of this incident are taken from a distance, making identification of the vessels difficult. However, we were also sent an image of this confrontation that is very clear. In this image we can clearly see the presence of MAI1102, a Romanian border forces vessel which had just arrived in theater.

      The metadata of this image is consistent with the date and time of this incident. Indeed, the ships can be seen arrayed in almost exactly the same manner in a video filmed by the people on the boat.

      Although it is not possible to be certain of exactly how far away MAI1102 is from this pushback, we can see that it is certainly within visual range of the confrontation and the dinghy itself.
      June 8

      On the morning of June 8 a pushback was reported to have taken place, again off the north-east coast of Lesbos. The Turkish coast guard reported it rescued 47 migrants after a pushback by the Greek Coast Guard that day. Footage published by Anadolu Agency appeared to show the Romanian Frontex vessel MAI1103 blocking a dinghy.

      We investigated this incident further, obtaining other videos from the TCG, as well as tracking data of vessels that appeared to be in the vicinity at the time, such as the NATO ship, Berlin. Using these sources we were able to reconstruct what happened.

      After initially trying to cross under the cover of darkness, the dinghy was intercepted and physically blocked from proceeding by MAI1103 early in the morning.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoNJXY3pa_U&feature=emb_logo

      We can see the exact time and a set of coordinates in one of the videos we obtained.

      We plotted the coordinates visible on the screen as they changed. It became clear these were not the location of the vessel with the camera, but rather the location of the dinghy and MAI1103.

      We can visually confirm the general location by comparing a panoramic view that is visible in one of the videos against the appearance of the landscape from the coordinates which appear on the camera feed.

      We can now start to build a picture of what happened that morning.

      We can see that the dinghy was extremely close to MAI1103, and is being physically blocked by the ship. Indeed the two vessels are close enough that it appears that personnel on MAI1103 are communicating with people in the dinghy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qD_I--2LPA&feature=emb_logo

      At one point MAI1103 makes a pass close to the dinghy at enough speed to generate waves, a maneuver that previously only HCG and TCG have been seen making. It is especially dangerous due to the overloaded and unseaworthy nature of the dinghies.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iUm1_e2R6A&feature=emb_logo

      Eventually HCG vessels arrive and MAI1103 leaves, resulting in a standoff between the TCG and HCG. This lasted several hours and gradually moved to the north-west, observed by the NATO ship Berlin.

      During this period the dinghy was approached at least twice by a rigid-hulled inflatable boat 060 (RHIB) from the HCG.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WODSvxnmoc&feature=emb_logo

      In what appears to be the final segment of video taken at about 09:30 AM we see the TCG radar screen, which can be exactly matched with the Turkish coast. This radar screen matches perfectly with the location and heading of the Berlin at this time, as we can see by overlaying a plot of the Berlin’s course with the radar screen.

      As well as matching the movement of vessels to AIS data, we can further verify that these videos are from the same incident by examining the passengers in the dinghy. We can see that in the earliest videos, showing the MAI1103 with the dinghy, there is clearly a person wearing a white hood, alongside someone who appears to be wearing a reddish top. The presence of these passengers helps to verify that all these videos are indeed from the same incident on June 8.

      In the final stage of the pushback at 10:30 AM it is possible to see the Portuguese Frontex vessel Nortada within 5 km with both AIS data and on the TCG radar screen. The Nortada had been in that vicinity since at least 09:11 AM that morning. Although it may not have been able to pick up this dinghy on its radar, it would have certainly been within visual range of the larger ships surrounding it. After the pushback, the Nortada continued its patrol off North Lesbos.

      Conclusion

      Over the course of this investigation we collected a huge amount of information on Frontex activities in the Aegean Sea. Most of Frontex’s assets were impossible to track because their transponder information was either not registered, not turned on, or was out of range. As such, we were only able to view a snapshot of Frontex operations.

      Despite this limited view, we still managed to identify multiple instances in which Frontex was either present at pushbacks, or close enough to be able to understand what was taking place. In at least one incident it appears that a Frontex vessel actively participated in a pushback. It is possible that there are other incidents we have not been able to capture.

      In a statement provided in response to this investigation, Frontex stated that it applies “the highest standards of border control to its operations” and that its officers are bound by a code of conduct that looks to prevent refoulement and to uphold human rights.

      The statement continued that Frontex’s executive director had notified the HGC regarding all reported incidents and that Greek authorities confirmed that an internal inquiry had been launched.

      A spokesperson for the Greek Maritime Ministry said the actions of HCG officers were “carried out in full compliance with the country’s international obligations, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.”

      The spokesperson added that thousands of migrants had been rescued throughout the refugee crisis of recent years by the HCG, that allegations of illegality were “tendentious” and that the “operation practices of the Greek authorities have never included such [illegal] actions.”

      https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/10/23/frontex-at-fault-european-border-force-complicit-in-illegal-pushbacks

      #forensic_architecture #architecture_forensique

    • EU Border Agency Frontex Complicit in Greek Refugee Pushback Campaign

      Greek border guards have been forcing large numbers of refugees back to sea in pushback operations that violate international law. #DER_SPIEGEL and its reporting partners have learned that the European Union is also complicit in the highly controversial practice.

      Jouma al-Badi thought he was safe when he first set foot on European soil on April 28. Together with 21 other refugees, he had been taken in a rubber dinghy from Turkey to the Greek island of Samos. The young Syrian planned to apply for political asylum. He documented his arrival in videos. Local residents also remember the refugees.

      Greek security forces captured the migrants. Under international law, it is their duty to give the new arrivals a hearing and field their applications for asylum. Instead, according to al-Badi, the officers dragged them back out to sea and released them on an inflatable rubber raft. Videos obtained by DER SPIEGEL also show him on the raft.

      For an entire night and a morning, Greek border guards kept pushing the men and women away as their raft floated around in circles. The Turkish coast guard filmed the maneuver.

      An aircraft used by the European border protection agency Frontex also passed over the refugees. The crew of the surveillance plane, with the registration identifier "G-WKTH,” were part of a European Union operation in Greece. The plane twice flew over the Strait of Mykali, where al-Badi and the other migrants were located. According to flight data that has been viewed by DER SPIEGEL, the first flight happened at 2:41 a.m. and the second at 3:18 a.m.

      The plane’s crew has a standard MX-15 camera on board with an infrared sensor and a sensor for poor lighting conditions. Even at night, the sensors are capable of detecting small objects on the water. According to a Frontex promotional video, the camera images are streamed live to Frontex headquarters in Warsaw, Poland. But Frontex didn’t send any help.

      The waves struck the Syrian in the face. He eventually ran out of strength and thought he was going to die.

      The Greek government denies it conducted pushbacks of refugees to Turkey, even though DER SPIEGEL and other media have fully documented several of these operations, known as pushbacks. Greek border guards are growing increasingly ruthless. As in the case of al-Badi, they are now pushing even refugees who have reached the Greek isles back to sea in operations that are illegal under international law.

      Frontex officials have publicly claimed that they know nothing about pushbacks by Greek border guards. The agency has 600 employees deployed in Greece as well as ships, drones and aircraft.

      Together with Lighthouse Reports, Bellingcat, "Report Mainz” — a program on ARD, the German public broadcaster — and Japanese broadcaster TV Asahi, DER SPIEGEL spent several months reporting in the Aegean Sea region. The reporters tracked the positions of Frontex units and compared them with position data from pushbacks recorded by NGOs and migrants. They interviewed witnesses, refugees and Frontex staff. They viewed internal documents and dozens of videos and satellite photos.

      Their research proves for the first time that Frontex officials know about the Greek border guards’ illegal practices – and that the agency itself is at times involved in the pushbacks. Breaking the law has become an everyday occurrence at Europe’s borders, and the EU is allowing it to happen.

      Samira Mohammad could already see Lesbos when the men with the masks arrived. The Syrian woman, who does not want to provide her real name, is 45 years old. That morning of August 15, she was sitting in a rubber dinghy with dozens of other people. She recalls how Greek border guards tried in vain to stop the arrivals and how they steered toward the boat repeatedly and pushed it back toward Turkey multiple times. She says the Turkish coast guard held them off. Locals even have a name for the cynical game: "Greek water polo.”

      Mohammad claims the Greek officials took their gasoline and destroyed the engine. And that masked Greek border guards then boarded the dinghy. Several refugees claim that they forced the migrants to tie the shaky rubber dinghy to a speedboat at gunpoint. The border guards then towed the boat toward Turkey. Videos corroborate the statements made by the refugees, and the destroyed engine is clearly visible.

      Mohammad said she was scared to death during those moments. Her entire family had been onboard, including her pregnant daughter-in-law, who was later hospitalized with severe bleeding.

      The maneuver off the coast of Lesbos lasted hours, and the Turkish Navy didn’t rescue the refugees until noon.

      A Romanian Frontex boat was also on site that morning. The MAI 1102 was located only a few hundred meters away from the refugee boat. The boat can be clearly identified in a photo. A German navy ship on a NATO mission that observed the incident reported it to the German government. It also stated that Frontex people had been present. This is documented in an internal paper that has been obtained by DER SPIEGEL. Nevertheless, this pushback has never been revealed publicly before now.

      On June 8, Frontex officials went one step further, with the MAI 1103, a ship also flying the Romanian flag. It directly blocked a refugee boat. The incident can be seen in several videos recorded by the Turkish coast guard and verified by DER SPIEGEL. It shows officials standing on the deck, where they are obviously communicating with the refugees floating in the water in front of them.

      Later, the MAI 1103 passes the refugees traveling at high speed, with waves beating against the boat. The Romanian officials then withdrew and the Greek coast guard took over the operation.

      "These pushbacks violate the ban on collective expulsions and international maritime law,” says Dana Schmalz, an expert on international law at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg. She notes that if Frontex officials stopped a completely overcrowded inflatable boat, they would be required to rescue the people immediately. "If they don’t do that and even make waves instead, only to drive away and let the Greeks do the dirty work, then they are still involved in the illegal pushback,” she says.

      Reporting by DER SPIEGEL and its partners found that a Frontex surveillance plane or Portuguese or Romanian Frontex ships were near at least six pushbacks in the area since April. The number of undetected cases could actually be much higher.

      The vast majority of Frontex vessels patrol the Aegean Sea with their AIS transponders switched off or untraceable in order to prevent giving away their positions. Their presence can only be verified with difficulty through videos and photos.

      When contacted for comment by DER SPIEGEL, Frontex did not deny the individual incidents, instead stating that the officials protected the fundamental rights of migrants and respected their right to non-refoulement. It further stated that the incidents that had been reported were forwarded to the Greek coast guard, which opened an investigation into the matter. The Greek government gave a blanket denial to the allegations, saying that it complies with the law and does not carry out illegal deportations.

      Under Frontex’s statutes, police officers are required to file so-called Serious Incident Reports to document violations of the law. But people familiar with the situation say that fewer and fewer of these reports are getting filed. The sources said the Frontex border guards, who are sent to Greece from all over Europe, frown upon such reports because they cause trouble for the host country.

      https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-border-agency-frontex-complicit-in-greek-refugee-pushback-campaign-a-4b6c

      –---

      en allemand :
      https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-frontex-in-griechenland-in-illegale-pushbacks-verwickelt-a-0000

    • Bruxelles veut des explications de Frontex, accusée de procéder à des refoulements illégaux de migrants

      La #Commission_européenne a sollicité une réunion extraordinaire urgente du conseil d’administration de Frontex, l’agence européenne pour la protection des frontières, mise en cause pour des refoulements illégaux de migrants en mer Égée. Un article d’Euroefe.

      « Après s’être coordonnés avec la présidente de la Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, mes services ont demandé, au nom de la Commission, la convocation d’une réunion extraordinaire du conseil d’administration de Frontex le 10 novembre pour discuter des incidents présumés de refoulement en Grèce et de la protection des droits fondamentaux », a écrit Ylva Johansson, la commissaire chargée des migrations, dans un tweet.

      D’après des enquêtes menées par différents médias, Frontex aurait procédé à des refoulements illégaux de migrants en mer Égée, à la frontière entre la Turquie et la Grèce. Et ce à au moins six reprises.

      L’hebdomadaire allemand Der Spiegel a révélé le 23 octobre qu’il avait enquêté sur ces incidents en collaboration avec les médias numériques néerlandais Lighthouse Reports et britannique Bellingcat, ainsi qu’avec deux chaînes de télévision, l’Allemande ARD et la Japonaise Asahi.

      Ces médias disposent de films montrant comment, depuis le mois d’avril, des agents de Frontex ont procédé à ce que l’on appelle des « pushbacks » (refoulements) de migrants pour les empêcher d’atteindre le sol européen, une pratique illégale.

      Une vidéo montre comment un bateau de l’agence européenne bloque le passage d’une embarcation occupée par des migrants, avant de les dépasser à grande vitesse, provoquant ainsi de grosses vagues. Par la suite, les garde-côtes grecs obligent la barque à faire demi-tour vers la Turquie.

      De son côté, Frontex a nié les accusations et assuré au Spiegel que ses agents protégeaient les droits fondamentaux des migrants et respectaient le droit au non-refoulement.

      Le gouvernement grec a également nié catégoriquement ces accusations.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/bruxelles-veut-des-explications-de-frontex-accusee-de-proceder-a-des-refoulements-illegaux-de-migrants/?_ga=2.223583131.1633915392.1603989521-379746837.1590938192

    • Greek coast guard performed huge pushback involving 197 people and 7 life rafts!

      A boat carrying 197 people tried to cross from Turkey to Italy on Tuesday, but got in to bad weather and sat course towards Crete. Close to the south shore of Crete they had engine problems and the Greek Coast Guard was alerted 09.00.
      The coast guard divided the people on two coast guard vessels, 121 men and boys on one vessel and 76 people, families on the other. Reports from the refugees clearly states that some of them where abuse while onboard the HCG vessel, footage and video testimony has been provided. Most of their phones was confiscated by the Greek coast guard, but a few managed to hide their phones, and was able to send out distress messages.
      The first group containing the 121 males was forced in to 3 life rafts before first light on Wednesday the 21th just north of Rhodes, and found and picked up by Turkish coast guard 08.50 south of Marmaris.
      The second group with the families, 76 people, was put in 4 life rafts around noon north west of Simi, drifting for hours and not picked up by Turkish coast guard before 17.30 south west of Datça.
      This shows that the Greek coast guard is determined to prevent anyone to reach Greek soil, no matter the consequences or potential harm they may inflict on innocent people fleeing war and persecution.
      This is by far the largest pushback Aegean Boat Report has been able to document, but I guess nothing is a surprise anymore. No measures have been taken by the EU to try to stop this illegal practice by the Greek government, even do they have received overwhelming amounts of evidence.

      https://www.facebook.com/AegeanBoatReport/posts/951612422028529

    • Έστειλαν πίσω 200 πρόσφυγες γιατί ήταν… τζιχαντιστές

      Τεκμηριωμένη καταγγελία για τη μεγαλύτερη ώς τώρα καταγεγραμμένη επαναπροώθηση προσφύγων από το Λιμενικό προς την Τουρκία με μεγάλη και κρυφή επιχείρηση του Λιμενικού εν μέσω σφοδρής κακοκαιρίας νότια της Κρήτης ● Έντεχνη προσπάθεια οι 200 άνθρωποι, μεταξύ αυτών και γυναικόπαιδα, να εμφανιστούν ως… ισλαμιστές τρομοκράτες.

      Ακόμα μια καταγγελία για βίαιες επαναπροωθήσεις προσφύγων από το Λιμενικό έρχεται στο φως τις τελευταίες ημέρες, την ίδια στιγμή που η κυβέρνηση πανηγυρίζει για τη μείωση των προσφυγικών ροών προς τα νησιά, χωρίς όμως να εξηγεί πώς έχει επιτευχθεί η μείωση αυτή.

      Η υπόθεση αφορά πλοιάριο με περίπου 200 ανθρώπους που έφτασαν στα ανοιχτά της Κρήτης, προερχόμενοι από Τουρκία και με τελικό προορισμό την Ιταλία. Στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση υπάρχει μια περίεργη αλληλουχία γεγονότων και « ειδήσεων » τόσο στα κρητικά όσο και τα κεντρικά ΜΜΕ. Το πρωί της Τρίτης 20 Οκτωβρίου σε όλα τα ηλεκτρονικά ΜΜΕ της Κρήτης μεταδίδεται η είδηση για « κινητοποίηση του Λιμενικού » για σκάφος με 200 μετανάστες στη θαλάσσια περιοχή νότια της νήσου Χρυσής (Γαϊδουρονήσι), στην Ιεράπετρα. Το προηγούμενο βράδυ η Κρήτη είχε χτυπηθεί σφοδρά από την κακοκαιρία και το πρωί τα βλέμματα όλων ήταν στις εκτεταμένες καταστροφές που προκάλεσε το χαλάζι σε καλλιέργειες και υποδομές, κυρίως στην ανατολική πλευρά του νησιού. Την ίδια κακοκαιρία προφανώς αντιμετώπισαν και οι 200 επιβαίνοντες στο σκάφος, μεταξύ των οποίων υπήρχαν γυναίκες και παιδιά.

      Στις πρώτες αναφορές και σε ερωτήσεις δημοσιογράφων προς το Λιμεναρχείο Ιεράπετρας γινόταν λόγος για « αδυναμία του Λιμενικού να εντοπίσει το πλοιάριο », ωστόσο δινόταν η πληροφορία πως τα σκάφη θα έμεναν στα ανοιχτά λόγω της κακοκαιρίας και για την περίπτωση που χρειαστεί, να παράσχουν βοήθεια αν εντοπίσουν τους πρόσφυγες. Λίγες ώρες αργότερα η είδηση εξαφανίστηκε από τα ΜΜΕ και δημιουργήθηκε η εντύπωση πως τα σκάφη του Λιμενικού δεν βρήκαν ποτέ το πλοιάριο με τους πρόσφυγες.
      Τους βρήκαν ;

      Ωστόσο τα πράγματα φαίνεται πως έγιναν διαφορετικά. Τέσσερις μέρες μετά, η οργάνωση Aegean Boat Report, η οποία και στο παρελθόν έχει αποκαλύψει παράνομες επιχειρήσεις επαναπροώθησης λέμβων με μετανάστες προς την Τουρκία από τις ελληνικές αρχές και τη Frontex, καταγγέλλει πως το Λιμενικό όχι μόνο βρήκε τους πρόσφυγες στα ανοιχτά της Κρήτης αλλά προχώρησε και με συνοπτικές διαδικασίες στην επαναπροώθησή τους στην Τουρκία. Η οργάνωση καταγγέλλει πως η ελληνική Ακτοφυλακή εντόπισε τους πρόσφυγες στις 9 το πρωί της Τρίτης (όπως δηλαδή μετέδιδαν αρχικά και τα κρητικά ΜΜΕ). Στη συνέχεια, πάντα σύμφωνα με την καταγγελία, οι άνδρες του Λιμενικού επιβίβασαν τους 197 πρόσφυγες σε δύο επιχειρησιακά σκάφη χωρίζοντάς τους σε δύο ομάδες. Στην πρώτη ομάδα μπήκαν 121 άνδρες και αγόρια, ενώ στη δεύτερη μπήκαν οικογένειες με γυναίκες και παιδιά, συνολικά 76 άτομα. Και οι δύο ομάδες, πάντα σύμφωνα με την καταγγελία, μεταφέρθηκαν στη θαλάσσια περιοχή βόρεια της Ρόδου, όπου και εξαναγκάστηκαν με τη βία να επιβιβαστούν σε συνολικά επτά θαλάσσιες σωστικές σχεδίες αφού προηγουμένως τους είχαν αφαιρεθεί όλα τα κινητά τηλέφωνα. Και οι επτά σχεδίες « σπρώχτηκαν » προς τις ακτές της Τουρκίας, εν μέσω κακοκαιρίας και κατά παράβαση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και του δίκαιου της θάλασσας.

      Στιγμιότυπα από την επαναπροώθηση των προσφύγων (Φωτογραφίες από την οργάνωση Aegean Boat Report).


      Οι τρεις πρώτες σχεδίες, με 121 άτομα, εξωθήθηκαν τα ξημερώματα της Τετάρτης 21/10 προς την περιοχή της Μαρμαρίδας, όπου και εντοπίστηκαν από το τουρκικό Λιμενικό που τους περισυνέλεξε. Το δεύτερο γκρουπ, όπου βρίσκονταν οι γυναίκες και τα παιδιά, εξαναγκάστηκε να επιβιβαστεί σε τέσσερις σωστικές σχεδίες και επαναπροωθήθηκε προς την Τουρκία από τη θαλάσσια περιοχή δυτικά της Σύμης, το μεσημέρι της Τετάρτης. Τους περισυνέλεξε το τουρκικό Λιμενικό το απόγευμα της ίδιας μέρας στην περιοχή νοτιοδυτικά της πόλης Ντάκτα. Οπως αναφέρουν μάλιστα κάποιοι από τους επιβαίνοντες, χτυπήθηκαν από τους Ελληνες λιμενικούς, ενώ υπάρχει και σχετικό φωτογραφικό υλικό που τραβήχτηκε μετά την περισυλλογή τους από τις τουρκικές αρχές. Σε μία από τις φωτογραφίες φαίνεται ένας άνθρωπος με μώλωπες στην κοιλιά και με γύψο σε σημεία και των δύο χεριών του.


      Πρωτοσέλιδο

      Την ίδια μέρα, πάντως, που έγινε η καταγγελία από την Aegean Boat Report (το Σάββατο) η εφημερίδα « ΤΑ ΝΕΑ » κυκλοφορούσε με τίτλο « Προετοιμαστείτε για Τζιχαντιστές », αναφερόμενη στο μήνυμα που, σύμφωνα με πληροφορίες της εφημερίδας, έστειλε σε Ελλάδα και Κύπρο ο Αιγύπτιος πρόεδρος Αλ Σίσι κατά την τριμερή συνάντηση που πραγματοποιήθηκε στη Λευκωσία. Το μήνυμα υποτίθεται πως αφορούσε τις πληροφορίες που έχει η Αίγυπτος για τις κινήσεις του Ερντογάν και το πώς χρησιμοποιεί τον ισλαμιστικό παράγοντα. Σε κάποια κρητικά ΜΜΕ οι δύο υποθέσεις δεν άργησαν να συνδεθούν με αναφορές για το… περίεργο σκάφος στο οποίο, σύμφωνα με τα δημοσιεύματα, επέβαιναν « άτομα εμφανιζόμενα ως μετανάστες » και το οποίο, σύμφωνα με τις διοχετευμένες πληροφορίες, έχει κινητοποιήσει όχι μόνο το Λιμενικό αλλά και τον Στρατό, την ΕΥΠ ακόμα και ξένες μυστικές υπηρεσίες !

      Όπως αποκαλύπτεται, πάντως, οι επικίνδυνοι « τζιχαντιστές », τόσο οι άνδρες όσο και τα γυναικόπαιδα, είχαν ήδη από την Τετάρτη επαναπροωθηθεί παράνομα στην Τουρκία. Η Οργάνωση Aegean Boat Report αναφέρει πως αυτή είναι η μεγαλύτερη περίπτωση « pushback » που καταφέρνει να καταγράψει και τονίζει πως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ενωση δεν έχει επιβάλει ακόμα καμία κύρωση στην Ελλάδα για τις παράνομες επαναπροωθήσεις, παρά τα ακλόνητα στοιχεία που έχουν τεθεί στη διάθεση των ευρωπαϊκών αρχών.

      https://www.efsyn.gr/efkriti/koinonia/265835_esteilan-piso-200-prosfyges-giati-itan-tzihantistes

    • Greece’s coast guard accused of mass migrant pushbacks

      An NGO, the #Aegean_Boat_Report (ABR), has accused the Greek coast guard of pushing back 197 migrants at sea last week.

      Greek coast guards have been accused by the NGO Aegean Boat Report (ABR) of performing illegal pushbacks involving 197 people and seven life rafts off the coast of the island of Crete in the Southern Aegean.

      A boat carrying 197 people was on its way trying to cross from Turkey to Italy on October 20 but ran into bad weather and changed course towards Crete, the NGO said.

      Close to the south shore of Crete, the vessel reported engine problems and, according to the Norwegian organization, the Greek coast guard was alerted at 9 am.

      ’’The Greek coast guard divided the people into two groups onto two coast guard vessels, 121 men and boys on one vessel, and 76 people, mostly families, on the other.

      Abuse on board

      Reports from the refugees clearly state that some of them were abused while onboard the Hellenic coast guard vessel, with footage and video testimony being provided,’’ said ABR via a media statement.

      According to ABR, the first group with the 121 men and boys were forced into three life rafts in the early hours of Wednesday, October 21 just north of Rhodes, before being found and picked up by the Turkish coast guard at 8:50 am south of Marmaris.

      The second group of 76 people, made up of families, were put into four life rafts at around noon north-west of the islands of Simi, drifting for hours and not picked up by Turkish coast guards before 5:30 pm south-west of Data.

      ’Largest pushback’ ABR has documented

      ’’This shows that the Greek coast guard is determined to prevent anyone from reaching Greek soil, no matter the consequences or potential harm they may inflict on innocent people fleeing war and persecution’’, added ABR.

      ’’This is by far the largest pushback Aegean Boat Report has been able to document, but I guess nothing is a surprise anymore. No measures have been taken by the EU to try to stop this illegal practice by the Greek government, even if they have received overwhelming amounts of evidence.’’

      29 NGOs and humanitarian groups sent an open letter to Parliament Last week’s incidents were reported after an appeal was launched by several prominent NGOs and humanitarian groups earlier this month on the topic of illegal pushbacks.

      A total of 29 organizations sent an open letter to Parliament urging it to investigate reports of illegal pushbacks at the country’s land and sea borders with neighboring Turkey.

      The letter called on the Greek Parliament to ’’immediately conduct an effective, transparent and impartial investigation into allegations that personnel from the Coast Guard, the Greek Police and the Greek Army, sometimes in close cooperation with masked men in uniform, have engaged in such actions, which are not only illegal but also endanger the lives and safety of displaced people."

      Tensions on migration in Greece

      Tensions on the migrant issue in Greece continue to run high following September’s fires which destroyed the controversial Moria open camp on Lesbos, and widespread lockdowns at refugee camps across the country following outbreaks of coronavirus cases.

      The reports of pushbacks taking place have prompted action from humanitarian rights groups, with the joint-appeal calling for disciplinary and criminal sanctions, as deemed appropriate, “on anyone in uniform who are found to have participated in such illegal activities, but also for their superiors who are responsible for the administration of these bodies.”

      “The investigation should establish the identity and relationship of the masked men and other unidentified officers to law enforcement, and take steps to hold them to account.”

      State pushes ahead with migrant camps

      Meanwhile, in related developments, the government is pressing ahead with plans to create more secure and strictly controlled ’’closed’’ migrant reception centers on the Aegean islands.

      With the COVID-19 pandemic creating further challenges and complications for the operation of existing camps, most of which are under lockdown due to positive cases of the virus, the state is aiming to build new ’’permanent’’ structures, starting with one on Lesbos.

      The situation on Lesbos is the primary concern right now, as the current temporary facility which was hastily set up in the Kara Tepe area on the coast after Moria was burned down, has already flooded twice with the first rainfalls of the season.

      Lesbos Mayor Stratis Kytelis met with government officials in Athens last week to discuss the location of a new permanent facility on the island, although the plans are being met with resistance from local community groups.Greece’s health authorities, meanwhile, are also conducting regular COVID-19 tests at migrant camps on the Aegean islands to ensure that any outbreak is quickly contained.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/28139/greece-s-coast-guard-accused-of-mass-migrant-pushbacks

    • Frontex sous pression après des accusations de refoulement de migrants aux portes de la Grèce

      C’est une première : mardi 10 novembre, le conseil d’administration de l’Agence européenne des garde-frontières et de garde-côtes Frontex devra examiner des accusations de refoulements illégaux (ou « pushbacks ») de migrants en mer Egée. Elles ont été portées contre Frontex par un groupe de médias. En octobre, le site d’investigation Bellingcat et le magazine Der Spiegel notamment, avaient rapporté, images et témoignages à l’appui, six épisodes au cours desquels des embarcations avaient été bloquées, contrairement aux règles internationales sur le non-refoulement.

      Celles-ci stipulent que des personnes ne peuvent être renvoyées vers un pays, avant un examen de leur situation, si leur existence est en danger en raison de leur race, leur religion, leur nationalité ou leur appartenance à un groupe social ou politique.

      Il aura apparemment fallu une intervention ferme de la Commission européenne pour que la direction de Frontex, devenue le premier corps en uniforme et la plus importante agence de l’Union avec un budget de quelque 500 millions d’euros, accepte de convoquer un conseil extraordinaire. Dans un premier temps, elle s’était contentée d’affirmer, le 24 octobre, qu’elle respectait la loi internationale et était en contact avec la Grèce, qui devait ouvrir « une enquête interne ».
      Enquête interne

      « Si l’agence est impliquée dans de telles actions, c’est totalement inacceptable », déclarait pour sa part la commissaire à la migration, Ylva Johansson, le 26 octobre. Le lendemain, Frontex promettait une enquête interne et, même si elle n’exerce pas une tutelle directe sur l’agence, la Commission obtenait la convocation d’une réunion. A charge pour Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur français, de fournir des explications détaillées.

      « La Grèce ne participe pas à des refoulements, a affirmé de son côté le ministre grec des migrations, Notis Mitarachi. Nous gardons nos frontières en respectant le droit international et nous continuons à sauver des centaines de migrants tous les jours en Méditerranée », a-t-il précisé.

      Athènes fait face depuis des mois à de nombreuses accusations de refoulement en mer Egée et à la frontière terrestre avec la Turquie, dans l’Evros. Le 14 août déjà, le New York Times avait affirmé que les gardes-côtes grecs avaient abandonné en « pleine mer » des canots remplis de migrants. Interviewé par CNN, le premier ministre conservateur Kyriakos Mitsotakis avait démenti : « Cela n’est jamais arrivé. Nous sommes les victimes d’une vaste campagne de désinformation », suggérant que les journalistes avaient interrogé principalement des sources turques voulant décrédibiliser les autorités grecques.

      Depuis l’envoi par la Turquie de milliers de réfugiés à la frontière terrestre de l’Evros, en mars, Athènes a toujours assuré vouloir « protéger ses frontières » qui sont aussi celles de l’Europe et faire face à « une menace ». Le gouvernement a renforcé le contrôle des frontières en embauchant notamment du personnel supplémentaire. Entre avril et juillet, les arrivées à Lesbos ont diminué de 85 % par rapport à l’année dernière, selon le ministère des migrations.
      Des « abus sont trop nombreux pour être ignorés »

      Pour de nombreuses ONG présentes sur le terrain, cette diminution spectaculaire est le résultat de « pushbacks ». Selon Human Rights Watch, « les preuves et les rapports décrivant les abus sont trop nombreux pour être ignorés ». L’organisation dit avoir interrogé des victimes et des témoins qui décrivent comment les garde-côtes grecs, la police, et des hommes masqués et vêtus d’habits sombres ont effectué depuis les îles de Rhodes, de Samos et Simi, des refoulements illégaux de personnes sur de petits canots gonflables.

      A la fin août, le Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) de l’ONU se disait « inquiet de l’augmentation des publications depuis mars 2020 attestant de refoulements illégaux ». « Le HCR a reçu des rapports et des témoignages de personnes abandonnées en pleine mer pendant un long moment, souvent sur des rafiots surpeuplés », précisait le communiqué.

      L’Observatoire grec des accords d’Helsinki a déjà déposé une plainte auprès de la Cour suprême grecque pour le refoulement de plus de 1 300 personnes en s’appuyant sur les témoignages recueillis par plusieurs ONG. En septembre, 29 organisations de défense des droits de l’homme ont par ailleurs adressé une lettre au premier ministre et au parlement grecs pour réclamer une enquête. Leur courrier est encore sans réponse alors que 35 membres d’ONG font, eux, l’objet d’une investigation : ils sont suspectés d’avoir renseigné des migrants sur les positions des gardes-côtes ainsi que des passeurs sur des lieux d’accostage. Ces humanitaires travaillent pour des organisations qui ont dénoncé avec le plus de véhémence les refoulements vers la Turquie par les gardes-côtes grecs.

      Frontex, qui a engagé en Grèce quelque six cents agents dotés de divers moyens de surveillance, a déjà fait l’objet d’autres accusations mais affirme à chaque fois respecter un code de conduite qui prohibe strictement les refoulements. La communication très cadenassée de l’agence ne détaille toutefois pas comment les contrôles sont vraiment exercés. L’action du service interne chargé de contrôler le respect des droits fondamentaux reste également nébuleuse. Une situation déplorée par le HCR, membre du forum consultatif chargé de conseiller l’agence européenne dans son action.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2020/11/05/frontex-sous-pression-apres-des-accusations-de-refoulement-de-migrants-aux-p

    • EU: Probe Frontex Complicity in Border Abuses. Ensure Independent and Effective Investigation

      The top governing body of the European Union Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) should urgently establish an independent inquiry into allegations of its involvement in unlawful operations to stop migrants from reaching the European Union (EU), Human Rights Watch said today.

      The agency’s board will hold an extraordinary meeting on November 10, 2020. Frontex should also address serious and persistent violations by border and law enforcement officers of the countries where it operates.

      “The fact that Frontex may have become complicit in abuses at Greece’s borders is extremely serious,” said Eva Cossé, Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Management Board of Frontex should quickly open an inquiry into Frontex involvement in – or actions to disregard or cover up – abuses against people seeking protection from conflicts and persecution.”

      On October 23, a group of media outlets published a detailed investigative report alleging Frontex involvement in pushback operations at the Greek-Turkish maritime border, in the Aegean Sea. The reports said that asylum seekers and migrants were prevented from reaching EU soil or were forced out of EU waters. Such pushbacks violate international law, Human Rights Watch said.

      EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson said on October 28 that she had asked, in coordination with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, “to convene an urgent extraordinary Frontex Management Board meeting on 10 November, to discuss alleged push-back incidents in Greece and fundamental rights protection.”

      Frontex’s mandate obliges officers and the officers of member states deployed to respect fundamental rights, but the agency has been under heavy criticism for the shortcomings of its internal monitoring and accountability mechanisms. On October 27, Frontex announced an internal inquiry into the incidents reported by the media.

      In recent years, nongovernmental groups and media outlets have consistently reported the unlawful return, including through pushbacks, of groups and individuals from Greece to Turkey, by Greek law enforcement officers or unidentified masked men who appear to be working in tandem with border enforcement officials.

      Since Frontex deployed officers along the full length of the Turkey-Greece land border in March, Human Rights Watch has documented that Greek law enforcement officers routinely summarily returned asylum seekers and migrants through the land border with Turkey. Human Rights Watch found that officers in some cases used violence and often confiscated and destroyed migrants’ belongings.

      Greek authorities have said that police officers wearing dark blue uniforms work at police stations. Border patrol police officers wear military camouflage uniforms. Frontex guards wear their national uniforms, with a blue armband with the EU flag.

      In July, Human Rights Watch documented collective expulsions, through the Evros river land border, of asylum seekers rounded up from deep inside Greece.

      In a June 19 response to questions posed by Human Rights Watch, Frontex wrote that no abuses against migrants by Greek border guards or by police or border guards of other EU member states deployed under Frontex had been reported to Frontex. It said that Frontex does not have the authority to investigate allegations of abuse by EU member states’ police or border guards deployed in Greece. It said that such investigations are conducted by the competent national authorities.

      In June, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said it was deeply concerned about persistent reports of pushbacks and collective expulsions of migrants, in some cases violent, at Greece’s border with Turkey. In August, the UN Refugee Agency flagged concerns over the increasing number of credible reports of pushbacks at Greece’s land and sea borders.

      In May 2019, Frontex told Human Rights Watch that it had not detected any human rights violations or pushbacks during its operational presence at Croatia’s border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite consistent evidence of brutal pushbacks, reports from international and regional organizations, and the confirmation by Croatian officials that such abuses were taking place.

      Under the Frontex mandate, its executive director has the authority to, and should, withdraw financing, and suspend or terminate its activities if there are serious violations of fundamental rights related to its activities. The executive director is also expected to take into account information provided by relevant international organizations.

      On July 6, during a debate at the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on fundamental rights at the Greek border, Johansson said that pushbacks by Greek border guards should be investigated. In its new Pact on Migration and Asylum, presented on September 23, the European Commission recommended to member states to set up an independent monitoring mechanism, amid increased allegations of abuse at the EU’s external borders.

      Members of the Frontex Management Board should set up an independent, prompt, effective, transparent, and impartial investigation into allegations that officers deployed by Frontex were involved in unlawful operations of pushbacks of asylum seekers. Any officer found to have engaged in such illegal acts, as well as their commanding officers and officials who have command responsibility over such forces, should be subject to disciplinary and criminal sanctions, as applicable.

      The investigation should also identify whether Frontex failed to report or otherwise address allegations of serious fundamental rights violations committed by law enforcement or border officers of the member state hosting operations.

      “An EU agency with a clear mandate to act in compliance with fundamental rights has the responsibility to do everything possible to prevent such severe violations,” Cossé said. “If Frontex not only turned a blind eye to abuses committed under its sight, or worse, directly took part in them, it becomes every EU member state’s responsibility.”

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/09/eu-probe-frontex-complicity-border-abuses

    • Frontex calls for committee to consider questions related to sea surveillance

      Today, Frontex Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri has called for the creation of an evaluation committee to consider legal questions related to the Agency’s surveillance of external sea borders and accommodating the concerns raised by Member States about “hybrid threats” affecting their national security at external borders where the European Border and Coast Guard Agency will deploy its standing corps.

      Under the Frontex proposal, the committee would be coordinated by the European Commission with the participation of Member States on a volunteer basis. It would address various questions, in particular those related to Regulation 2014/656 in the light of the current operational situation.

      Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri also expressed the Agency’s continued commitment to highest standards of protection of fundamental rights.

      “Any allegation of misconduct or infringement of international treaties or fundamental rights in the framework of joint operations coordinated by Frontex is treated with grave concern and carefully investigated,” said Fabrice Leggeri.

      “I am committed to reinforce the office of the Fundamental Rights Officer and to gradually increase its budget,” he added.

      Leggeri also proposed that the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer to play a bigger role in raising awareness of the operational officers on the legal requirements that they need to apply on everyday basis in the field.

      “This could apply not only to the Frontex-deployed staff, but also to the staff of the International Coordination Centres, who often play an essential part in deciding to react to complicated events,” Leggeri said.

      https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news-release/frontex-calls-for-committee-to-consider-questions-related-to-sea-surv

    • #Ombudsman opens inquiry to assess European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) ‘#Complaints_Mechanism’

      European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly has opened an inquiry to look into how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with alleged breaches of fundamental rights. In particular, the investigation will assess the effectiveness and transparency of Frontex’s Complaints Mechanism for those who believe their rights have been violated in the context of Frontex border operations, as well as the role and independence of Frontex’s ‘Fundamental Rights Officer’.

      In 2013, as part of a previous inquiry, the Ombudsman recommended that Frontex set up an individual complaints mechanism, and that its Fundamental Rights Officer be in charge of the mechanism. Since then, such a mechanism was put in place and further developed, with a view to providing safeguards for fundamental rights in the context of Frontex’s expanding mandate, as well as ensuring increased accountability and redress for those impacted by its actions.

      This inquiry focuses on whether the Complaints Mechanism and the Fundamental Rights Officer are truly empowered to deal with the issues faced by migrants and asylum seekers who feel their rights have been violated under Frontex operations.

      In opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman has sent a set of detailed questions to Frontex on the Complaints Mechanism and the Fundamental Rights Officer. She has also informed members of the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), with a view to their possible participation in the inquiry, as part of the ENO’s parallel work. This is important, given the role of national authorities in Frontex operations, and the fact that some national ombudsmen are responsible for following up on complaints related to this.

      Among other things, the questions set out by the Ombudsman look at: how and when Frontex will be updating the mechanism to reflect its expanded mandate; what happens to complainants who are faced with forced return while their complaint is still being processed; what appeal possibilities are open to complainants; how Frontex monitors complaints against national authorities; how those who have been affected by Frontex operations but are in non-EU countries can complain about alleged breaches of fundamental rights, including the issue of language; and the role of the Fundamental Rights Officer in this process.

      https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/134739

    • Frontex: Cover-Up and Diversion. Outcomes of and Responses to the Frontex Management Board meeting on 10th November

      An extraordinary meeting took place on Tuesday 10th November, between the EU Commission and Frontex, regarding alleged Frontex involvement in illegal pushbacks in Greece.

      Why did the meeting take place?

      This meeting was called due to an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting the involvement or complicity of Frontex in pushbacks. Reports by Spiegel, Report Mainz, Bellingcat and other international media, including Josoor and other members of the BVMN, had led to this meeting taking place. These investigations show Frontex involvement in at least six pushbacks through, for example, blocking boats and making waves to deter boats from getting any closer to the shore. According to Frontex insiders, mission reports were routinely altered into something more positive, excluding explicit mentions of pushbacks, before being sent to Frontex headquarters in Warsaw, Poland.

      We, at the Border Violence Monitoring Network, took advantage of the opportunity presented by the meeting on 10th November by sending a letter of concern to the Executive Director of Frontex and the FRO. This letter included evidence from testimonies, collected by BVMN partners, including Josoor, from people-on-the-move who claim that Frontex personnel were involved or complicit in pushbacks operations at the borders between Greek and Turkey, and Albania and Greece. The letter questioned Frontex’s knowledge and understanding of these allegations, and demanded an investigation into these claims. The letter was also addressed to the EU commissioner of Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, and her officer and we hoped this was presented as evidence at the management board meeting on 10th November

      What were the outcomes?

      Johansson remarked on twitter after the meeting:

      “Today’s @Frontex extraordinary management board was a good start to what I want to be a transparent process. The @EU_Commission has asked the Frontex Executive Director to reply to Qs ahead of the next scheduled board meeting (end November).”

      Leggeri, the Executive Director of Frontex, has been ordered by the EU Commission to answer questions concerning these accusations by the end of November. Frontex is yet to comment in detail on the allegations and reported incidents have been forwarded to the Greek coastguard, where also the Greek authorities have refused to comment and denied involvement. Both Frontex and the Greek authorities have launched internal investigations in response to these allegations. Unsurprisingly, after just 48 hours of their investigations, Frontex announced that they were innocent.

      The meeting also included a discussion on whether Frontex should withdraw from missions, such as the one in the Aegean Sea in the event of serious and persistent human rights violations. Such a directive can be found already in Frontex’s regulations. Officials of a few member states vetoed the application of this rule, and Greek representatives in particular were concerned that this could expose the Greek government.

      In the end, a compromise was met. A Frontex statement outlined that a ‘Commission of Inquiry’ will now be made to deal with legal questions concerning operations at sea borders. This will be coordinated by the EU Commission.

      “Any allegation of misconduct or violation of international agreements or fundamental rights within joint operations coordinated by Frontex will be treated with grave concern and investigated closely,” Leggeri said.

      Also, Frontex seeks to strengthen the role of the Fundamental Rights Officer, but experts agree that the internal mechanisms at Frontex are insufficient and therefore see this move as insufficient. As of yesterday, Frontex is advertising for the vacancy of the FRO.

      Members of EU Parliament reactions:

      Tineke Strik (from Netherlands, Green) commented, according to Spiegel, “The announcement did not mention the human rights violations at the border. A committee does not replace a truly independent and transparent investigation. Strik stated “Citizens need to know what has happened and how human rights violations are to be prevented in the future”

      Dietmar Köster (from Germany, SPD) stated, quoted from Tagesschau, "It is a unique cover-up attempt to divert attention from one’s own responsibility and failure to observe human rights”. Köster further stated that Leggeri’s statements showed the arrogance and ignorance of Frontex. “Basic and human rights apply to all. The European Border Management Agency is not exempt from their observance, it is not above the law.”

      An successful outcome: an independent inquiry:

      On the morning of Thursday 12th November, the European Ombudsman tweeted that they would open an inquiry into Frontex, assessing the effectiveness and transparency of their ‘Complaints Mechanism’ and the role and independence of the ‘Fundamental Rights Officer’ (FRO). The latter is especially important as the current ad interim FRO, Annegret Kohler, appointed in 2018, and re-appointed in September 2020, was selected from the Executive Director’s former cabinet, where she was an advisor to the Executive Director. This raises questions about independence and objectivity of the FRO and the FRO’s team to carry out their duties and avoid potential conflicts of interest. Josoor welcomes this investigation.

      https://www.josoor.net/post/frontex-cover-up-and-diversion

    • EU erhöht Druck auf Frontex-Chef

      Die EU-Grenzschutzagentur gerät durch Recherchen des ARD-Magazins Report Mainz und weiterer Medien in Bedrängnis. Heute musste die Frontex-Führung der EU-Kommission zum Thema illegale Pushbacks Rede und Antwort stehen.

      Die Europäische Kommission erwartet Antworten vom Frontex-Chef. Bis Ende November muss sich Fabrice Leggeri zur Verwicklung seiner Grenzschutzagentur in illegale Pushbacks von Flüchtlingen äußern. Das ist das Ergebnis einer Dringlichkeitssitzung des Frontex Management Boards. Das Treffen sei ein guter Anfang gewesen, sie wolle den Prozess transparent gestalten, twitterte die zuständige EU-Kommissarin Ylva Johansson. Leggeri solle bis zur nächsten Zusammenkunft des Management Boards auf die Fragen der Kommission antworten.
      Recherchen bringen Frontex in Bedrängnis

      Johansson hatte das Treffen einberufen, um über eine gemeinsame Recherche des ARD-Magazins Report Mainz, des „Spiegel“ und der Medienorganisationen Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports und tv Asahi zu diskutieren. Die Medien hatten aufgedeckt, dass Frontex-Einheiten in der Ägäis in illegale Zurückweisungen von Flüchtlingen verwickelt sind.

      Seit April waren Frontex-Beamte nachweislich bei mindestens sechs sogenannten Pushbacks in der Nähe. Auf einem Video ist zu sehen, wie ein Frontex-Schiff ein überladenes Flüchtlingsboot zunächst blockiert, die Insassen aber nicht rettet. Stattdessen fahren die Frontex-Beamten mit hohem Tempo an dem Flüchtlingsboot vorbei und verlassen dann den Ort des Geschehens. Vertrauliche Gespräche mit Frontex-Beamten legten zudem nahe, dass diese ihre Berichte schönen, bevor sie an die Zentrale in Warschau geschickt werden.

      Keine Äußerung von Frontex und Griechenland

      Frontex ist auf die Vorwürfe bis heute nicht im Detail eingegangen. Alle gemeldeten Vorfälle seien an die griechische Küstenwache weitergeleitet worden, diese habe eine interne Untersuchung eingeleitet, teilte die Genzschutzagentur in einem Statement mit. Nach der Antwort der griechischen Behörden seien seine Zweifel ausgeräumt, sagte Leggeri zudem in einem Interview.

      Auch die griechischen Behörden hatten sich zu den Pushbacks nicht im Detail äußern wollen. Sie bestreiten die Vorwürfe pauschal, obwohl die ARD, der „Spiegel“ und andere Medien die Pushbacks mehrfach dokumentiert haben. Nach Angaben von Teilnehmern im „Spiegel“ sahen sich vor allem die griechischen Mitglieder des Management Boards bei dem Treffen Fragen ausgesetzt. Diskutiert wurde unter anderem ein Statement, welches betonen sollte, dass Frontex sich bei schwerwiegenden und anhaltenden Menschenrechtsverletzungen von Missionen wie der in der Ägäis zurückziehen muss.

      Griechen haben Angst vor Bloßstellung

      Ein solche Vorschrift findet sich schon jetzt in den Frontex-Regularien. Beamte einiger weniger Mitgliedsstaaten legten ihr Veto dagegen ein, dass die Anwendung dieser Regel nun in den Raum gestellt werden soll. Besonders die griechischen Teilnehmer fürchteten, dass das Statement die griechische Regierung bloßstellen könnte.

      Am Ende einigte man sich auf einen Kompromiss. Es soll ein Komitee geschaffen werden, das sich mit rechtlichen Fragen zu Einsätzen an der Seegrenzen beschäftigt, heißt es in einem Frontex-Statement. Die Kommission solle dem Vorschlag zufolge die Arbeit des Komitees koordinieren, Mitgliedsstaaten könnten sich auf freiwilliger Basis beteiligen. Im Komitee sollen auch die Sorgen einige Mitgliedsstaaten vor „hybriden Bedrohungen“ eine Rolle spielen. Vor allem Griechenland hatte immer wieder davor gewarnt, dass türkische Geheimdienste sich unter die Migranten auf den Inseln mischen könnten.

      Außerdem will Frontex nach eigener Aussage den sogenannten Fundamental Rights Officer stärken. Der Beamte ist bei Frontex dafür zuständig, dass die Grenzschützer die Grundrechte von Schutzsuchenden achten. Allerdings halten Beobachter alle bestehenden internen Überwachungsmechanismen bei Frontex für unzureichend.
      Kritik aus Europaparlament

      Nach den Enthüllungen der ARD und ihrer Recherchepartner hatten mehrere Europaparlamentarier von Leggeri eine vollständige Untersuchung der Vorwürfe gefordert. Die Grünen-EU-Abgeordnete Tineke Strik kritisierte das Frontex-Statement. Die Ankündigung erwähne die Menschenrechtsverletzungen an der Grenze nicht, sagte sie. Ein Komitee ersetze keine wirklich unabhängige und transparente Untersuchung. „Die Bürger müssen erfahren, was geschehen ist und wie Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Zukunft verhindert werden sollen“, so Strik.

      „Das Ganze ist eine große Nebelkerze“, sagte Europaparlamentarier Dietmar Köster von der SPD. „Es ist ein einzigartiger Vertuschungsversuch, von der eigenen Verantwortung und dem Versagen bei der Einhaltung von Menschenrechten abzulenken“,

      https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/report-mainz/frontex-pushbacks-103.html

    • EU-Grenzpolizei Frontex: Keine Untersuchung zu Verstößen gegen Menschenrechte

      Im März war die EU-Grenzpolizei Frontex in einen versuchten Verstoß gegen Menschenrechte verwickelt. Wie von uns veröffentlichte Akten zeigen, untersuchte Frontex den Vorfall aber nicht, sondern kehrte ihn unter den Teppich.

      Als ARD, Spiegel und Bellingcat vor drei Wochen aufdeckten, dass die Europäische Grenzpolizei Frontex an illegalen Pushbacks an EU-Grenzen beteiligt ist, versprach der Frontex-Direktor Fabrice Leggeri schnell Aufklärung. Die EU-Agentur werde die Vorwürfe untersuchen, nach denen Frontex Geflüchtete völkerrechtswidrig aus der EU abgeschoben hatte.

      „Jeder Vorwurf des Fehlverhaltens oder der Verletzung internationaler Verträge oder Grundrechte im Rahmen gemeinsamer Operationen, die von Frontex koordiniert werden, wird mit großer Besorgnis behandelt und sorgfältig untersucht.“

      Frontex-Direktor Fabrice Leggeri (Übersetzung von FragDenStaat)

      Ein interner E-Mail-Verlauf von Frontex, den wir per Informationsfreiheitsanfrage erhalten haben, zeigt jetzt jedoch, dass die EU-Agentur in vergleichbaren Fällen offenbar kein Interesse daran hat, Verstöße gegen Menschenrechte zu untersuchen. EU Observer hatte zunächst darüber berichtet.
      Dänemark widersetzt sich Frontex-Befehlen

      Bereits am 2. März diesen Jahres hatte Frontex in der Nähe der griechischen Insel Kos versucht, ein Boot mit 33 geflüchteten Menschen, die griechische Gewässer erreicht hatten, in die Türkei abzuschieben. Das griechische Frontex-Kommando befahl einem Schiff der Dänischen Marine mit dem Namen „Stela Polaris“, die Geflüchteten nicht an Land zu bringen, sondern wieder in ein Gummiboot zu setzen und aufs offene Meer Richtung Türkei zu schleppen. Der dänische Befehlshaber des Schiffes widersetzte sich dem rechtswidrigen Befehl jedoch und erreichte durch seine dänischen Vorgesetzten, dass er aufgehoben wurde.

      Frontex hatte den Vorgang bisher nie öffentlich zugegeben. Der dazugehörige E-Mail-Verkehr aus der Frontex-Zentrale in Warschau, den wir veröffentlichen, zeigt, dass Pushbacks die Entscheidungsträger um Direktor Fabrice Leggeri kaum interessierten. Erst aus der Presse erfuhr das Hauptquartier überhaupt davon, dass Frontex in einen versuchten Verstoß gegen die Menschenrechte verwickelt war.

      Einen Bericht – intern Serious Incident Report genannt – gab es trotz der Schwere des Vorfalls nicht. Die Frontex-Pressesprecherin forderte deswegen in Erwartung von Presseanfragen am Morgen des 6. März, vier Tage nach dem Vorfall, bei ihren Kolleg:innen einen Bericht zu den Vorfällen an. Am Nachmittag wurde sie informiert, dass es in der Tat einen versuchten Pushback gegeben hatte.

      Menschenrechte geprüft in vier Stunden

      Bemerkenswert ist, wie die Frontex-Zentrale anschließend mit den Informationen umging: Es schloss die Akten. Bereits vier Stunden nach der Meldung über Vorfall kamen die Frontex-Mitarbeiter:innen zu der Einschätzung, der versuchte Pushback sei ein „Einzelfall“. Er wurde noch nicht einmal beim täglichen Treffen der Befehlshabenden in der Frontex-Mission besprochen.

      Weitere Informationen zu dem Vorfall finden sich in den Akten laut Frontex nicht. Die Frontex-Mitarbeiter:innen überprüften nicht die Kommando-Strukturen und prüften nicht, warum es keinen internen Bericht zu dem rechtswidrigen Befehl gab. Sie unternahmen auch sonst keine Versuche, um sicherzustellen, dass Pushbacks durch das Frontex-Kommando nicht mehr vorkommen würden. Im Sommer schließlich gab Frontex-Direktor gegenüber dem Europäischen Parlament zu Protokoll, der versuchte Pushback sei ein „Missverständnis“ gewesen.

      Einige Monate später fanden Journalist:innen Beweise dafür, dass es sich offenbar nicht um einen Einzelfall handelt und Frontex mindestens im Juni an weiteren Pushbacks beteiligt war. Die EU-Agentur hatte offenbar kein Interesse daran, Verstöße gegen Menschenrechte zu unterbinden.

      https://fragdenstaat.de/blog/2020/11/18/frontex-pushbacks-denmark

    • Council of Europe’s anti-torture Committee calls on Greece to reform its immigration detention system and stop pushbacks

      In a report published today on a rapid reaction ad hoc visit to Greece in March 2020, the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee (CPT) once again urges the Greek authorities to change their approach towards immigration detention and to ensure that migrants deprived of their liberty are treated both with dignity and humanity.

      The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has published today the report on its ad hoc visit to Greece, which took place from 13 to 17 March 2020, together with the response of the Greek authorities.

      In the report, the CPT acknowledges the significant challenges faced by the Greek authorities in dealing with large numbers of migrants entering the country and that it requires a coordinated European approach. However, this cannot absolve the the Hellenic Republic from their human rights obligations and the duty of care owed to all migrants that the Greek authorities detain.

      The CPT found that the conditions of detention in which migrants were held in certain facilities in the Evros region and on the island of Samos could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. The report again underlines the structural deficiencies in Greece’s immigration detention policy. Migrants continue to be held in detention centres composed of large barred cells crammed with beds, with poor lighting and ventilation, dilapidated and broken toilets and washrooms, insufficient personal hygiene products and cleaning materials, inadequate food and no access to outdoor daily exercise. Extreme overcrowding in several of the facilities further aggravated the situation. In addition, migrants were not provided with clear information about their situation.

      The CPT once again found that families with children, unaccompanied and separated children and other vulnerable persons (with a physical or mental health illness, or pregnant women) were being detained in such appalling conditions with no appropriate support. The CPT calls upon the Greek authorities to end the detention of unaccompanied children and of children with their parents in police establishments. Instead, they should be transferred to suitable reception facilities catering to their specific needs.

      The report also highlights that the CPT again received consistent and credible allegations of migrants being pushed back across the Evros River border to Turkey. The Greek authorities should act to prevent such pushbacks. The CPT furthermore raises concerns over acts by the Greek Coast Guard to prevent boats carrying migrants from reaching any Greek island and it questions the role and engagement of FRONTEX in such operations.

      The CPT calls upon the Greek authorities to take vigorous steps to stamp out ill-treatment of detained migrants by the police. The report refers to a number of allegations by migrants that they had been ill treated by members of the Hellenic Police and/or Coast Guard either upon apprehension or after being brought to a place of detention. The ill treatment alleged consisted primarily of slaps to the head and kicks and truncheon blows to the body.

      In their response, the Hellenic Police provide information on the steps being taken to improve the conditions of detention for detained migrants. They also state that the alleged practice of pushbacks to the border is unsubstantiated and completely wrong. As regards unaccompanied minors, reference is made to a new strategy to end their detention and to their transfer from reception centres on the islands to safe accommodation facilities on the mainland.

      https://search.coe.int/directorate_of_communications/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680a06bcf

    • Annex to the reply of Fabrice Leggeri to the LIBE Committee

      https://www.tinekestrik.eu/sites/default/files/2020-11/Answers%20to%20the%20questions%20from%20the%20LIBE%20Commitee.pdf

      –---

      Thread sur twitter:

      It looks like Frontex are NOT denying that they may be involved in #pushbacks after all. FL partly evades (’...always committed...’) and partly seems to blame the ’uniqueness’ of operational areas & ’complex geography’ of the Greek and Turkish border for FX being involved in pushbacks.

      –---

      The earlier letter sent to the EP President might offer some clues. I’m not a legal expert, but FL seems to suggest that Art. 6 of Reg. 656/2014 (on interception at sea) needs to be clarified so as to define what constitutes a #pushback. Interesting.
      https://www.tinekestrik.eu/sites/default/files/2020-11/Letter%20to%20EP_Frontex%20maritime%20operations%20at%20EU%20external%20

      –—

      Yet not all pushbacks happen at sea. While the request for interpretation above might mean that FX is looking for a way out re: #pushbacks at the Aegean, what about those at the
      Greek-Turkish land border? I think there’s less concern with #pushbacks at #Evros, though. No videos...

      –---

      Back to the Annex: We know SIRs weren’t submitted as they should. The real question is why. It might be down to officers on the ground lacking in training (they shouldn’t, but...) or not wanting to get their colleagues in trouble (the spirit of camaraderie...).

      –---

      BUT: Today’s Spiegel article refers to a ’Frontex official in charge’ advising a Swedish officer not to submit a SIR. FX management were aware few SIRs being submitted for years. Is it a practice dictated from the top? To avoid having evidence of violations?

      https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/pushbacks-in-der-aegaeis-wie-frontex-menschenrechtsverletzungen-vertuscht-a-

      –—

      Suspension/non-launch of operations has never happened. The ED didn’t take into account reports by NGOs or human rights bodies when considering the 2016 recommendation to suspend operations in Hungary. He relied on the very low number of SIRs to reject it.
      https://respondmigration.com/wp-blog/fundamental-rights-accountability-transparency-european-governance

      –—

      Same with the 2019 & 2020 recommendations of the FRO to consider suspension of operations in #Evros. As for taking into account media reports ... well, I’d say the reply to the LIBE committee reads like the media accounts are being dismissed.

      https://twitter.com/lk2015r/status/1331662031095787521

    • E.U. Border Agency Accused of Covering Up Migrant Pushback in Greece

      Frontex is under fire for letting Greece illegally repel migrants as the agency expands to play a more central role at the bloc’s external borders.

      Mounting evidence indicates that the European Union’s border agency has been complicit in Greece’s illegal practice of pushing back migrants to Turkey, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with officials.

      In at least one case, Frontex, as the E.U. border agency is known, is accused of having helped cover up the violations, when a crew said it was discouraged by agency officials from reporting that they had seen the Greek authorities setting a boatload of migrants adrift in Turkish waters.

      The case is currently being investigated by Frontex. But it has fueled suspicions that the agency, newly boosted in its role as upholder of the rule of law at E.U. borders, is not just sporadically aware of such abuses, but that it plays a role in concealing them.

      “We are seeing an erosion of the rule of law at the E.U. borders which is willful,” said Gerald Knaus, a migration expert. “This is deeply worrying because it is eroding the refugee convention on the continent on which it was created.”

      Throughout this year, The New York Times and others have reported on growing operations by the Greek Coast Guard to repel migrants from Greek waters back to Turkey, reports the Greek authorities deny amount to breaches of international laws.

      But revelations that Frontex has witnessed pushbacks have thrown the agency into a governance crisis that threatens to further blight the European Union’s liberal values, once again calling into question the bloc’s commitment to upholding its own laws on refugees.

      The cases have also highlighted a conundrum at the core of E.U. ambitions to tighten external borders by pooling resources and involving the bloc in the sensitive, zealously shielded work of sovereign border guards.

      Frontex is the European Union’s best-funded agency, with a budget of over $500 million, and will soon deploy the first uniformed officers in the bloc’s history. It has been built up specifically to help in migrant-rescue operations as the burden of policing Europe’s borders has fallen most heavily on its peripheral states, like Greece.

      It was also intended as a deterrent to the kind of mass arrival of refugees that sowed political crises across Europe after 2015, and fanned nationalist and populist movements.

      Yet Frontex is not empowered to stop national border guards from committing violations, and it is not clear how it can play a role as standard-bearer of E.U. laws when informing on national forces risks the working relationships on which its operations depend.

      Refugee arrivals to the European Union peaked five years ago and have dropped drastically since, but thousands of asylum seekers, many fleeing the wars in Afghanistan and Syria, still attempt the crossing. Unlike in the past, Greeks and their government have turned hostile to the new arrivals, exhausted by years in which asylum seekers have been bottled up in overrun camps on Greek islands.

      There is also a growing belief in the Greek and several other European governments that aggression at the borders and poor conditions at migrant camps will make the attempt to reach Europe less attractive for asylum seekers.

      Earlier this year, an analysis by The Times showed that the Greek government had secretly expelled more than 1,000 asylum seekers, often by sailing them to the edge of Greek territorial waters and abandoning them in flimsy inflatable life rafts in violation of international laws.

      The Greek Coast Guard has rescued thousands of asylum seekers over the years but has become much more aggressive this year, especially as Turkey used migrants to provoke Greece by encouraging them to cross the border.

      The Greek government has denied it is doing anything illegal in repelling migrant boats from its national waters, characterizing the operations as robust border guarding. But Mr. Knaus said “the denials are not serious,” and the practices are effectively happening in the open — under the eyes of E.U. border patrols.

      The documents obtained by The Times describe, in Coast Guard vernacular littered with acronyms, codes, time-stamps and coordinates, a seemingly incessant Ping-Pong of migrant dinghies between Greek and Turkish waters, with Frontex crews on vessels or aircraft in observer status.

      Four officials with direct knowledge of Frontex operations said that agency officials have been discouraging crews from filing reports on pushback incidents, and, in some cases, have stopped initial alerts of violations from being filed as “serious incident reports,” at times after consulting with the Greek authorities.

      They all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were concerned about losing their jobs, or were not authorized to brief the press.

      The Frontex spokesman, Chris Borowski, said the agency took the reporting of violations very seriously. “Pushbacks are illegal under international law,” Mr. Borowski said.

      In the latest case to come to light, a Swedish Coast Guard crew on deployment under Frontex witnessed a pushback to Turkish waters of a boat full of migrants by the Greek authorities on Oct. 30 off the Greek island of Chios.

      The Swedish crew was later advised by a Frontex officer to not report it, documents reviewed by The Times show. The Swedish representative to the management board of Frontex described the incident, and the suppression of the attempt to report it, at a meeting on Nov. 10 — the first known case of an E.U. member state reporting active interference by Frontex officials.

      The Swedish government did not comment. A spokesman for Frontex said the agency wouldn’t comment because of an “ongoing procedure.”

      Frontex has been working in Greece for more than a decade, providing sea, land and aerial surveillance and rescue capabilities and deploying crews from other member states under its command.

      The details now emerging push the agency deeper into a governance crisis which began in October when a consortium of news organizations, including the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, reported a number of occasions when Frontex crews witnessed pushbacks in Greece.

      The European Commission, which is part of the Frontex oversight system but does not control the agency, pushed for a special inquiry into these allegations and, at an emergency agency board meeting on Nov. 10, asked its leadership to answer detailed questions in writing.

      The answers arrived with a four-day delay, just 15 hours before the start of another meeting to discuss the problems on Wednesday. Yet another emergency meeting has been called in December, mounting pressure on the agency.

      Frontex has promised internal investigations but also quickly dismissed allegations, saying for example, in a letter seen by The Times, that it would look into the Swedish case, but that it had so far found no evidence that it happened.

      How these investigations shake out will matter a great deal for the future of Frontex, which was once little more than a back-office operation in Warsaw but now finds itself on the front lines of the nettlesome issue of migration that has the potency to make or break governments.

      Apart from helping member states with asylum-seeker arrivals, Frontex’s role as an E.U. agency by law is to respect fundamental rights, and bring up human-rights standards across national E.U. border agencies, which often don’t have a strong culture of upholding them.

      But claims that Frontex does not take fundamental rights seriously enough are growing. This year, only one million euros in its budget of 460 million euros — about $548 million — was allocated to rights monitoring.

      The agency was supposed to hire 40 fundamental-rights officers by Dec. 5 but the jobs have not yet been advertised. The agency is currently hiring for their boss, after years of staffing issues around that position. A Frontex spokesman said the delays stemmed from the coronavirus pandemic.

      Documents seen by The Times laid out how in one episode the Greek authorities were consulted before a report was made, and were able to suppress it. On Aug. 10, a German crew deployed by Frontex reported that a Greek Coast Guard vessel “took up border control measures prohibiting the landing to Samos.”

      The expression refers to maneuvering and making waves around a dinghy to repel it. The event was not recorded as a “serious incident,” because, the document said, the Greek Coast Guard argued the activities “do not provide any ground” to initiate such a report.

      Another incident, which a Frontex aerial crew observed and reported in detail to its headquarters, took place on the evening of April 18 to 19 off the coast of Lesbos, and lasted more than five hours.

      A dinghy was detected by the Greek authorities and approximately 20 migrants were rescued and put on board a Greek Coast Guard vessel shortly after midnight, their empty dinghy towed by the Coast Guard toward the island.

      But instead of being taken to shore, at 2:45 a.m., the migrants were put back on their dinghy and tugged to Turkish waters by the Greek Coast Guard, the Frontex aerial crew reported.

      As events unfolded, the Greek command center twice asked the Frontex aircraft to change its flight path, directing it away from the incident.

      “At 03:21 Frontex Surveillance Aircraft communicates that the rubber boat has no engine and it is adrift. Greek assets are departing the area leaving the rubber boat adrift,” the document said.

      The internal Frontex report detailing this incident and categorizing it as a fundamental-rights violation was “dismissed,” the document shows.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/world/europe/frontex-migrants-pushback-greece.html

    • La Grèce fortement soupçonnée de refouler les migrants

      L’agence européenne Frontex, potentiellement impliquée dans les refoulements, mène une enquête interne et doit fournir des explications à la Commission européenne fin novembre. Une plainte a été déposée le 17 novembre auprès du comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU.

      L’étau se resserre autour de la Grèce, de plus en plus fréquemment accusée de refouler les migrants vers la Turquie, aussi bien en mer qu’à terre. Le soupçon n’est pas nouveau, comme l’atteste le terrible récit de Fadi Faj. Ce jeune Syrien de 25 ans est arrivé en 2015 avec l’immense vague de demandeurs d’asile en Allemagne. Berlin lui octroie alors le statut de réfugié et un permis de séjour avec lequel il se rend en Grèce en novembre 2016, à la recherche de son jeune frère de 11 ans dont il a perdu la trace lors de sa traversée de la frontière greco-turque à Evros.

      Fadi Faj est alors arrêté par la police grecque qui lui confisque ses papiers et l’expulse vers la Turquie avec une cinquantaine d’autres demandeurs d’asile. Devenu un sans-papier, il sera à treize reprises repoussé de part et d’autre de la frontière par les forces grecques ou turques. Ayant enfin mis un pied à terre en Grèce en décembre 2017, il y vivra encore deux ans dans le dénuement avant d’obtenir un visa pour regagner l’Allemagne qui lui délivrera un nouveau permis de séjour en mai 2020.

      Une plainte auprès du Comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU

      Ce récit glaçant fait l’objet d’une plainte à l’encontre de la Grèce déposée le 17 novembre auprès du Comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU, par le Global Legal Action Network (Réseau mondial d’action juridique) basé en Irlande et l’ONG grecque HumanRights 360.

      Entre-temps, les cas du même type se sont multipliés. Surtout depuis le printemps dernier, après que le président turc Erdogan a menacé d’ouvrir les frontières et incité les migrants à se diriger vers la Grèce. « J’ai vu de mes yeux vu deux refoulements en mer depuis ma maison sur la côte nord de Lesbos », dénonce ainsi Christina Chatzidaki, une habitante de l’île qui jouxte les côtes turques, et y dirige l’association Siniparxi (Coexistence).

      Alarm phone qui reçoit les appels de détresse des embarcations en mer se déclarait en mai dernier « très préoccupé par la récente augmentation des rapports d’attaques sur les bateaux de migrants ». L’ONG avait alors engrangé les témoignages de survivants de 18 bateaux. « Ils ont fait état d’actions dangereuses, telles que le fait de tourner autour de leurs bateaux et de provoquer des vagues, des menaces avec des armes à feu, le vol de leur essence, la destruction de moteurs et, également, le remorquage de bateaux vers les eaux turques où ils ont été laissés à la dérive », précise l’ONG.
      Intimer la Commission d’agir

      Les dénonciations de pratiques qui violent les droits humains, et contreviennent au droit de la mer et au droit européen n’ont pas cessé par la suite. Le porte-parole du Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) déclarait le 12 juin dernier : « le HCR a continuellement fait état de ses préoccupations auprès du gouvernement grec et a demandé des enquêtes urgentes sur une série d’incidents présumés ». Il soulignait alors la corrélation entre la forte baisse du nombre d’arrivées de migrants en Grèce et l’augmentation du nombre de refoulements signalés. En 2019, 60 000 personnes avaient débarqué en Grèce par la mer et 15 000 par la terre. En 2020, jusqu’au 22 novembre, ils ne sont plus, respectivement, que 9 400 et 5 400.

      Jusqu’à présent la Grèce a nié ces allégations. « Nous protégeons nos frontières en accord avec les lois internationales et européennes » a encore affirmé le ministre grec de l’immigration Notis Mitarakis le 13 novembre dernier au site Infomigrants. Deux mois auparavant, le 22 septembre, les ONG Oxfam et WeMove adressaient une plainte auprès de la Commission européenne pour l’intimer de mener « une enquête sur les violations systématiques du droit européen concernant le traitement des demandeurs d’asile en Grèce ».
      La possible implication de Frontex

      Enfin, le site d’investigation Bellingcat et le magazine allemand Der Spiegel apportèrent en octobre un coup de grâce supplémentaire, en dénonçant, images à l’appui, le laisser-faire, voire l’implication, de l’agence européenne de surveillance aux frontières Frontex - qui a déployé plus de 600 agents en Grèce - dans six cas documentés de pratique illégale de refoulement.

      Un soupçon repris par le comité contre la torture du Conseil de l’Europe. Dans son rapport publié le 19 novembre, le comité a indiqué « avoir de nouveau reçu des allégations cohérentes et crédibles de migrants repoussés vers la Turquie ».

      Il s’est déclaré « inquiet des actes commis par les garde-côtes grecs pour empêcher les bateaux transportant des migrants d’atteindre les îles grecques » et « s’interroge sur le rôle et l’implication de Frontex dans de telles opérations ».

      Face à une telle avalanche, l’Union européenne pouvait difficilement continuer à se voiler la face. La suédoise Ylva Johansson, commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures a réclamé des explications pour fin novembre à l’agence Frontex, laquelle a indiqué avoir ouvert une enquête interne.

      https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Grece-fortement-soupconnee-refouler-migrants-2020-11-24-1201126401

    • Refoulements de demandeurs d’asile : le directeur de Frontex interrogé par les députés

      La supposée implication d’agents de Frontex dans les refoulements de demandeurs d’asile à la frontière grecque sera au cœur du débat en commission des libertés civiles mardi.

      Les députés seront en attente de réponses de la part du directeur exécutif de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes, Fabrice Leggeri, concernant les incidents révélés récemment par les médias au cours desquels des garde-côtes grecs (avec la connaissance présumée et même l’implication d’agents de Frontex) ont arrêté des migrants qui tentaient d’atteindre les côtes de l’UE et les ont renvoyés dans les eaux turques. Les députés devraient s’enquérir des résultats de l’enquête interne menée par l’Agence européenne de gestion des frontières et de la réunion du conseil d’administration convoquée à la demande de la Commission européenne.

      En octobre dernier, avant les révélations des médias, le forum consultatif de Frontex (qui réunit notamment des représentants du Bureau européen d’appui en matière d’asile (EASO), de l’Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’UE (FRA), du HCR, du Conseil de l’Europe et de l’OIM) avait exprimé son inquiétude dans son rapport annuel. Le forum pointait du doigt l’absence de véritable système de contrôle permettant de prévenir et de traiter les violations potentielles des droits fondamentaux dans les activités de l’Agence.

      Le 6 juillet, au cours d’une précédente réunion de la commission des libertés civiles, Fabrice Leggeri avait assuré aux eurodéputés que Frontex n’était pas impliquée dans les refoulements et avait qualifié l’incident avec l’équipe danoise à bord de l’un des navires de l’Agence de ‘‘malentendu’’.

      DATE : mardi 1er décembre de 13h50 à 14h45

      LIEU : Parlement européen à Bruxelles, bâtiment Antall, salle 4Q2 et à distance

      https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20201126IPR92509

    • EU border chief urged to quit over migrant pushback claims

      European Union lawmakers lashed out Tuesday at the head of Frontex over allegations that the border and coast guard agency helped illegally stop migrants or refugees entering Europe, calling for his resignation and demanding an independent inquiry.

      The lawmakers grilled Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri over an investigation in October by media outlets Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, ARD and TV Asahi, which said that video and other publicly available data suggest Frontex “assets were actively involved in one pushback incident at the Greek-Turkish maritime border in the Aegean Sea.”

      The report said personnel from the agency, which monitors and polices migrant movements around Europe’s borders, were present at another incident and “have been in the vicinity of four more since March.” Frontex launched an internal probe after the news broke.

      “In his handling of these allegations, Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri has completely lost our trust and it is time for him to resign,” senior Socialist lawmaker Kati Piri said in a statement after the parliamentary civil liberties committee hearing. “There are still far too many unanswered questions on the involvement of Frontex in illegal practices.”

      Pushbacks are considered contrary to international refugee protection agreements, which say people shouldn’t be expelled or returned to a country where their life and safety might be in danger due to their race, religion, nationality or being members of a social or political group.

      Frontex’s board met to discuss the allegations late last month. The board said afterwards that the European Commission had ordered it to “hold a further extraordinary meeting within the next two weeks in order to consider in more detail the replies provided by the agency.” That meeting is scheduled to take place on Dec. 9.

      “Migrants and refugees are very vulnerable to pushbacks by border guards,” Greens lawmaker Tineke Strik said. “We must be able to rely on an EU agency which prevents human rights violations from happening and not inflict them. But Frontex seems to be a partner in crime of those who deliberately violate those human rights.”

      Strik raised doubts about whether the internal Frontex probe would produce results and urged the assembly’s political groups to consider launching their own inquiry.

      Leggeri said that no evidence of any Frontex involvement in pushbacks had been found so far. He said EU member countries have control over operations in their waters, not Frontex, and he called for the rules governing surveillance of Europe’s external borders to be clarified.

      “We have not found evidence that there were active, direct or indirect participation of Frontex staff or officers deployed by Frontex in pushbacks,” he told the lawmakers. When it comes to operations, Leggeri said, “only the host member state authorities can decide what has to be done.”

      Leggeri also said that Frontex staff were under extreme pressure around the time of the alleged incidents in March and April. He said that Turkish F-16 fighter jets had “surrounded” a Danish plane working for Frontex, while vessels were harassed by the Turkish coast guard and shots fired at personnel at land borders.

      He called for EU “guidance” on how to handle such situations.

      The allegations are extremely embarrassing for the European Commission. In September it unveiled sweeping new reforms to the EU’s asylum system, which proved dismally inadequate when over 1 million migrants arrived in 2015, many of them Syrian refugees entering the Greek islands via Turkey.

      Part of the EU’s migration reforms includes a system of independent monitoring involving rights experts to ensure that there are no pushbacks at Europe’s borders. Migrant entries have dropped to a relative trickle in recent years, although many migrants still languish on some Greek islands waiting for their asylum claims to be processed or to be sent back.

      EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she still has confidence in Frontex’s managing board but remains deeply concerned about the allegations.

      During a visit to Morocco, Johansson said that the report “concerns me a lot. If it’s true, it’s totally unacceptable. A European agency has to comply to EU law and fundamental rights with no excuse.”

      Johansson said she has “full confidence in the process that (has) gone on in the management board and the sub-group they are setting up” to continue the investigation, but, she noted that “there were a lot of questions put to the director. And he has not answered these questions.”

      https://www.ekathimerini.com/259789/article/ekathimerini/news/eu-border-chief-urged-to-quit-over-migrant-pushback-claims

    • Frontex is taking us to court

      The EU border police Frontex is under fire for its involvement in human rights violations at the EU’s borders. Now, they want to silence those exposing their wrongdoing.

      For many years, we have been fighting to make Frontex, the EU’s border police, more transparent and accountable. We have made public over a thousand of their documents, including those that show the agency has been complicit in human rights violations and violence against migrants at the EU’s borders.

      Frontex is currently under fire for its involvement in illegal pushbacks in the Aegean and for having concealed evidence about these illegal acts. Confronted with such serious accusations, the EU border agency has now chosen to go after those who investigate them: they are taking us to court.

      Frontex has filed a case against us before the General Court of the European Union in order to force us to pay them a large amount of money. Last year, we lost our lawsuit for information about Frontex and now, the agency is demanding from us excessive legal fees. The message is clear: they want to make sure that we never take them to court again.
      Details must remain secret

      For the time being, we will not be able to disclose further details related to the case due to the court’s rules on keeping all information secret while proceedings are ongoing. Back in January, the agency justified their excessive legal fees on their decision to hire expensive private lawyers.

      Frontex, which has a billion-euro budget, making it the best resourced EU agency, employs a well-staffed internal legal department. Both the decision to hire private lawyers and to then claim these costs from civil society are highly unusual in court cases against the EU authorities.
      What happens if Frontex wins?

      If Frontex succeeds, in the future only corporations and the rich will be able to afford legal action against EU authorities. Activists, journalists, NGOs and individuals will not be able to defend human rights before the EU court. Frontex bringing a case like this directly against civil society, let alone winning, discourages others from holding them accountable in the future. It’s this chilling effect that we believe they’re hoping for.

      In the spring, more than 87,000 people petitioned Frontex to withdraw their legal bill. 44 civil society organizations also called on Frontex to retract its demand. Frontex has nonetheless chosen to ignore their voices.

      In recent years, Frontex has experienced an enormous increase of power and resources. Not only is it about to receive € 11 billion under the next EU budget, but it can also now hire its own border guards and buy its own equipment, including aircrafts, ships, drones and weapons.

      Investigating Frontex and holding it accountable is now more important than ever. As recent publications have revealed, the EU border force has been involved in numerous human rights violations at the EU borders.
      What you can do

      Our freedom of information work is financed by individual donations. We will fight in court for a judgement that gives Frontex as little money as possible. If you want to support us in this, we would be very happy to receive a donation. We will use every extra euro for new investigations and legal action against Frontex.

      https://fragdenstaat.de/en/blog/2020/12/02/frontex-costs-court-transparency

    • S&Ds call for Frontex Director to resign

      The S&D Group in the European Parliament today called for the Executive Director of Frontex to resign following months of allegations on the agency’s involvement in illegal practices and violations of fundamental rights.

      In today’s hearing of the civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee (LIBE), Director Fabrice Leggeri failed to answer questions relating to the agency’s involvement in pushbacks at the EU’s external borders aimed at preventing asylum-seekers from entering the EU.

      Following the hearing, S&D MEPs concluded Mr Leggeri’s position at the head of Frontex is not sustainable, especially in light of the important role for Frontex in the new Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      Kati Piri, S&D vice-president for migration and LIBE member taking part in the hearing, said

      “In his handling of these allegations, Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri has completely lost our trust and it is time for him to resign. After months of the S&D Group calling for explanations, Director Leggeri had the chance to set the record straight. But there are still far too many unanswered questions on the involvement of Frontex in illegal practices.

      “Pushbacks are a violation of international law and every single incident must be fully investigated. Do we have the confidence in Frontex to ensure alleged incidents are properly investigated? After today, the answer is no.

      “As long as allegations hang over Frontex, its reputation remains severely damaged and in desperate need of repair. In our view, Director Leggeri is not the right person to fix the damage.”

      Birgit Sippel, S&D LIBE coordinator, added:

      “We have to ask ourselves how we got to the point where we have to rely on journalists and whistle-blowers in Frontex to inform us of instances of fundamental and human rights violations at our borders. This is unacceptable and deeply disturbing, in particular when considering the potentially increased role of Frontex as part of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      “The series of alleged pushbacks and cover-ups from Frontex show that we need a strong and independent border monitoring mechanism to investigate any and all alleged violations of fundamental and human rights and international laws at European borders.

      “Under the 2019 Frontex mandate, the Agency was obliged to have recruited at least 40 Fundamental Rights Monitors by 5 December 2020. It is now clear that Frontex will not even have come close to fulfilling this task, and therefore will not comply with the new mandate. Blaming bureaucratic hurdles for the delay of such an important task is insufficient, while the Commission’s role in this delay requires further examination as well. Mr Leggeri has failed in many of his responsibilities and must bear the consequences of his actions.”

      https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/sds-call-frontex-director-resign

    • E.U. Border Agency Accused of Covering Up Migrant Pushback in Greece

      Frontex is under fire for letting Greece illegally repel migrants as the agency expands to play a more central role at the bloc’s external borders.

      Mounting evidence indicates that the European Union’s border agency has been complicit in Greece’s illegal practice of pushing back migrants to Turkey, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with officials.

      In at least one case, Frontex, as the E.U. border agency is known, is accused of having helped cover up the violations, when a crew said it was discouraged by agency officials from reporting that they had seen the Greek authorities setting a boatload of migrants adrift in Turkish waters.

      The case is currently being investigated by Frontex. But it has fueled suspicions that the agency, newly boosted in its role as upholder of the rule of law at E.U. borders, is not just sporadically aware of such abuses, but that it plays a role in concealing them.

      “We are seeing an erosion of the rule of law at the E.U. borders which is willful,” said Gerald Knaus, a migration expert. “This is deeply worrying because it is eroding the refugee convention on the continent on which it was created.”

      Throughout this year, The New York Times and others have reported on growing operations by the Greek Coast Guard to repel migrants from Greek waters back to Turkey, reports the Greek authorities deny amount to breaches of international laws.

      But revelations that Frontex has witnessed pushbacks have thrown the agency into a governance crisis that threatens to further blight the European Union’s liberal values, once again calling into question the bloc’s commitment to upholding its own laws on refugees.

      The cases have also highlighted a conundrum at the core of E.U. ambitions to tighten external borders by pooling resources and involving the bloc in the sensitive, zealously shielded work of sovereign border guards.

      Frontex is the European Union’s best-funded agency, with a budget of over $500 million, and will soon deploy the first uniformed officers in the bloc’s history. It has been built up specifically to help in migrant-rescue operations as the burden of policing Europe’s borders has fallen most heavily on its peripheral states, like Greece.

      It was also intended as a deterrent to the kind of mass arrival of refugees that sowed political crises across Europe after 2015, and fanned nationalist and populist movements.

      Yet Frontex is not empowered to stop national border guards from committing violations, and it is not clear how it can play a role as standard-bearer of E.U. laws when informing on national forces risks the working relationships on which its operations depend.

      Refugee arrivals to the European Union peaked five years ago and have dropped drastically since, but thousands of asylum seekers, many fleeing the wars in Afghanistan and Syria, still attempt the crossing. Unlike in the past, Greeks and their government have turned hostile to the new arrivals, exhausted by years in which asylum seekers have been bottled up in overrun camps on Greek islands.

      There is also a growing belief in the Greek and several other European governments that aggression at the borders and poor conditions at migrant camps will make the attempt to reach Europe less attractive for asylum seekers.

      Earlier this year, an analysis by The Times showed that the Greek government had secretly expelled more than 1,000 asylum seekers, often by sailing them to the edge of Greek territorial waters and abandoning them in flimsy inflatable life rafts in violation of international laws.

      The Greek Coast Guard has rescued thousands of asylum seekers over the years but has become much more aggressive this year, especially as Turkey used migrants to provoke Greece by encouraging them to cross the border.

      The Greek government has denied it is doing anything illegal in repelling migrant boats from its national waters, characterizing the operations as robust border guarding. But Mr. Knaus said “the denials are not serious,” and the practices are effectively happening in the open — under the eyes of E.U. border patrols.

      The documents obtained by The Times describe, in Coast Guard vernacular littered with acronyms, codes, time-stamps and coordinates, a seemingly incessant Ping-Pong of migrant dinghies between Greek and Turkish waters, with Frontex crews on vessels or aircraft in observer status.

      Four officials with direct knowledge of Frontex operations said that agency officials have been discouraging crews from filing reports on pushback incidents, and, in some cases, have stopped initial alerts of violations from being filed as “serious incident reports,” at times after consulting with the Greek authorities.

      They all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were concerned about losing their jobs, or were not authorized to brief the press.

      The Frontex spokesman, Chris Borowski, said the agency took the reporting of violations very seriously. “Pushbacks are illegal under international law,” Mr. Borowski said.

      In the latest case to come to light, a Swedish Coast Guard crew on deployment under Frontex witnessed a pushback to Turkish waters of a boat full of migrants by the Greek authorities on Oct. 30 off the Greek island of Chios.

      The Swedish crew was later advised by a Frontex officer to not report it, documents reviewed by The Times show. The Swedish representative to the management board of Frontex described the incident, and the suppression of the attempt to report it, at a meeting on Nov. 10 — the first known case of an E.U. member state reporting active interference by Frontex officials.

      The Swedish government did not comment. A spokesman for Frontex said the agency wouldn’t comment because of an “ongoing procedure.”

      Frontex has been working in Greece for more than a decade, providing sea, land and aerial surveillance and rescue capabilities and deploying crews from other member states under its command.

      The details now emerging push the agency deeper into a governance crisis which began in October when a consortium of news organizations, including the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, reported a number of occasions when Frontex crews witnessed pushbacks in Greece.

      The European Commission, which is part of the Frontex oversight system but does not control the agency, pushed for a special inquiry into these allegations and, at an emergency agency board meeting on Nov. 10, asked its leadership to answer detailed questions in writing.

      The answers arrived with a four-day delay, just 15 hours before the start of another meeting to discuss the problems on Wednesday. Yet another emergency meeting has been called in December, mounting pressure on the agency.

      Frontex has promised internal investigations but also quickly dismissed allegations, saying for example, in a letter seen by The Times, that it would look into the Swedish case, but that it had so far found no evidence that it happened.

      How these investigations shake out will matter a great deal for the future of Frontex, which was once little more than a back-office operation in Warsaw but now finds itself on the front lines of the nettlesome issue of migration that has the potency to make or break governments.

      Apart from helping member states with asylum-seeker arrivals, Frontex’s role as an E.U. agency by law is to respect fundamental rights, and bring up human-rights standards across national E.U. border agencies, which often don’t have a strong culture of upholding them.

      But claims that Frontex does not take fundamental rights seriously enough are growing. This year, only one million euros in its budget of 460 million euros — about $548 million — was allocated to rights monitoring.

      The agency was supposed to hire 40 fundamental-rights officers by Dec. 5 but the jobs have not yet been advertised. The agency is currently hiring for their boss, after years of staffing issues around that position. A Frontex spokesman said the delays stemmed from the coronavirus pandemic.

      Documents seen by The Times laid out how in one episode the Greek authorities were consulted before a report was made, and were able to suppress it. On Aug. 10, a German crew deployed by Frontex reported that a Greek Coast Guard vessel “took up border control measures prohibiting the landing to Samos.”

      The expression refers to maneuvering and making waves around a dinghy to repel it. The event was not recorded as a “serious incident,” because, the document said, the Greek Coast Guard argued the activities “do not provide any ground” to initiate such a report.

      Another incident, which a Frontex aerial crew observed and reported in detail to its headquarters, took place on the evening of April 18 to 19 off the coast of Lesbos, and lasted more than five hours.

      A dinghy was detected by the Greek authorities and approximately 20 migrants were rescued and put on board a Greek Coast Guard vessel shortly after midnight, their empty dinghy towed by the Coast Guard toward the island.

      But instead of being taken to shore, at 2:45 a.m., the migrants were put back on their dinghy and tugged to Turkish waters by the Greek Coast Guard, the Frontex aerial crew reported.

      As events unfolded, the Greek command center twice asked the Frontex aircraft to change its flight path, directing it away from the incident.

      “At 03:21 Frontex Surveillance Aircraft communicates that the rubber boat has no engine and it is adrift. Greek assets are departing the area leaving the rubber boat adrift,” the document said.

      The internal Frontex report detailing this incident and categorizing it as a fundamental-rights violation was “dismissed,” the document shows.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/world/europe/frontex-migrants-pushback-greece.html?smid=tw-share

    • #Seehofer deckte offenbar griechische Verbrechen

      Griechische Grenzschützer setzen Flüchtlinge systematisch auf dem Meer aus. Ein internes Dokument legt nun nahe, dass Innenminister #Horst_Seehofer einen Rechtsbruch kaschierte. SPD-Vize Kühnert stellt ihm ein Ultimatum.

      Die Sprecherin von Bundesinnenminister Horst Seehofer war sichtlich nervös, als sie sich Ende November den Fragen der Journalisten stellen musste. Zwei Tage zuvor hatten der SPIEGEL und das ARD-Magazin »Report Mainz« berichtet, dass die Bundespolizei in der Ägäis in eine illegale Zurückweisung von Flüchtlingen verwickelt war. Wiederholt fragten die Journalisten nach. »Ich weiß nicht, wie Sie zu der Einschätzung kommen, dass es sich hierbei um einen illegalen Pushback gehandelt hat«, sagte die Sprecherin schließlich.

      Dabei lagen dem Bundesinnenministerium zu diesem Zeitpunkt längst Informationen vor, die genau darauf hindeuten.

      Im Auftrag der EU-Grenzschutzagentur Frontex patrouillierten die deutschen Einsatzkräfte am 10. August in der Ägäis, nur wenige Hundert Meter von der griechischen Insel Samos entfernt. Dabei entdeckten sie ein Schlauchboot mit 40 Flüchtlingen an Bord. Auftragsgemäß hielten sie es an, allerdings nahmen sie die Menschen auf dem völlig überfüllten Boot nicht an Bord. Stattdessen warteten sie mehr als eine halbe Stunde, bis die griechische Küstenwache das Schlauchboot übernahm.

      Wenig später fanden sich die Flüchtlinge plötzlich in türkischen Gewässern wieder. So beschreiben es interne Dokumente der EU-Grenzschutzagentur Frontex, die dem SPIEGEL vorliegen. Die türkische Küstenwache musste die 40 Migranten später retten. Fotos zeigen Männer, Frauen und kleine Kinder auf dem überfüllten Schlauchboot. Offensichtlich wurden die Menschen von den griechischen Grenzschützern illegal zurückgedrängt.

      Als die griechischen Beamten in den Hafen zurückkehrten, wunderten sich die deutschen Polizisten. Die Küstenwache hatte keine Migranten an Bord und auch kein Schlauchboot im Schlepptau. Die Deutschen meldeten im Anschluss zwar die Details des Einsatzes – aber keine mögliche Menschenrechtsverletzung.
      Was genau haben die Deutschen von diesem illegalen Pushback mitbekommen?

      Bis heute haben die Bundespolizei und das Innenministerium nicht auf die Fragen des SPIEGEL geantwortet. Dabei finden sich die Antworten auf diese Fragen seit Wochen im Intranet der Bundespolizei, also in einem nur für Mitarbeiter zugänglichen Netzwerk. Anhand der elf SPIEGEL-Fragen legte die Bundespolizei-Führung ihre Sicht der Dinge ausführlich dar – noch am Tag der Veröffentlichung des Berichts. Die Fragen waren also längst beantwortet, nur abgeschickt wurden sie nie. Das Innenministerium erklärt das inzwischen auf Anfrage mit einem »Büroversehen«.

      Die Ausführungen im Intranet der Bundespolizei sind politisch heikel. Auf den ersten Blick entlasten sie die deutschen Einsatzkräfte. Wörtlich heißt es, die Bundespolizisten hätten beobachtet, »dass durch die (…) griechischen Einsatzkräfte Migranten physisch an Bord genommen wurden.« Die deutschen Frontex-Beamten konnten also davon ausgehen, dass die Flüchtlinge zunächst in Sicherheit waren. Schließlich wurden sie vor ihren Augen auf ein Schiff der griechischen Küstenwache geholt und trieben nicht mehr in ihrem überfüllten Schlauchboot.

      Warum hat das Innenministerium dieses Detail trotzdem bis heute verschwiegen? Will man im Ministerium die Griechen nicht als Lügner entlarven? Das Flüchtlingsboot, so hatten die griechischen Behörden erklärt, sei beim Anblick der Küstenwache umgekehrt und zurück in türkische Gewässer gefahren.
      Beobachtungen der Deutschen entlarven die Ausrede der Griechen

      Die Beobachtungen der Bundespolizisten widersprechen dieser Darstellung, die Bundespolizei stellt das in ihrem Bericht selbst fest. Wenn die Geflüchteten bereits an Bord des Schiffes der griechischen Küstenwache waren, können sie unmöglich freiwillig auf ihrem Schlauchboot umgekehrt sein. Sollten die Aussagen der Deutschen zutreffen, und davon ist auszugehen, bleibt keine andere vernünftige Erklärung als ein illegaler Pushback der griechischen Küstenwache.

      Horst Seehofer muss sich deshalb die Frage gefallen lassen, warum sein Haus die Verbrechen der griechischen Behörden deckt. Statt aufzuklären, führt er die Öffentlichkeit offenbar in die Irre. So fügt Seehofer sich in das System des Schweigens.

      Seit Juni hat SPIEGEL in gemeinsamen Recherchen mit der Medienorganisation Lighthouse Reports und »Report Mainz« genau dokumentiert, wie die griechischen Pushbacks ablaufen: Die Küstenwache fängt die Migrantinnen und Migranten meist noch auf dem Wasser ab. Manchmal zerstört sie den Außenbordmotor der Schlauchboote, um diese manövrierunfähig zu machen. Dann werden die Schutzsuchenden mit gefährlichen Manövern Richtung Türkei zurückgedrängt. Die Menschen werden auf den Booten oder auf aufblasbaren Rettungsflößen mit Seilen aufs offene Meer gezogen, vom SPIEGEL ausgewertete Videos belegen das.

      Griechische Grenzschützer bedrohen die Geflüchteten mit Waffen, nicht selten fallen Schüsse. Bisweilen schleppen die Beamten sogar Menschen aufs Meer, die es schon auf die griechischen Inseln geschafft haben.

      Auch Frontex-Einheiten stoppen immer wieder Flüchtlingsboote und übergeben sie anschließend an die griechische Küstenwache. Seit Anfang März wird das so gehandhabt. Die Frontex-Einheiten, darunter deutsche Bundespolizisten, unterstehen in der Ägäis der griechischen Küstenwache. Sie werden so zu Gehilfen der Griechen, die bei ihren illegalen Praktiken nicht mal besonders verdeckt vorgehen.

      »Das Innenministerium scheint sich zum Komplizen der Griechen zu machen«, sagt der menschenrechtspolitische Sprecher der Sozialdemokraten, Frank Schwabe. »Dazu müssen sowohl Frontex als auch Innenminister Seehofer dem Bundestag Rede und Antwort stehen.«

      Das Innenministerium teilte auf Anfrage mit, dass eine abschließende Bewertung des Sachverhaltes aufgrund der vorliegenden Informationen nicht möglich sei. Die Bundespolizei habe sich jedenfalls nicht an illegalen Pushbacks beteiligt. Eine vollständige Aufklärung bleibe abzuwarten und Berichte von griechischen Behörden würden nicht kommentiert.

      Die griechischen Behörden bleiben bei ihrer Version der Ereignisse. Das für die Küstenwache zuständige Ministerium teilte mit, der Fahrer der Schlauchbootes sei in Richtung Türkei zurückgefahren, nachdem er die griechische Küstenwache erblickt habe.
      »Wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass Seehofer die Regelverstöße der griechischen Küstenwache deckt, weil sie ihm politisch in den Kram passen«

      SPD-Vize Kevin Kühnert

      Doch in der Opposition und auch beim eigenen Koalitionspartner ist der Unmut groß. Selbst SPD-Vize Kevin Kühnert schaltet sich nun in die Debatte ein. Durch die schriftlich festgehaltenen Erkenntnisse der eigenen Beamten festige sich der Eindruck, dass es in der Ägäis in der Tat zu Pushbacks komme, sagt er. Deshalb müsse Seehofer nun politisch reagieren. »Frontex muss die mutmaßliche griechische Pushback-Praxis endlich effektiv verhindern und die Zugänge zum Asylverfahren sicherstellen«, so Kühnert. »Sollte dies durch die Bundesregierung kurzfristig nicht durchsetzbar sein, muss das deutsche Kontingent unverzüglich aus der Mission abgezogen werden.«

      Kühnert möchte nun von Seehofer »noch in diesem Jahr dargelegt bekommen, wie und bis wann er auf Frontex einwirken wolle, um die Zusammenarbeit mit der griechischen Küstenwache wieder auf eine rechtskonforme Grundlage zu stellen.« Mit seiner Salamitaktik bei der Preisgabe von Informationen werde der Innenminister auch der Fürsorgepflicht gegenüber seinen eigenen Beamten nicht gerecht, mahnt Kühnert. »Wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass Seehofer die Regelverstöße der griechischen Küstenwache deckt, weil sie ihm politisch in den Kram passen. Alles daran wäre inakzeptabel.«

      Neben Seehofer gerät auch Frontex-Chef Fabrice Leggeri durch die Beobachtungen der deutschen Polizisten in Erklärungsnot. Bis heute beteuert Leggeri, dass sich seine Grenzschützer nicht an Pushbacks beteiligen oder von ihnen wissen. Daran zweifelt aber inzwischen selbst die EU-Kommission.

      Auf deren Drängen schilderte Leggeri schriftlich die Details des Vorfalls vom 10. August. In seinen Antworten verschwieg aber auch Leggeri, dass die griechische Küstenwache laut den Deutschen die Flüchtlinge bereits an Bord geholt hatten – obwohl er wohl davon hätte wissen müssen. Die Bundespolizei jedenfalls hat auch dieses Detail des Einsatzes nach eigener Aussage an Frontex gemeldet.

      Frontex teilte auf Anfrage mit, wegen der laufenden Untersuchung keine Angaben zum Vorfall machen zu können.

      Für Leggeri ist die Angelegenheit besonders misslich, weil sich in seinen Aussagen ein Muster erkennen lässt: Der Frontex-Direktor täuscht die Öffentlichkeit, um die Pushbacks zu vertuschen. Vor den EU-Parlamentariern verteidigte er sich unlängst mit einer Falschaussage, indem er behauptete, dass der SPIEGEL und seine Recherchepartner sich bei ihren Recherchen zu einem Pushback im April geirrt hätten. Am fraglichen Tag habe es gar keinen Frontex-Aufklärungsflug gegeben, sagte Leggeri. Keine zwei Tage später musste er einräumen, dass das nicht stimmte. Weitere Vorfälle, die Experten als klare Pushbacks werten, erwähnte Leggeri entweder gar nicht oder nur auf Nachfrage in internen Schreiben.
      EU-Kommission rechnet mit Leggeri ab

      Inzwischen wirft auch die EU-Kommission Leggeri »irreführende« Aussagen vor. Das geht aus einem Brief der Kommission an ihn hervor. In dem Streit geht es um die Einstellung von Grundrechtsbeobachtern. Eigentlich hätte Frontex bis zum 5. Dezember 40 Mitarbeiter einstellen müssen, die darauf achten soll, dass die Rechte von Migranten an Europas Grenzen gewahrt werden. Bis heute hat Leggeri allerdings nicht einen solchen Mitarbeiter eingestellt.

      Der Frontex-Direktor macht die Kommission für die Verzögerung verantwortlich, die wiederum gibt Leggeri die Schuld. Leggeris Äußerungen zu dem Thema würden die Kommission »bestürzen« und »beunruhigen« heißt es in dem Brief. Das Schreiben liegt dem SPIEGEL vor, es liest sich wie eine Kampfansage.

      Die Verzögerungen bei den Grundrechtsbeobachtern seien skandalös, sagt die Grünenbundestagsabgeordnete Luise Amtsberg. Die Sache zeige, dass die Grenzschutzagentur den Menschenrechtsschutz schlicht nicht ernst genug nehme. »Die Bundesregierung muss endlich klare Konsequenzen aus den völkerrechtswidrigen Handlungen im Rahmen von Frontex-Missionen ziehen.«

      https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/frontex-skandal-horst-seehofer-deckte-offenbar-griechische-verbrechen-a-bd06

    • Push backs and violations of human rights at sea: a #timeline

      The following timeline provides a non-exhaustive compilation of main reports of push backs and other violations of human rights at the Greek-Turkish sea borders since March 2020, following Greece’s decision to impose a one-month suspension of its asylum procedure in response to declarations by Turkey that it would not prevent refugees from crossing its western borders. On 2 March, the Hellenic Armed Forces began live-fire military exercises along the Aegean, from Samothrace to Kastellorizo.

      Timeline dates refer to the date of publication of reports, separately indicating the date of alleged incidents, where available.

      This timeline solely purports to reproduce material made publicly available by media and civil society organisations and does not amount to an assessment by RSA or PRO ASYL of the allegations contained therein.

      https://rsaegean.org/en/push-backs-and-violations-of-human-rights-at-sea-a-timeline
      #chronologie

    • EU: Frontex director accused of misleading parliament over fundamental rights obligations

      Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri has been accused by a senior European Commission official of making statements “in a misleading manner” at a parliamentary hearing in December, when MEPs questioned him over the agency’s alleged role in pushbacks and the new fundamental rights monitoring framework included in 2019 legislation.

      Bang to rights

      In a letter obtained by Statewatch, Monique Pariat (the Director-General of the Commission’s migration and home affairs department), expresses “dismay” at Leggeri’s appearance before the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee (LIBE) on 1 December and rebukes, in no uncertain terms, the account he provided of the agency’s attempts to implement its new fundamental rights obligations.

      Those obligations include a fully functioning and independent fundamental rights office, an accessible complaints mechanism, and a credible serious incident reporting mechanism – the aim of which is to prevent, or at least ensure the reporting and investigation of, human rights abuses witnessed or committed by officials deployed on Frontex operations.

      A key role is foreseen in all this for the fundamental rights officer (FRO), who is supposed to head a team of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors – all of whom the agency was legally obliged to have recruited by 5 December 2020. However, it failed to do so.

      Blame game

      Leggeri told MEPs that although he personally prioritised the swift recruitment of fundamental rights staff, vacancy notices published by the agency in November 2019 were withdrawn on the request of the Commission, and subsequent delays in agreeing the seniority of the posts meant that vacancy notices were only published again in November 2020.

      Pariat does not dispute these points, but underlines that the Commission was obliged to request the withdrawal of the notices, because the Management Board had not approved them, as required by the 2019 Frontex Regulation. Without that approval, the letter says that “the publication of these vacancies was plain and simply unlawful” (emphasis in original).

      She adds that the Frontex Regulation requires the involvement of the FRO in the appointment of their deputy, but there was no such involvement prior to the 2019 vacancy notice publication. The Commission had to intervene to request removal of the vacancy notices, says Pariat, “to prevent serious irregularities which could jeopardise the well-functioning and the reputation of the Agency.”

      Bad reputation

      The agency’s reputation has nevertheless taken a battering in recent months. Frontex has faced numerous accusations that it either knew of or has been involved in pushbacks at Greece’s sea border with Turkey, leading the Socialists & Democrats – the second-largest group in the European Parliament – to call for Leggeri’s resignation. There are numerous other reports of similar violent incidents in the Balkans involving officials deployed on Frontex missions.

      The EU anti-fraud agency, OLAF, has also launched an investigation into the border agency, although the exact reasons for this remain unclear. OLAF’s remit allows it to carry out “administrative investigations for the purpose of fighting fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union.”

      Leggeri has said that the agency will be undertaking a thorough investigation into the allegations of pushbacks, although the working group set up to investigate the affair is made up representatives from the agency’s Management Board and does not include the Fundamental Rights Officer or the agency’s Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights.

      “Active resistance”

      A document cited by Greek newspaper Kathimerini suggests that fundamental rights are not one of Leggeri’s main interests. The document, provided to the paper by someone described as having “knowledge of the inner workings of Frontex,” says Leggeri told agency staff that “reporting pushbacks involving Frontex personnel is not a route to popularity or promotion,” and that the serous incident reporting (SIR) mechanism is “intentionally centralized to be slow, cumbersome and very discreet”.

      According to the paper, the document also says that Leggeri “actively resisted” hiring the 40 fundamental rights officers required by the Frontex Regulation, and told staff at the agency in early 2020 that “it is not a priority.”

      Pariat’s letter suggests that Leggeri himself delayed the procedure for recruiting new fundamental rights staff by five months, because of his “insistence on an arrangement which would not have been compatible with the EBCG [Frontex] Regulation”.

      There was a “surprising reluctance” from the agency to follow the Commission’s advice on implementing the new fundamental rights framework, says Pariat. She argues that “if the Agency had followed the Commission’s timely guidance and suggestions, the main milestones… could have been completed on time.”

      Even though the recruitment procedure is now going ahead, concerns remain. At the LIBE hearing in December, several MEPs questioned whether the staff grade applicable to the 40 posts will confer adequate authority and independence to the fundamental rights officers.

      At the time of publication, Frontex had not responded to a request for comment.

      Documentation

      - European Commission letter to Mr Leggeri, 18 December: Subject: Your letter of 4 December 2020 (ref: CAB/KARO/10563/2020) (pdf): https://www.statewatch.org/media/1708/eu-com-letter-to-frontex-18-12-20.pdf
      – Fabrice Leggeri, Answers to written questions following the LIBE Committee meeting 1 December (pdf) - annex to this letter (pdf): https://www.statewatch.org/media/1709/eu-frontex-written-questions-answers-libe-hearing-1-12-20.pdf

      https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/january/eu-frontex-director-accused-of-misleading-parliament-over-fundamental-ri

    • Refoulements et gestion contestée : la pression s’intensifie sur le patron de Frontex

      Fabrice Leggeri, directeur exécutif de l’agence européenne de protection des frontières, est sous la pression de la Commission et du Parlement.

      Ce n’est pas un appel à la démission de Fabrice Leggeri, directeur exécutif de Frontex, mais cela y ressemble fort. Rencontrant, lundi 18 janvier, plusieurs médias européens, dont Le Monde, Ylva Johansson, commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures et à la migration, a été interrogée sur un éventuel départ du patron français de ce qui est désormais l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes. « Je ne fais pas de commentaire là-dessus. Des procédures ont été lancées, elles ne sont pas terminées. Mais je pense qu’elles doivent l’être », indiquait la commissaire socialiste suédoise.

      Des propos prudents mais qui cachent mal le fait qu’entre la Commission et Frontex le torchon brûle. Pour preuve, une lettre envoyée au siège de l’agence en décembre 2020 par #Monique_Pariat, chef de la direction générale de la migration et des affaires intérieures à Bruxelles. Un long réquisitoire reprochant à M. Leggeri des retards, des carences dans la gestion et des « hésitations incompréhensibles » à suivre les instructions. Voire un #mensonge au sujet du recrutement des personnels qui devaient être chargés de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux au sein de l’Agence.

      Les « procédures » visant M. Leggeri et évoquées par Mme Johansson sont multiples. Et elles visent essentiellement la possible implication de Frontex dans des « pushbacks », des refoulements illégaux de migrants aux frontières de l’Union, avant qu’ils aient pu introduire d’éventuelles demandes d’asile. En octobre 2020, plusieurs médias évoquaient, témoignages et images à l’appui, six cas de refoulements en mer Egée. Avec, notamment, les manœuvres dangereuses d’un navire de Frontex, qui aurait pu entraîner le #naufrage d’une embarcation. La direction de l’Agence démentait à l’époque toute infraction.

      Constitution d’un groupe de travail

      L’Office de lutte antifraude de l’Union a lancé une enquête et, le 7 décembre 2020, les bureaux de M. Leggeri et de son directeur de cabinet ont été perquisitionnés. L’investigation porterait, aussi, sur des faits de #harcèlement et des erreurs de gestion.

      Plusieurs groupes politiques du Parlement européen ont, eux, transmis une longue liste de questions au directeur exécutif après qu’il a été entendu, le 1er décembre 2020, par l’Assemblée. M. Leggeri avait indiqué qu’une #enquête_interne n’avait pas prouvé l’implication de membres de Frontex dans des refoulements illégaux. Peu convaincus, les eurodéputés du groupe socialiste ont exigé sa #démission, d’autres groupes ont réclamé des explications complémentaires.

      Au sein de Frontex même, un #groupe_de_travail avait été constitué en novembre, sur insistance de la Commission. Son rapport devrait être examiné lors d’une réunion du conseil d’administration, mercredi 20 et jeudi 21 janvier. Ce conseil est composé de représentants des pays membres de l’Union et de deux membres de la Commission.

      L’un des principaux reproches adressés à M. Leggeri est qu’il aurait tergiversé pour embaucher la quarantaine de personnes qui, en théorie, auraient dû être à pied d’œuvre dès décembre 2020 pour veiller au respect des droits des migrants et demandeurs d’asile. Dans la lettre de Mme Pariat qu’il a reçue en décembre, le directeur se voit reprocher d’avoir agi « de manière trompeuse » en ne livrant pas les explications correctes aux parlementaires quant à l’absence de ces employés. Mme Johansson pense également que certains des propos qu’il avait tenus n’étaient « pas vrais ».

      Action « illégale »

      La commissaire suédoise n’a, jusqu’ici, pas officiellement retiré sa confiance au directeur. Elle endosse cependant les critiques qui lui sont adressées par sa direction générale, qui évoque encore une action « illégale » de M. Leggeri en 2019, avec la publication de deux vacances de postes dirigeants qui n’avaient pas été approuvées par le conseil d’administration.

      Au Parlement, où la plénière débattait, mardi, du pacte migratoire proposé récemment par la Commission, la tension monte également. Mme Johansson a insisté sur la nécessité pour les pays de l’Union, les candidats à l’adhésion et « les agences européennes aussi » d’adhérer pleinement au respect des #droits_fondamentaux. Et plusieurs députés ont à nouveau mis en cause Frontex, l’élue socialiste bulgare #Elena_Yoncheva jugeant qu’en matière de « pushbacks » l’agence fait désormais « partie du problème, pas de la solution ».

      Une situation embarrassante pour toute l’Union : dotée maintenant d’uniformes, d’armes et d’un budget passé au total à 5,6 milliards d’euros pour la période 2021-2027, l’agence des garde-frontières peut difficilement voir la #légitimité de son principal dirigeant remise en question au plus haut niveau. A ce stade, celui-ci n’a pas réagi officiellement aux accusations qui le visent. Il pourrait le faire prochainement, selon un membre de son entourage.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/01/20/refoulements-et-gestion-contestee-la-pression-s-intensifie-sur-le-patron-de-

    • Le garde-frontière Frontex en pleine tourmente

      Les refoulements aux frontières européennes fragilisent la position du directeur de Frontex, l’agence européenne de garde-frontières. La Commission reproche à Fabrice Leggeri d’avoir ralenti l’embauche d’officiers de contrôle des droits fondamentaux. Son agence est soumise à plusieurs #enquêtes, dont une de l’#office_européen_anti-fraude. Des députés demandent sa #démission.

      Bruxelles (Belgique).– Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur de Frontex, est cerné de toutes parts. Sa position, à la tête de l’agence européenne de garde-côtes et de garde-frontières, est fragilisée suite à de récents scandales concernant des refoulements de demandeurs d’asile vers la Turquie, auxquels aurait participé Frontex. Des députés appellent à sa démission. La médiatrice européenne, #Emily_O’Reilly, a ouvert une #enquête le 11 novembre dernier pour évaluer le fonctionnement du mécanisme de #plainte_interne à Frontex. Même l’office européen de lutte anti-fraude investigue et scrute la gestion de l’agence.

      Le dernier coup de boutoir vient de la #Commission_européenne. Dans une lettre du 18 décembre, la directrice générale chargée des migrations et des affaires intérieures, Monique Pariat, adressait des mots durs à Fabrice Leggeri au sujet d’irrégularités et de retards dans les procédures de recrutement d’un officier des droits fondamentaux, de son adjoint et de 40 contrôleurs des droits fondamentaux, qui devaient faire partie de l’agence le 5 décembre 2020 au plus tard et qui ne sont toujours pas embauchés : « C’est la responsabilité de la Commission […] d’intervenir pour empêcher que des irrégularités sérieuses viennent compromettre le bon fonctionnement et la réputation de l’agence. »

      La réputation de Frontex a pourtant déjà été écornée à de multiples reprises dans le passé, sans que l’exécutif bruxellois s’en émeuve. « Pendant longtemps la Commission a protégé Fabrice Leggeri, commente #Birgit_Sippel, eurodéputée allemande du groupe des socialistes et démocrates. Il semble que le vent tourne, notamment sous la pression du #Parlement_européen. »

      C’est le 23 octobre 2020 que le vent a tourné. Une série de médias européens, dont Der Spiegel et Bellingcat, publiaient alors une enquête fouillée suggérant que l’agence européenne avait, entre mars et août 2020, soit assisté à des refoulements de demandeurs d’asile en mer Égée par des garde-côtes grecs, sans les avoir rapportés, soit participé activement au renvoi de canots vers les côtes turques, alors que les refoulements sont strictement prohibés par le droit international. Le 8 juin, un navire de l’opération « #Poséidon » de Frontex, battant pavillon roumain, aurait même bloqué un canot de migrants avant de contribuer à le repousser.

      Fabrice Leggeri est venu s’expliquer devant le Parlement européen le 1er décembre. Selon lui, l’enquête interne menée par ses services concluait à « l’absence de preuves » de refoulement dans les cas mentionnés par la presse. Il insistait sur le fait que les activités de contrôle aux frontières avaient toujours lieu « à la demande et sous le commandement des autorités nationales », Frontex intervenant en coordination des opérations maritimes, en mobilisant des avions, des navires et des garde-frontières originaires des 27 États membres.

      Ces déclarations élusives ont hérissé de nombreux députés européens. « La façon dont il a répondu à nos questions montre que Fabrice Leggeri ne prend pas vraiment au sérieux ces allégations. Frontex a besoin de changements structurels, et je pense qu’il n’est pas la bonne personne pour les mener », avance Tineke Strik, eurodéputée néerlandaise des Verts.

      De la #gauche_unitaire_européenne (#GUE) au groupe centriste de #Renew, les critiques pleuvent à l’encontre de Fabrice Leggeri, mais l’attitude à adopter crée des divisions. La centriste néerlandaise, #Sophie_In’t_Veld, du groupe Renew, milite pour qu’une commission d’enquête parlementaire soit mise sur pied, « car on parle d’actes criminels ». Avant de réclamer la démission du directeur – qui ne peut être décidée que par le conseil d’administration de Frontex composé des États membres et de la Commission – la députée pense « qu’il faut d’abord faire toute la lumière sur les faits ».

      Au sein du groupe des socialistes et démocrates, des députés veulent aller plus vite. « Pourquoi perdre un an avec une #commission_d’enquête ?, s’interroge #Birgit_Sippel. Les rapports décrivant les violations des droits humains aux frontières sont là. Pour l’instant, Fabrice Leggeri se cache et échappe à ses responsabilités. » Des députés de la GUE comme des #Verts réclament à la fois une commission d’enquête et la #démission du directeur. Quant à la droite, le Parti populaire européen n’a pas encore de position sur ces thèmes, mais voit d’un mauvais œil cette idée de commission d’enquête.

      Le mastodonte sans contrôle

      Pour Yves Pascouau, directeur du programme Europe à l’association Res-Publica, par ailleurs spécialiste des questions migratoires européenne (et élu de la majorité nantaise), « l’augmentation des moyens et des pouvoirs de Frontex ne peut pas se faire sans une augmentation de ses responsabilités ».

      Frontex, au fil des ans, est devenu un mastodonte. En 2012, son budget était de 89,5 millions d’euros. Il est en 2020 de 460 millions. 5,6 milliards d’euros ont été dégagés pour la période 2021-2027. Il s’agit de la plus grosse agence de l’UE qui sera dotée, d’ici 2027, de 10 000 garde-côtes véritablement européens, avec leurs propres uniformes. « Cela permettra d’augmenter la transparence et la responsabilité de Frontex », veut croire une source européenne.

      Aujourd’hui, Frontex se déploie sous commandement des autorités nationales. Mais les agents qui agissent en son nom ne sont pas exempts de responsabilités. Ils ont l’obligation d’envoyer un rapport aux dirigeants de Frontex à chaque incident sérieux auquel ils assistent, y compris lorsque des violations des droits humains sont observées.

      Le Forum consultatif de Frontex, qui réunit des institutions européennes, des organisations internationales et ONG, s’interroge inlassablement sur « l’effectivité » de ce système. En 2018, seuls 3 incidents sérieux relatifs à des violations de droits humains furent comptabilisés par l’agence, et 9 en 2019, sans que l’on sache quel a été le suivi de ces dossiers.

      Quant à l’embauche des milliers de garde-frontières, elle doit être contrebalancée par davantage de contrôles des activités de Frontex. L’officier des droits fondamentaux, son adjoint et sa petite équipe d’au minimum 40 contrôleurs sont considérés comme la clef de voûte de ce système de surveillance du respect des #droits_humains.

      Dans la lettre adressée à Fabrice Leggeri, Monique Pariat regrette qu’au 18 décembre, aucun de ces recrutements n’ait été effectué. Elle pointe la « réticence surprenante de Frontex » à suivre les lignes directrices de la Commission, « ce qui a encore davantage entravé et retardé cet important processus ». La directrice générale dénonce encore la démarche « illégale » du directeur général qui avait publié, en 2019, une première annonce pour le poste d’officier des droits fondamentaux, sans l’accord du conseil d’administration de Frontex qui sera pourtant le supérieur hiérarchique direct de ce futur employé.

      Elle l’accuse encore d’avoir présenté les faits aux eurodéputés « de manière trompeuse ». L’attaque est frontale. Au-delà de l’enjeu institutionnel, Giorgos Kosmopoulos, du bureau européen d’Amnesty International, estime que « l’embauche de contrôleurs des droits fondamentaux n’est pas une mauvaise chose à condition qu’ils aient véritablement les moyens de mener des enquêtes, d’aller sur le terrain ». Et sur le terrain, justement, les refoulements aux frontières de l’Europe sont documentés et très nombreux. En #Grèce, en #Croatie, en #Hongrie.

      En mars 2020, le comité européen pour la prévention de la torture rapportait des allégations « crédibles et consistantes » de refoulements et détentions arbitraires, souvent accompagnées de violences, à la frontière gréco-turque. « On ne parle pas de cas isolés, ajoute Giorgos Kosmopoulos. La pratique est si répandue et généralisée qu’il est impossible que Frontex ne soit pas au courant, vu son implication sur le terrain. »

      Le directeur de Frontex, s’il estime qu’il existe « des violations graves […] des droits fondamentaux » doit mettre un terme à l’activité litigieuse à laquelle participe son agence. « Le directeur doit vérifier la situation sur le terrain et le cas échéant il doit retirer ses équipes pour qu’elles ne soient pas liées à des violations de droits humains, mais ce n’est jamais arrivé », conclut Giorgos Kosmopoulos.

      Dans ce contexte, Tineke Strik pense qu’une démission de Fabrice Leggeri, certes bienvenue, « ne résoudra pas tout. Les problèmes sont structurels. Il faudra lancer une enquête approfondie sur le fonctionnement de Frontex ».

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/210121/le-garde-frontiere-frontex-en-pleine-tourmente?onglet=full

    • Validating Border Violence on the Aegean: Frontex’s Internal Records

      The Aegean Sea, separating Turkey from Greece’s ‘hotspot’ islands, is a site of longstanding and increasingly visible border violence: the systematic use of inflatable life rafts by the Hellenic Coast Guard to push people back to Turkey has been widely documented since March last year. This maritime borderzone also stages the operational theatre of Frontex Joint Operation Poseidon, under which patrol boats, helicopters and surveillance planes have been deployed to patrol the extensive breadth of water.

      Frontex repeatedly denied any involvement in these pushbacks (see here and here), stressing its commitment to the protection, promotion and fulfilment of fundamental rights. This ‘modus operandi’ in which fundamental rights become a rhetorical defence could no longer hold after investigative reporters showed visual evidence of Frontex’s complicit role in pushbacks, prompting further media scrutiny and pressure by the European Parliament and Commission.

      In November, Efsyn, a Greek media outlet, published an eighteen-page long Frontex internal document addressed to the agency’s Management Board. The document aimed at answering questions by Member States and the Commission about the on-going pushbacks in the Aegean. The document, which fuelled Frontex’s recent internal inquiry, lists a series of so-called ‘incidents’ and, at times, offers detailed accounts of the previously denied pushbacks. However, these were not recorded as such.

      A closer look at the document reveals numerous ‘#JORA_incidents’ classified as ‘prevention of departure’, as this transcript from August 19, 2020, illustrates:

      frontex

      The #Joint_Operations_Reporting_Application (#JORA) is the main information system that collects and stores all ‘border related incidents’ from Frontex joint operations. Such incidents range from Search and Rescue (SAR) operations, interceptions, Serious Incident Reports to, as the one above, so-called preventions of departure. The leaked document contains twenty of the latter, all following a similar pattern: Firstly, the location of the rubber boat is recorded in Turkish territorial waters; second, Frontex assets are “excused from the scene” after detection; and, finally, a rehearsed ending: the boat “altered course on her own initiative/will and headed towards the Turkish coasts” or, alternately, the Turkish Coast Guard “took over responsibility”.

      Importantly, these JORA incidents coexist with the regular documenting of border violence. Descriptions of boats of asylum-seekers returning to Turkey of their own volition jar with regular testimonies describing the coercive methods employed to push them back. Alarm Phone, Aegean Boat Report and Border Violence Monitoring Network document human rights violations occurring at the same border, on the same dates and, often, at the same time as the JORA incidents.

      On the same day as the JORA incident above:

      Logging the border

      JORA incidents, together with information collected via Eurosur, form the backbone of Europe’s external borders and migration situational picture, Frontex’s narrative of the border. Yet, what is and is not accounted for in JORA and how, has not received much attention. Contrary to the few Serious Incident Reports related to violations of fundamental rights, which are dealt with by the Fundamental Rights Officer and presented to the Management Board, other incidents recorded in JORA don’t reach the public domain. Once inserted and validated, they become a dot on a map at the Frontex Situation Centre in Warsaw. They are devised to feed into risk analyses, maps and weekly analytical overviews.

      This ‘business-as-usual’ mode of reporting is mostly done by a few officers from the host Member State— in Greece, by the Hellenic Coast Guard and Police—who insert incidents into a standardised template through a set of rigid, mandatory fields. Reporting is not done by the officers on the patrol boats but mostly those who sit at coordination centres. Once inserted in the system, incidents are sent to the International Coordination Centre and the Frontex Situation Centre where they are cross-checked with reports from both Hellenic Coast Guard and Frontex deployed officers for validation. This validation process does not statically move in one direction; incidents can go back and forth in the validation chain. The final validation is done by a “specialized team of experts” at Frontex headquarters as the leaked document explains. Yet, incidents can be re-initiated and modified even after finalisation (see work by Pollozek).

      The design of the system allows for the rehearsed recording of formulaic bordering practices that, if closely examined, resemble its coexistent violent forms. Shading into the routine, the JORA records circulate regularly from the islands to Piraeus and Warsaw. While the full JORA archive is inaccessible to the public, the reviewed incidents give us insight into how a particular doctrine of border enforcement is being sustained by the agency and to what effects.

      Normalising violence, eroding rights

      The effects of these records arguably extend beyond the tactical level of border policing. Through their production, a narrative arc is formed by the recorded incidents, generating a specific mode of understanding. Data must be made intelligible to the JORA system and officials along the chain before it can be validated. As a result, even acts of violence such as pushbacks can get translated into mundane logs and thus, brought within the remit of everyday border enforcement and legality.

      The leaked document asserts that the “the notion of ‘prevention of departure”, according to which these ‘incidents’ are classified, should be interpreted “in conjunction with the provisions of Regulation 656/2014, in particular Articles 6 and 7”. While the precise legal meaning of this category in this context remains unclear, its ramifications for the right to leave a country are concerning.

      Regulation 656/2014 indeed provides legal basis (in certain factual circumstances) for the interception of boats carrying asylum-seekers. Yet, it clearly stipulates that the actions that official entities may lawfully take to enforce the border must be compliant with their obligations under EU and international law, including, inter alia, international human rights and refugee law. Moreover, it states: “This Regulation should not affect the responsibilities of search and rescue authorities, including for ensuring that coordination and cooperation is conducted in such a way that the persons rescued can be delivered to a place of safety.”

      The records, however, present an account of border enforcement that exists in isolation from human rights and humanitarian commitments. The dangerous conditions in which border enforcement takes place and the vulnerability of asylum seekers to these conditions are rendered irrelevant and thereby, banalised. Rubber boats carrying illegalized migrants are generally considered seaworthy, not recognised as in distress, regardless of how many people they carry or the fluctuating weather conditions in the Aegean. In none of the incidents contained in the leaked document was a SAR triggered by the Hellenic Coast Guard or Frontex. In this sense, JORA acts as a mediator that transforms, translates, distorts and modifies the meaning of these ‘incidents’. Through the designation of bureaucratic categories (e.g. prevention of departure), JORA codifies and transforms situations that should trigger humanitarian and human rights obligations into legitimate practices of border control. In the process, the duty to render assistance at sea is distorted, and the obligation to facilitate access to asylum is obscured.

      In the context of on-going internal discussions about the legality of interceptions at sea, Frontex’s internal records reveal the practices deemed acceptable by the agency and their interpretation of international legal obligations. The records provide insight into a vision of border enforcement, crystallised at the boundaries of the global north, that perpetuates the violent securitisation of borders to the detriment of human mobility, dignity and safety. They carve out a space where border control activities are shielded from scrutiny, erasing human rights from the operational script.

      Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here or on Facebook. You can also tweet us.

      https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2021/01/validating-border

    • Five migrant pushback claims under scrutiny

      The board of directors of the European border agency Frontex, which met on Wednesday and Thursday, has decided to further investigate five of 13 reported cases of illegal migrants pushbacks last year, with the alleged help of Frontex guards, from Greece into Turkish territorial waters in the eastern Aegean.

      The board deemed that Frontex did not provide the necessary information and clarifications for the five cases under investigation.

      In view of this, the team investigating the claims has been given additional time to complete its work and present its final conclusions to a new extraordinary board meeting scheduled for February 26.

      With regard to the other eight cases, the board said that there is no evidence to confirm any violations. It also accepted that some of these incidents unfolded in Turkish territorial waters, and in others the migrant boats turned back on their own accord.

      https://www.ekathimerini.com/261560/article/ekathimerini/news/five-migrant-pushback-claims-under-scrutiny

    • L’agence européenne Frontex fragilisée par les accusations d’expulsions illégales

      L’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE, qui a annoncé qu’elle suspendait ses opérations en Hongrie, est accusée d’avoir participé au « pushback », qui consiste à repousser les migrants sans leur laisser la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile.
      Accusations d’implication dans des « pushbacks » – des refoulements illégaux de migrants et demandeurs d’asile aux frontières –, enquêtes de l’Office de lutte antifraude de l’Union européenne (UE) et de la Commission de Bruxelles, mise en cause de son directeur, Fabrice Leggeri : l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes, Frontex, chargée de surveiller les frontières extérieures de l’UE, traverse de grosses turbulences. Mercredi 27 janvier, elle a même été contrainte d’annoncer qu’elle allait arrêter ses opérations en Hongrie, une première dans l’histoire de cette institution, fondée en 2004.
      « Nos efforts communs pour protéger les frontières extérieures ne peuvent réussir que si nous veillons à ce que notre coopération et nos activités soient pleinement conformes aux lois de l’UE », a expliqué un porte-parole, en critiquant implicitement les pratiques illégales de la police hongroise, auxquelles l’agence européenne participait pourtant depuis la crise des réfugiés de 2015.
      En cause, la pratique du « pushback », systématisée par le premier ministre ultranationaliste, Viktor Orban, et développée ailleurs dans l’Union. Le fait de repousser les migrants arrivés sur le sol européen sans leur laisser la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile n’a pas été partout aussi clairement assumé qu’en Hongrie, mais la Grèce, la Croatie, l’Italie ou la Slovénie, notamment, ont été mises an cause pour s’être livrées, elles aussi, à cette pratique illégale. Un « Livre noir », épais de 1 500 pages et présenté récemment par un réseau d’ONG, a recensé pas moins de 900 cas de ce type, concernant près de 13 000 personnes.
      Expulsions inhumaines
      Depuis une loi adoptée en 2016, la Hongrie considère, elle, que tous les migrants arrivant sur son sol peuvent être immédiatement renvoyés vers la Serbie voisine. Lorsqu’ils sont arrêtés, après avoir réussi à franchir la clôture que M. Orban a fait construire tout le long de la frontière, ou même à Budapest, les migrants se voient systématiquement refuser de déposer une demande d’asile et sont expulsés sans autre forme de procès, dans des conditions parfois inhumaines.
      Présents à la frontière hongroise depuis 2015, les agents de Frontex ont participé à cette politique, malgré les critiques des organisations non gouvernementales. « La Hongrie est le seul pays à avoir légalisé les “pushbacks” et à les pratiquer aussi ouvertement. La police hongroise publie même des chiffres tous les jours sur le nombre de personnes renvoyées en Serbie », dénonce Andras Lederer, du Comité Helsinki hongrois, une ONG spécialisée dans l’aide aux migrants. Il estime que la Hongrie a pratiqué 50 000 refoulements depuis 2016. A l’issue d’une longue bataille juridique, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a estimé, le 17 décembre 2020, que les pratiques hongroises enfreignent les directives régissant le droit d’asile.
      Malgré cet arrêt, le gouvernement de Budapest a refusé de modifier sa législation et a continué ces pratiques. « La Hongrie ne va pas céder devant la pression des forces pro-immigration », affirmait encore le porte-parole du gouvernement, Zoltan Kovacs, jeudi 28 janvier. « Bruxelles veut nous prendre le peu d’aide qu’on avait », a-t-il ajouté en réaction au retrait de Frontex, devenu inéluctable après l’arrêt de la Cour de Luxembourg. Pour M. Lederer, ce retrait est en revanche « bienvenu » : « La Hongrie ne pourra plus se cacher derrière la présence de Frontex pour continuer cette pratique. »
      Violences aux frontières de l’Union
      Avec un contingent censé atteindre 10 000 hommes, un budget pluriannuel passé à 5,6 milliards d’euros et son rôle de gardienne stricte des frontières, en association avec les forces nationales, l’agence dirigée par M. Leggeri est l’une des pièces essentielles de la politique migratoire de l’UE et du « pacte » proposé en 2020 pour la Commission. Sa mise en cause, alors même qu’elle est loin de tourner à plein régime, est de mauvais augure.
      Jeudi 28 janvier, alors que les vingt-sept ministres de l’intérieur, réunis en visioconférence, évoquaient – en présence du directeur de Frontex – le dossier de la migration, l’Agence des Nations unies pour les réfugiés évoquait un droit d’asile « menacé » en Europe et disait recevoir « de nombreux rapports » sur les violences exercées aux frontières de l’Union.
      D’où l’attention toute particulière que porte la commissaire aux affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, au dossier des « pushbacks ». La responsable suédoise se satisfait-elle des explications de la direction de Frontex, dont le conseil d’administration affirmait, le 21 janvier, qu’il n’avait pas trouvé de preuves de violation des droits de l’homme dans les cas qu’il a examinés ? « Sur la base des informations fournies », il n’aurait « pu établir de preuves ». Il a toutefois précisé que ses conclusions ne concernaient que certains incidents en Grèce et que des clarifications étaient nécessaires. Cinq cas problématiques de possibles refoulements impliquant Frontex sont encore examinés.
      Jeudi, devant les ministres, Mme Johansson a réclamé « toutes les analyses nécessaires » pour, dit-elle, rétablir la confiance dans l’agence. Elle a aussi évoqué un projet de réforme, incluant la nomination de trois sous-directeurs et la mise en place – enfin – d’un système de surveillance des droits humains.
      Le débat « recule »
      Au-delà du sort de Frontex, la question est de savoir si une définition d’une véritable politique migratoire européenne, avec une refonte des règles de l’asile et une solidarité accrue entre les pays, a une chance de se réaliser. Confirmant que le débat sur le « pacte » élaboré par la Commission « n’a pas beaucoup avancé », le secrétaire d’Etat belge à la migration, Sammy Mahdi, déclarait, jeudi, au quotidien La Libre Belgique qu’il fallait le rendre « rationnel ». Pour sortir les discussions de l’ornière, pour vérifier que la proposition de la Commission est opérationnelle et, enfin, pour que chacun annonce vraiment ses intentions, M. Mahdi propose « une simulation » : sur la base des chiffres de l’année 2019, chaque pays préciserait ce qu’il pourrait accomplir concernant l’accueil, la solidarité, le financement des infrastructures d’accueil aux frontières, etc.
      Un communiqué du secrétaire d’Etat évoquait une possible évolution de la Hongrie et de ses partenaires du groupe de Visegrad, à condition que soit satisfaite leur revendication (très floue) d’une solidarité « flexible ». Un participant à la réunion de jeudi faisait preuve de moins de conviction : « Faire avancer le débat ? Mais il recule ! » Vétéran des conseils européens sur la migration, le ministre luxembourgeois Jean Asselborn n’est pas loin de confirmer : « Nous sommes sans doute tous d’accord sur les contrôles aux frontières extérieures ou sur les retours. Mais pas sur la manière de respecter les droits humains des demandeurs d’asile, sur les relocalisations obligatoires ou sur l’impératif de solidarité » entre les pays européens. Les Etats prêts à respecter ces principes se compteraient, en effet, désormais sur les doigts d’une main.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/01/29/l-agence-europeenne-frontex-fragilisee-par-les-accusations-d-expulsions-ille

    • Refoulement de migrants : « Frontex se retranche toujours derrière ses États hôtes » (Migreurop)

      L’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE, a annoncé qu’elle suspendait ses opérations en Hongrie après une décision de la Cour de justice européenne critiquant le système d’asile de ce pays. L’Office européen de lutte antifraude enquête de son côté sur la gouvernance de l’agence par son directeur exécutif, Fabrice Leggeri dont plusieurs eurodéputés demandent la démission. Frontex a-t-elle participé à des opérations de « pushback », initiées par la Hongrie, qui consistent à repousser des migrants arrivés sur le sol européen sans leur laisser la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile ? Le décryptage de Brijitte Espuche, co-coordinatrice du réseau Migreurop.

      https://www.rfi.fr/fr/podcasts/invit%C3%A9-international/20210129-refoulement-de-migrants-frontex-se-retranche-toujours-derri%C3%A8re-ses

    • Frontex: Management Board pushes back against secrecy proposals in preliminary report

      Statewatch is publishing the preliminary report of the working group set up by the agency’s Management Board following allegations of involvement in pushbacks from Turkey to Greece. Amongst other things, the report indicates that Frontex has proposed labelling Serious Incident Reports as EU Classified Information, which would reduce transparency and, in turn, accountability.

      https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/february/frontex-management-board-pushes-back-against-secrecy-proposals-in-prelim

    • Scandals Plunge Europe’s Border Agency into Turmoil

      Accusations of workplace harassment, mismanagement and financial irregularities have led to chaos at Europe’s border agency. The allegations weigh heavily on Frontex head Fabrice Leggeri.

      The men and women who are part of Europe’s new elite border force meet every morning at 9 a.m. for a video conference that is viewed on screens in countries like Greece, Croatia, Bulgaria and Albania. The Frontex officials usually discuss migration movements and human trafficking, But since the beginning of January, the internal meetings have focused primarily on low morale within the team.

      "Do something at last, or soon no one will work here anymore,” one border guard warned in one of the calls. The policemen and women who regularly complain about their woes are the European Union’s first dedicated border guards. They’re part of Frontex’s standing corps.

      For months now, Frontex, the EU’s border protection agency, and its head Fabrice Leggeri, have been embroiled in a series of scandals. Frontex has been accused of being involved in illegal repatriations of refugees at Europe’s external borders, workplace harassment and a possible case of fraud linked to the agency. Now the crisis has also reached the standing corps, the border management agency’s prestige project.

      Frontex plans to deploy up to 10,000 border guards to the EU’s external borders in the coming years. The civil servants were promised brand new equipment and EU jobs with lavish salaries and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen personally pushed for the creation of the standing corps. The stars of the EU flag sparkle on the sleeves of the new dark blue uniforms worn by the reserves.

      The job may sound glamorous on paper, but it is anything but in the countries where the reserve guards have been deployed, like Greece, Croatia and Albania. Several officers have told DER SPIEGEL of a shortage of agency vehicles, such that expensive SUVs must be rented instead — with officers allegedly even having to pay for gas themselves in some cases. They claim that expenses weren’t reimbursed for bureaucratic reasons, and that parts of the new uniforms were missing and had to be bought by the border guards themselves.

      The officers should be out hunting down criminals and catching smugglers, but Category 1 officers, who are directly employed by Frontex, so far haven’t been allowed to carry weapons because the agency failed to provide the legal basis for doing so in time. The result is that the border guards, supposedly members of an elite European force, have to be escorted on every one of their patrols by national security forces.

      When contacted by DER SPIEGEL, Frontex also said that the pandemic has created additional challenges for deploying the force, but things are back on track again. Yet the agency’s own officers don’t see it that way. It’s a "Potemkin reserve,” scoffs one. "It’s not worth it,” says another officer, who is thinking about quitting.

      The establishment of the standing corps is one of the EU’s most important migration policy projects. The purpose is to control irregular immigration. But now the European Commission and the member states must stand by and watch as it becomes the focus of ridicule.

      The fiasco over the standing corps has become emblematic of an agency that has been falling short of public expectations for years, and of an agency head who is accumulating more and more power but doesn’t seem to know how to use it correctly.

      Under Leggeri, Frontex has stumbled from one scandal to the next. Last autumn, DER SPIEGEL, together with international media partners, first reported that Frontex forces in the Aegean Sea were involved in illegal repatriations of refugees, which are called pushbacks. The Frontex Management Board is investigating the allegations and the EU Ombudsman has opened an inquiry. Leggeri himself is apparently obstructing the investigations.

      In January, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) announced it had launched an investigation into Frontex. Leggeri claims that the investigators are looking into the pushback reports and that he cannot provide any further comment. But DER SPIEGEL has found in its reporting that the accusations go much further. The investigation involves a possible case of fraud involving a service provider, allegations of workplace harassment and whether information was withheld from the agency’s fundamental rights officer, whose job is to monitor Frontex’s adherence to basic human rights laid out in EU charters, conventions and international law. Internal documents suggest that Leggeri’s entire leadership style is under scrutiny.

      What happened? How could the authority charged with protecting the EU’s external borders descend into such chaos? And what does it all mean for the EU’s migration policy?

      DER SPIEGEL, the media organization Lighthouse Reports and the French newspaper Libération interviewed nearly a dozen current and former Frontex officials in the reporting of this story. Most insisted that their names not be mentioned in the story for fear that they could lose their jobs. Leggeri, for his part, rejected an interview request.

      When combined with internal documents that DER SPIEGEL and its partners were able to view, the insiders’ reports paint a picture of an agency in turmoil.

      France Télécom: How Leggeri seized power at Frontex

      The headquarters of Frontex are located in an office complex in Warsaw’s Wola district, not far from the city center. For years, only a few officials worked here compiling reports on migration routes. Actual border guards were borrowed from national police forces.

      But the agency has grown from a budget of just over 6 million euros in 2005 to 460 million euros in 2020. By 2027, Europe’s taxpayers will have provided 5.6 billion euros in funding to the agency.

      Frontex now has its own border guards, called the standing corps, in addition to aircraft and drones that will soon be complemented by unmanned airships that will provide surveillance as they circle over the Aegean Sea. Frontex’s rise has had a lot to do with Leggeri, the man who has done more than anyone else to shape the agency.

      Leggeri, 52, was born in Mulhouse, in France’s Alsace region, and speaks fluent German. He studied at the École Nationale d’Administration in Strasbourg, a university that has long produced the French elite. Starting in 2013, he worked at the Interior Ministry in Paris in the department for irregular immigration. At the time, the government advocated for Frontex’s expansion, and two years later, Leggeri was named head of the agency.

      Colleagues describe Leggeri as a technocrat. At a Christmas party once, the team gathered around and he began talking with great pathos about the achievements of the "Frontex family.” But Leggeri was reading from his notepad. "It seemed like the whole things was out of his league,” recalled one audience member.

      During the course of Frontex’s expansion, Leggeri tailored the agency to precisely fit his needs. He expanded his cabinet, filling many important posts with fellow French compatriots.

      Frontex workers say Leggeri is on rarely seen in the hallways, and that all important decisions are made by a small inner circle. They describe him as being a control freak, with some former staffers even going so far as to call him a "dictator.” Leggeri "runs the agency like it’s a sub-prefecture,” says someone who has worked with him for a long time. "You may be able to run a French ministry that way, but not an international organization.”

      Frontex staffers have taken to calling Leggeri’s cabinet "France Télécom” when the bosses aren’t around. It’s a reference to the scandal at the French telecommunications authority, which involved systematic bullying and harassment so bad that it drove a number of employees to commit suicide.

      The resentment felt by many Frontex staffers is largely directed at one of Leggeri’s closest confidants: Thibauld de La Haye Jousselin. The Frenchman comes from an aristocratic family from southern France. He once worked for Bernard Carayon, a member of the French parliament, who used to be part of a far-right student union. De La Haye Jousselin is a reserve officer in the French army and has a thing for the military and uniforms. “De La Haye Jousselin is clearly on the right politically,” says someone who has known him for years. Now, he serves Leggeri as the head of his cabinet.

      Insiders say that de La Haye Jousselin leads with an iron fist, and that he is quick to lose his temper. Employees claim he insults people and engages in disrespectful behavior. The agency stated that Frontex has not received any official complaints about de La Haye Jousselin and also claimed that no cabinet member has been hired solely on the basis of their nationality. De La Haye Jousselin dismissed the accusations as "false and baseless.”

      But the behavior of Leggeri and his cabinet chief has consequences. Dissent seems to be frowned upon. And this is likely one of the reasons internal control mechanisms at the agency are becoming less effective.

      Inmaculada Arnáez has more than 20 years of experience in human rights issues. The Spanish lawyer has worked for the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and she has been with Frontex since 2012. As the fundamental rights officer, she is supposed to operate independently of the executive director in her job as the agency’s internal watchdog. But when Leggeri took the helm in 2015, she quickly became aware of how little concern the new leader apparently had for human rights.

      Former Frontex employees report that Arnáez was left out in the cold. "We felt like Leggeri just bypassed her.” They claim that human rights had never been his priority.

      The final break between Leggeri and Arnáez came when the European Parliament granted the fundamental rights commissioner more powers in 2019. Arnáez was to be assisted by 40 human rights observers, which would have enabled her office to conduct its own investigations at Europe’s external borders. Apparently that was unthinkable for Leggeri.

      On Nov. 19, 2019, just as Arnáez was returning from an extended illness, the Frontex chief publicly advertised her position. In doing so, Leggeri had also bypassed the Frontex Management Board, since such a job posting requires the board’s approval. He had informed Arnáez only a short time before. In a written assessment obtained by DER SPIEGEL, the European Commission states that Leggeri’s move had been "plain and simply unlawful” and "could be considered as an attempt to discredit or weaken” Arnáez.

      The Commission forced Leggeri to withdraw the job posting. But the Frontex chief didn’t give up. He claimed Arnáez had to be replaced because she doesn’t have enough management experience to lead 40 employees.

      It seems likely, though, that the Frontex chief was mainly bothered by Arnáez because of her advocacy for human rights. Arnáez has repeatedly warned Leggeri against breaking the law. Colleagues say that she believed in the power of her reports. She regularly informed Leggeri about human rights violations in the Aegean Sea and recommended that he abandon the mission in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán legalized pushbacks in 2016.

      Leggeri ignored the fundamental rights officer’s reports and continued the operation in the Aegean Sea. He only withdrew his officers from Hungary a few weeks ago after a ruling by the European Court of Justice forced him to do so. When contacted for comment, Leggeri stated that he had always valued working together with Arnáez. He added that management experience is needed in the post because of the sharp increase in the budget.

      Leggeri still hasn’t hired the 40 human rights monitors to this day. When grilled by the European Parliament, Leggeri blamed the European Commission for the delays. European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson, who is responsible for the portfolio that includes Frontex, then accused him of having misled parliament.

      Arnáez has been on medical leave again since last March. The Frontex Management Board replaced her on an interim basis with Annegret Kohler, a German national who had previously worked in Leggeri’s cabinet. "It’s a clear conflict of interest,” says a Frontex official.
      The Pushback Affair: How Frontex Covered Up Human Rights Violations

      The walls of the Frontex Situation Centre are covered in monitors, with surveillance planes and satellites transmitting real-time images from border regions. From their desks, Frontex officers can closely monitor events taking place on the edges of Europe. “You can see how many people are sitting in a refugee boat,” says someone who knows the room well.

      A collection of images that appeared on screens here on the night of April 18-19, 2020, continue to occupy members of European Parliament until today. They come from a Frontex surveillance plane flying over the Aegean, according to several internal Frontex reports that DER SPIEGEL has obtained.

      Shortly before midnight, Greek border patrol officers intercepted a rubber dinghy just north of the island of Lesbos and transferred the 20 to 30 refugees onboard their ship. According to prevailing law, they should have then brought the asylum-seekers to Lesbos, where they could apply for asylum. Instead, though, they put the refugees back into the dinghy and then towed them back toward Turkey.

      Greek officials in the coordination center in Piraeus ordered the Frontex pilots to change course away from the dinghy. The Frontex team leader asked if there was a particular reason for the change in course. “Negative,” came the response from the Greeks.

      At 3:15 a.m., the Frontex plane began running low on fuel. The pilot took one last image, which showed the refugees alone at sea, a few hundred meters from the Turkish coast. No Turkish units were in the area, the pilot reported. The dinghy, he reported, had no motor and the Greek Coast Guard had sailed off. The refugees, including four children, were only rescued the next morning at 6:52 a.m. by the Turkish Navy.

      The Greek Coast Guard has been systematically conducting pushbacks for several months. They stop refugee boats in Greek territorial waters and sometimes destroy their motors before then towing them back toward Turkey. “Aggressive surveillance,” is the official term the government in Athens has come up with to describe the practice. In fact, it is illegal.

      Frontex regulations require Leggeri to suspend missions when he learns of rights violations of a serious nature or that are likely to persist. His forces, after all, are supposed to protect human rights. But Leggeri insists that he has no reliable information about pushbacks in his possession – despite the fact that DER SPIEGEL and its reporting partners have exhaustively documented how Frontex units were nearby during at least seven illegal pushback operations.

      During their operations, Frontex personnel are under the command of Greek border officials. Already last March, a Greek liaison officer ordered a Danish Frontex unit to abandon a group of intercepted refugees at sea, according to internal emails that DER SPIEGEL has reviewed. Nevertheless, Frontex decided nothing was wrong and closed the matter within a day. Later, in testimony he delivered before the European Parliament, Leggeri claimed the incident had merely been a misunderstanding.

      The pushback that took place off Lesbos in the night of April 18-19 was exhaustively documented by Frontex officers themselves. There is a strong belief “that presented facts support an allegation of possible violation of Fundamental Rights or international protection obligations such as the principle of non-refoulement,” reads an internal Frontex report that DER SPIEGEL has obtained.

      The case was apparently so sensitive that Leggeri took personal control over the investigation and did not, as was standard procedure, delegate it to his Fundamental Rights Officer. On May 8, he wrote to Ioannis Plakiotakis, the Greek minister of maritime affairs, a letter that DER SPIEGEL has obtained. In it, Leggeri voiced his concern and requested an internal investigation. The observance of human rights, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, is an “ultimate requirement” of the Frontex mission, he wrote.

      The answer from the Greek government is a smorgasbord of attempts to explain it away. Migration flows in the Aegean represent a “hybrid nature threat,” the response reads. Because of the corona crisis, it continues, it is more important than ever to prevent illegal border crossings and none of the migrants had requested asylum. According to an initial assessment by Greek officials, the letter claims, none of those on board were in particular need of protection.

      Legal experts see the Greek response as worthless. “The Greek Coast Guard without a doubt committed a human rights violation in the case,” says Dana Schmalz, an international law expert with the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg. From her perspective, it is a clear case of an illegal pushback. It is impossible, she says, to determine if someone needs protection or if they are faced with danger back in Turkey on board a rickety dinghy. Individual proceedings conducted on land are necessary to make such a determination, she says. Furthermore, she continues, the Greek Coast Guard put the migrants’ lives in danger by abandoning them at sea in a dinghy without a motor.

      But Leggeri was satisfied with the report. The verdict: There was no pushback, there were no human rights violations. The head of Frontex silently buried the incident. “There have been several occasions when Leggeri has not provided us with adequate information,” says Tineke Strik, a member of European Parliament from the Netherlands.

      When reached for comment, Frontex said the Greek government had not ascertained any human rights violations. The agency has to rely on national authorities to investigate such incidents, Frontex insisted, since it is not authorized to undertake such investigations itself.

      Frontex officials are actually required to report incidents where they suspect that human rights violations may have occurred, so-called “Serious Incident Reports.” But such reports are hardly ever written. For years, Frontex officials have followed the example of their boss Leggeri: When in doubt, keep quiet.

      Insiders describe the rules as a kind of omertà, a code of silence. Hardly anyone is willing to risk their career or cause problems for their host country. In one case, an official even tried to prevent a Swedish colleague from submitting a Serious Incident Report, the head of Swedish border control told the Frontex Management Board.

      A German federal police officer is one of the few willing to dissent, though he has asked that we not publish his real name. On Nov. 28, 2020, his first day on a Frontex mission on the Greek island of Samos, an article from DER SPIEGEL popped up on his mobile phone. The story was about the Uckermark, the ship on which he was scheduled to serve that very evening. The article reported that the Germans had stopped a refugee boat on August 10 and handed it over to the Greek Coast Guard, which then proceeded to abandon the refugees at sea.

      The federal policeman went to his commanding officer and said he couldn’t participate in such operations and essentially said he didn’t want to be an accessory to any legal transgressions. Later, he sent an explanation around to his comrades via WhatsApp: “I have decided for me personally that I cannot tolerate the measures taken by the Greeks and certainly cannot support them.”

      His commanding officer responded a few minutes later: “The fact is that our actions are legal! Covered by the Frontex mandate.” He apparently was referring to the requirement to obey orders from the Greek Coast Guard.

      The German Federal Police does not contradict the man’s account, but when contacted, the force denied having taken part in any legal violations. The policeman himself, however, had a different view of the situation. He refused to take part in the mission, preferring instead to stay on land. He says he will never again volunteer to take part in a Frontex mission.

      Dodgy Business: How Leggeri Landed in the Sights of the European Anti-Fraud Office

      The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) always gets involved when there are suspicions that EU financial interests have been violated. And recently, OLAF opened an investigation into Frontex. On Dec. 7, OLAF officials searched Frontex headquarters in Warsaw, including the offices belonging to Leggeri and to Head of Cabinet Thibauld de La Haye Jousselin.

      Leggeri has yet to comment publicly on the investigation. According to members of the German parliament, the Bundestag, Leggeri testified before the Committee on Internal Affairs in January in Berlin and said that the inquiry had to do with the pushback accusations and that he couldn’t say any more. That, though, is at best only half true.

      DER SPIEGEL has learned that the investigation has a much broader scope than that. For weeks, OLAF officials have been summoning witnesses and interrogating Frontex staff members.

      One focus of the investigation is apparently a possible case of fraud. A Polish IT company sold the agency a business software solution that cost hundreds of thousands of euros, in part for the training of border guards. Frontex employees complained to their superiors, however, that the software didn’t work well. But the agency nevertheless paid most of the negotiated purchase price. According to documentation DER SPEIGEL has seen, employees informed management in 2018 that the inconsistencies in the case could amount to fraud.

      Leggeri, too, learned of the allegations, and an internal investigation was undertaken. “But according to EU regulations, the Frontex director is required to immediately report potential cases of fraud to OLAF,” says Valentina Azarova of the Manchester International Law Centre. Frontex declined to comment on the OLAF investigation. The Polish software company in question insisted that it has thus far correctly fulfilled all of its contractual obligations to Frontex. And the company is still getting contracts from the European border agency, some of them worth millions.

      The OLAF investigators are also apparently interested in suspicions of workplace harassment at Frontex. They hope to find out if Leggeri or his head of cabinet have yelled at or otherwise harassed agency employees. They are also investigating whether staff members were ordered to withhold information from Fundamental Rights Officer Arnáez and her successor – and if so, by whom.

      OLAF emphasizes that the presumption of innocence still applies, despite the inquiry, explaining that the existence of the investigation offers no proof that anything untoward took place. But there are apparently serious indications of personal misconduct on the part of Leggeri. The collection of questions being asked by investigators indicate significant doubts about his leadership style.

      In Brussels, some refer to Leggeri as “Fabrice Teflon,” with the Frontex boss having thus far survived despite accusations of mismanagement and allegations that his agency was involved in pushbacks. Now, though, the pressure has been cranked up.

      European Commissioner Johansson has more or less made it clear that she no longer considers Leggeri to be tenable in his position. “It has been difficult to keep track of the missteps,” says a high-ranking Commission official. “The priority must be on the long-term reputation of the agency. But it has been hard to reconcile recent actions with that aim.”

      It is not, however, up to the European Commission to decide Leggeri’s fate. That is a decision that must be made by the Frontex Management Board. The board is essentially made up of representatives from those countries that are part of the Schengen Area, with the Commission having just two deputies on the board. EU member states have always thrown their support behind Leggeri in the past. And many of them are likely pleased by the occasionally ruthless methods employed by Frontex to prevent asylum-seekers from crossing into the EU, believes Giulia Laganà, a migration expert with the Open Society European Policy Institute.

      The question is whether the Management Board will continue to back Leggeri once the accusations of workplace harassment and even potential fraud are made public. The European Parliament has already announced its intention to conduct a four-month inquiry into the agency, with the investigation’s mandate having been kept intentionally broad. Leggeri’s leadership style and the workplace atmosphere at Frontex are to be included in the inquiry.

      Even Leggeri’s own staff members in Warsaw have begun wondering how long their boss will continue to cling to his post. “OLAF is onto us, morale is down,” says one official. “I wonder why he doesn’t just leave.”

      https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/missteps-and-mismanagement-at-frontex-scandals-plunge-europe-s-border-agency

    • Frontex, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières, à nouveau mise en cause pour ses liens avec des lobbyistes

      Premier corps armé en uniforme de l’Union européenne, l’organisme n’aurait pas déclaré ses liens avec des lobbyistes de l’industrie de la surveillance et de l’armement.

      De nouvelles accusations contre Frontex ont été lancées, vendredi 5 février, par la chaîne publique allemande ZDF, laquelle a, avec la collaboration de l’ONG Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), mené une enquête sur les liens entre l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et l’industrie de la surveillance et de l’armement.

      Des dizaines de documents, auxquels Le Monde a également eu accès, démontrent des infractions aux règles des institutions européennes sur le lobbying, un défaut de transparence et une absence quasi complète de préoccupation pour le respect des droits humains. Ce dernier point était déjà au cœur d’un débat récent sur le rôle du corps européen dans des « pushbacks », des refoulements illégaux de migrants, en Grèce et en Hongrie notamment.

      Dotée d’un budget en forte hausse (6 millions d’euros lors de sa création en 2005, 460 millions en 2020, 5,6 milliards prévus pour 2021-2027) et d’un effectif qui devrait atteindre 10 000 personnes à terme, Frontex, premier corps armé en uniforme de l’Union européenne (UE), effectue actuellement des missions de sauvetage et de surveillance, en appui des forces nationales. Elle lutte aussi contre divers trafics et participe aux expulsions des migrants irréguliers.

      Mais l’agence est, en réalité, en train de devenir un véritable corps de police appelé à se doter de nombreux équipements : armes, radars, drones, systèmes de vérification des documents et de reconnaissance faciale, véhicules, avions, etc.
      Profiter des opportunités

      Devient-elle, du même coup, une sorte d’acteur du secteur de la sécurité et de l’armement ? Et échappe-t-elle au contrôle démocratique, celui du Parlement européen notamment, qui, en 2019, exigeait de l’institution dirigée par le Français Fabrice Leggeri la mise au point d’un « registre transparence », conforme aux pratiques des autres institutions de l’UE ? Ce sont les questions posées par les investigateurs de la ZDF et de CEO, qui ont examiné les dernières années de fonctionnement de l’institution installée à Varsovie.

      Le registre, qui était réclamé par les eurodéputés, devait notamment recenser l’ensemble des réunions tenues avec des représentants des entreprises. Il est « en préparation », dit-on chez Frontex. Et il ne devrait pas satisfaire les attentes : en 2018 et 2019, indiquent des documents de CEO, 91 des 125 lobbyistes reçus par Frontex (soit 72 %) n’étaient pas inscrits au registre européen de la transparence, comme le veulent pourtant les règles fixées pour les institutions de l’UE.

      Idem pour 58 % des entreprises consultées. Sur une application créée pour centraliser les demandes de contacts, aucune demande ne leur est d’ailleurs formulée quant à leur inscription dans ce registre. Etonnamment, le service de presse de Frontex affirme de son côté que l’agence « ne rencontre pas de lobbyistes ».

      Il semble évident, pourtant, que le secteur de la défense entend profiter des opportunités offertes par le développement des missions et des moyens de l’agence. Le programme Horizon 2020 avait déjà affecté 118 millions d’euros au développement de la recherche en lien avec le projet de « Sécurité aux frontières extérieures » de l’UE. Un fonds avait, lui, été doté de 2,8 milliards d’euros pour la période 2018-2020. Et la nécessité d’équiper Frontex a évidemment aiguisé un peu plus les appétits des acteurs du marché mondial du « border control », qui enfle de 8 % chaque année et frôle désormais les 20 milliards d’euros.
      « Surveillance agressive »

      L’agence dirigée par M. Leggeri est-elle sortie de son rôle en s’arrogeant un statut d’intermédiaire de fait entre l’industrie et des institutions européennes soucieuses de conjurer à tout prix le risque de nouveaux flux migratoires ? Serait-elle, même, devenue un acteur qui entend stimuler cette industrie, voire lui confier les rênes d’une politique à vocation essentiellement sécuritaire ?

      Avec son objectif de « faciliter la coopération entre les autorités de contrôle aux frontières, la recherche et l’industrie », Frontex a, en tout cas, multiplié les congrès, les rencontres et les « ateliers » où grands patrons, hauts fonctionnaires, mais aussi délégués des Etats membres échangent beaucoup. Sur des questions de technologie, de sécurité, de « surveillance agressive », mais rarement de droits humains.

      Déjà mise en cause pour avoir tardé à mettre en place un service interne chargé de la surveillance du respect des droits fondamentaux des migrants, l’agence n’aurait, en effet, presque jamais consulté le « Forum des droits fondamentaux » constitué à cette fin. Une organisation qui était membre du forum indique d’ailleurs n’avoir aucun souvenir d’un quelconque échange sur la question des droits et des libertés dans le cadre du lancement d’appels d’offres.

      « La protection des droits humains est un sujet trop important pour le sacrifier à la défense des intérêts de l’industrie », notent les responsables de l’ONG Corporate Europe Observatory

      Parmi les participants à des réunions, on a noté, en revanche, la présence de représentants de pays très critiqués pour leur politique à l’égard des migrants, comme la Bosnie-Herzégovine ou l’Australie. Des responsables du département américain de la Homeland Security ont été également conviés.

      « Les conclusions de tout cela sont extrêmement préoccupantes », notent les responsables de CEO. Ils déplorent une politique migratoire qui risque de reposer seulement sur une force de police armée et des techniques comme la surveillance biométrique. « La protection des droits humains est un sujet trop important pour le sacrifier à la défense des intérêts de l’industrie », relèvent-ils.

      « Nous vivons une métamorphose du rôle de Frontex. Il faut en prendre la mesure et s’y habituer », affirmait, vendredi, M. Leggeri, interrogé par Europe 1. On ne sait pas si Ylva Johansson, la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, qui demande que la confiance en Frontex soit « entièrement rétablie », approuvera totalement ce propos.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/02/05/nouvelles-accusations-contre-frontex-l-agence-europeenne-des-gardes-frontier

    • PUSHBACK REPORT 2020

      VIOLENCE IS INCREASING – IN #2020 MARE LIBERUM COUNTED AT LEAST 9,000 PEOPLE ILLEGALLY PUSHED BACK

      #Mare_Liberum monitors the current human rights situation in the Aegean Sea using its own ships. As independent observers, we conduct research in order to document and publicise circumstances at the European border. Since March 2020, Mare Liberum has witnessed a dramatic increase in human rights violations in the Aegean, both at sea and on land. Illegal pushbacks, in which those fleeing and migrating people are pushed back across a national border, play an especially crucial role. Over the past year in particular, pushbacks have become an inhumane everyday reality for people on the move. Pushbacks happen almost daily at the Greek-Turkish border and in 2020 alone, we counted 321 pushbacks in the Aegean Sea, with some 9,798 people pushed back.

      Although pushbacks have demonstrably been carried out at the EU’s external border for years, media attention has now increased notably, especially in recent months. News magazines such as Der Spiegel and the research collective Bellingcat have been able to publicly demonstrate how the Hellenic Coast Guard forcibly pushes those seeking protection back to Turkey, thereby violating international, European and national law. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency Frontex, as has become all too clear, not only turns a blind eye to illegal repatriation operations, but rather actively and systematically participates.

      Within the framework of the annual report, we seek to adopt a perspective on pushbacks that looks at the long-term development of these practices at the EU’s external border. The comprehensive documentation of pushbacks forms the basis of the report and is an essential part of our monitoring work in the Aegean. Beyond the mere counting of pushbacks, our work also includes the collection of relevant information on the persons affected by pushbacks, practices by the responsible actors and related geographical data. We have gained deeper insights into these issues by conducting interviews with people who have themselves been pushed back at the Greek-Turkish border.

      https://mare-liberum.org/en/pushback-report

    • NEW REPORT ON CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN THE AEGEAN

      Since March 2020, collective expulsions in the Aegean Sea have been perpetrated with impunity.

      Legal Centre Lesvos’ new report contributes to the growing body of evidence, media coverage, civil society reports and other investigations which have documented how Greek authorities are deliberately and systematically abandoning hundreds of migrants in the middle of the Aegean sea, without means to call for rescue, on unseaworthy, motorless dinghies and liferafts. It is intended to serve as a resource for survivors of collective expulsions and solidarity actors.

      Following the Legal Centre Lesvos’ first report, the present report is based on evidence shared by over fifty survivors of collective expulsions, and underscores the widespread, systematic and violent nature of this attack against migrants. Beyond being egregious violations of international, European and national human rights law, this report argues that the constituent elements of the modus operandi of collective expulsions in the Aegean amount to crimes against humanity within the definition of Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

      Despite overwhelming evidence of collective expulsions in the Aegean, the national and European response has been to turn a blind eye: failing to even attempt to hold the responsible Greek authorities to account, let alone other public and private actors directly or indirectly involved. On the contrary, the European Commission has praised the violent “border and migration management” practices implemented in Greece and underwritten its support with substantial financial and material assistance. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic which prevented Greece carrying out “official” deportations to Turkey, collective expulsions have conveniently served as an unofficial implementation of the “EU-Turkey Deal” and other bilateral “readmission” agreements with Turkey, which form part of fortress Europe’s border externalisation drive.

      There are only so many times legal and civil society actors can list and table such human rights violations and be met with deafening silence and inaction before this itself becomes evidence of Greek and European liability for collective expulsions as an egregious attack on migrants’ lives. Such inaction also reveals how migrants’ lives are increasingly treated as disposable, in a manner that has historically accompanied the commission of atrocity crimes.

      While the systematic violence of pushbacks in the Aegean is scandalous, it is also the logical endpoint of a dehumanising and punitive European border regime that has systematically obstructed access to territory and the right to asylum by prioritising and funding the ‘hotspot’ containment system, accelerated procedures, detention, deportations, border militarisation and externalisation through deals of questionable legality with third countries; as well as by prosecuting migrants and solidarity actors in a manner that successfully obscures Europe’s own violent, imperialist role in many of the reasons people migrate.

      The absence of serious investigations, let alone practical steps to redress violations are a clear sign that collective expulsions form part of a Greek and European migration policy: instrumentalising human suffering in acts of spectacular state violence for the purpose of deterring migration, at any cost.

      In this context, it is important to ask what justice might look like for survivors of crimes against humanity in the Aegean, many of whom experience ongoing psychological trauma and distress as a result of these crimes. Survivors who have been in contact with the Legal Centre Lesvos have spoken about justice in terms of being able to safely reach Europe. Justice for collective expulsions as crimes against humanity must therefore include safe and legal routes to Europe, as well as defunding, demilitarising and dismantling Europe’s violent border regime.

      https://legalcentrelesvos.org/2021/02/01/crimesagainstumanityintheaegean

      #crimes_contre_l'humanité

      pour télécharger le rapport :
      legalcentrelesvos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Collective-Expulsions-in-the-Aegean-LCL-01.02.2021-1.pdf

    • UE : Frontex accusée d’incarner l’« Europe forteresse »

      Soupçons de refoulements illégaux de migrants et de bafouement des droits fondamentaux, l’agence Frontex est dans la tourmente. Au point de diviser la Commission européenne.

      C’est potentiellement ce que les Anglo-Saxons appellent la « tempête parfaite », la « poly polémique » qui couve chez Frontex, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes.

      Entre les accusations de fermer les yeux ou de participer à des refoulements illégaux de migrants, l’enquête de l’Office anti-fraude sur des allégations de harcèlement et d’inconduite ayant poussé des responsables à quitter l’agence ou l’absence, à ce jour, de recrutement des quarante agents chargés de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux, Frontex accumule les tuiles.

      Après l’enquête de la médiatrice européenne, qui s’est aussi penchée sur son cas, c’est le Parlement européen qui s’en mêle. Outre la mise en place d’un « groupe d’enquête permanent », les eurodéputés ont aussi refusé, fin de la semaine dernière, d’octroyer « la décharge budgétaire » à l’agence, nous explique l’élue belge Saskia Bricmont (Ecolo). « Chaque année, le Parlement a un pouvoir de contrôle budgétaire. Donner la décharge, cela signifie qu’on considère que Frontex a accompli ses missions, a respecté le cadre légal et a donc droit au budget suivant », explique-t-elle. En commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, les eurodéputés ont donc décidé de reporter de six mois cette décharge, une décision qui doit être validée en plénière mais que « tous les groupes politiques » soutiennent, ajoute l’élue. D’ici là, il est principalement attendu de Frontex qu’elle recrute les agents chargés de défendre en interne les droits fondamentaux.
      Mandat et budget élargis

      Depuis cinq ans, le mandat de l’agence a été élargi considérablement. Ses effectifs multipliés. En 2016, Frontex se félicitait du fait qu’elle emploierait 1500 agents à l’horizon 2020. Elle devrait être à 10.000 d’ici 2027, pour un budget de plus de cinq milliards sur sept ans, contre une enveloppe annuelle de 19 millions il y a quinze ans.

      Newsletter Repensons notre quotidien

      Infos positives, bons plans, solutions... Chaque dimanche, place aux initiatives qui peuvent changer votre quotidien.

      Car pour Fabrice Leggeri, le patron de Frontex, les critiques trouvent bien leur source dans ce renforcement des pouvoirs de l’agence. « Pour la première fois, une agence cesse d’être un objet simplement administratif européen, mais a du personnel sur le terrain. C’est une responsabilité d’autant plus grande que nous avons l’usage de la force, sous l’autorité et le contrôle des Etats, et qu’il y a bien sûr des contrepoids, les droits fondamentaux. C’est tout à fait normal que cela suscite des réactions, parce que c’est inhabituel », a-t-il expliqué la semaine dernière lors d’un événement organisé par la Fondation Robert Schuman. « Il peut y avoir des retards de mise en œuvre de certaines choses, tout ne sera certainement pas parfait. Il faut utiliser cette période où il y a beaucoup de questionnements sur l’agence pour expliquer, faire de la pédagogie », a-t-il ajouté.

      A ses côtés, le vice-président de la commission en charge de la Promotion du mode de vie européen, Margaritis Schinas, a évoqué la tentative de « quelques milieux » de bâtir « un narratif qui affaiblit Frontex au moment où nous avons le plus besoin de l’agence. Ça, je ne l’accepterai jamais ». Un ton qui contraste avec celui de sa collègue aux Affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, qui a démenti fin janvier les explications données par Leggeri pour justifier le retard de l’embauche des 40 agents pour les droits fondamentaux.

      Selon le quotidien français Le Monde, François Xavier-Bellamy, chef de la délégation Les Républicains au sein du groupe du Parti populaire européen (PPE, conservateurs) du Parlement européen, a écrit à Ylva Johansson en évoquant de sa part une tentative de déstabilisation voire de procès politique envers Fabrice Leggeri.
      Pas en ligne sur le lobbying

      S’ajoutent à tout cela les accusations de relations troubles avec l’industrie de l’armement et de la biométrie (par exemple, la reconnaissance faciale), étudiées de long en large par l’ONG Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) le mois dernier. Cette dernière estime que l’élargissement des compétences de Frontex et son besoin d’équipement neuf (y compris en matière de défense) ont été une aubaine pour ces industries.

      Entre 2017 et 2019, Frontex a rencontré pas moins de 108 entreprises pour discuter d’armes à feu et de munitions, d’équipements de surveillance etc. Contre dix think tanks, 15 universités et seulement une ONG. Dans les procès-verbaux de ces réunions obtenus par CEO grâce à des demandes d’accès aux documents, elle a pu constater que les droits fondamentaux figuraient rarement à l’agenda. « Sans surprise, il y a des chevauchements significatifs entre les entreprises qui font du lobbying à Frontex et celles qui bénéficient le plus des marchés publics » de l’agence, explique l’ONG.

      En outre, l’agence ne publie pas toutes ses rencontres et voit majoritairement (72 %) des représentants du privé qui ne sont pas enregistrés dans le registre de transparence de l’UE. Frontex s’en est défendu en répondant qu’elle ne faisait pas l’objet de lobbying, compte tenu du fait qu’elle n’est pas impliquée dans le processus législatif européen. Alors, acharnement ou véritable scandale ? L’enquête des eurodéputés devrait permettre d’y voir clair. C’est aussi l’avis/l’espoir de Fabrice Leggeri, qui a jusqu’ici résisté aux appels à la démission.

      https://plus.lesoir.be/358143/article/2021-03-01/ue-frontex-accusee-dincarner-leurope-forteresse

    • La droite française au secours de Fabrice Leggeri, patron de Frontex

      Le groupe #LR au Parlement européen critique la « tentative de déstabilisation » à laquelle se livrerait la commissaire Ylva Johansson à l’égard du directeur de l’agence.

      Le torchon brûle entre la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures et à la migration, #Ylva_Johansson, et la droite française. Dans une lettre au ton cinglant adressée vendredi 26 février à l’ancienne ministre sociale-démocrate suédoise et lue par Le Monde, #François_Xavier-Bellamy, chef de la délégation #Les_Républicains (LR) au sein du groupe du #Parti_populaire_européen (#PPE, conservateurs) interroge la commissaire. Et il parle de « tentative de déstabilisation », de « divergence de fond », voire de « procès politique » que la commissaire instruirait contre Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur exécutif de l’agence des gardes-frontières et gardes-côtes Frontex.

      Ce responsable français est sur la sellette depuis des mois. Pour des refoulements illégaux de migrants (pushbacks) qu’aurait favorisés l’agence. Pour des retards dans le recrutement d’une quarantaine d’officiers chargés précisément de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux par les agents de Frontex. Pour d’apparentes réticences à se conformer à des règles administratives en matière budgétaire. Ou encore pour ne pas avoir souscrit à des obligations de transparence en ce qui concerne des réunions avec des lobbys et des responsables de l’industrie de la défense et de la surveillance.

      Le groupe socialiste du Parlement a demandé la démission du numéro un de Frontex

      Ce dernier point n’est pas mentionné dans la lettre de M. Bellamy et l’entourage de Mme Johansson semble, par ailleurs, considérer qu’il n’y a pas de quoi mettre en cause M. Leggeri pour ces contacts, dénoncés notamment par l’ONG #Corporate_Europe_Observatory. Sur les autres questions, en revanche, la commissaire a demandé des explications. Et le groupe socialiste du Parlement a demandé la démission du numéro un de Frontex. En décembre, la responsable de la direction générale des affaires intérieures de la Commission adressait, elle, une longue lettre à M. Leggeri, avec, à la clé, de nombreux griefs.

      Demande de preuves

      Les élus LR volent, eux, au secours du directeur et demandent très fermement des explications à la commissaire. Quelles preuves a-t-elle, interrogent-ils, quand elle accuse M. Leggeri de ne pas se conformer aux directives budgétaires, comme elle l’a fait le 22 février dans la commission de contrôle du Parlement ? Sans éléments incontestables, cela pourrait s’apparenter à une volonté de déstabiliser le patron de l’agence, estiment-ils.

      A propos des refoulements illégaux de migrants, les eurodéputés français endossent les explications livrées jusqu’ici par Frontex : sur treize épisodes douteux, huit ont été jugés conformes par un groupe de travail constitué par la Commission. Cinq autres cas sont encore à l’examen, sur lesquels Mme Johansson a exigé « toutes les explications nécessaires ».

      La Turquie est soupçonnée d’être à l’origine d’informations sur les refoulements illégaux de migrants

      M. Bellamy lui demande à son tour si elle a répondu à un courrier qui lui a été adressé en novembre par M. Leggeri, et dans lequel il réclamait des instructions claires quant à l’attitude à adopter à l’égard de la Turquie. Celle-ci, qui a orienté massivement des migrants vers la Grèce et la Bulgarie en mars 2020, est aussi soupçonnée par certaines sources d’être à l’origine d’informations sur les refoulements illégaux de migrants.
      « Reproches infondés »

      Le groupe LR, qui bénéficie du soutien tacite d’autres élus du PPE, exige, dès lors, de disposer de tous les échanges entre Frontex et la Commission. La lettre se termine par des questions sur l’éventuel désaccord entre la commissaire Johansson et Frontex au sujet des missions mêmes de l’agence.

      Relayant l’idée que la commissaire serait partisane des « frontières ouvertes » – ce qu’elle conteste – les eurodéputés lui demandent s’il y a, de sa part, « un désaccord de fond » sur la stratégie actuelle de la Commission von der Leyen, qui vise à garantir le « mode de vie européen » ? A savoir la maîtrise des frontières, la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine et la contribution à « la sécurité intérieure ».

      « En instruisant un procès politique au moyen de reproches infondés, vous prendriez le risque de violer les principes fondamentaux de l’Etat de droit, de salir des fonctionnaires intègres et loyaux, de fragiliser la cohérence de l’action européenne », conclut la lettre. Contacté dimanche, le cabinet de Mme Johansson a déclaré avoir reçu la lettre mais ne pas souhaiter réagir immédiatement.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/03/01/la-droite-francaise-au-secours-de-fabrice-leggeri-patron-de-frontex_6071549_

    • Un rapport d’enquête interne peu concluant sur le rôle de Frontex dans des refoulements illégaux de migrants

      Le document présenté lundi s’abstient d’impliquer des membres de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et garde-côtes dans des incidents en mer Egée.

      Un long rapport, lu par Le Monde et présenté, le 1er mars, par un groupe de travail désigné par le conseil d’administration de Frontex, confirme qu’il ne sera décidément pas simple, voire pas possible, de démontrer que des membres de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et garde-côtes ont été impliqués dans des « pushbacks » en mer Egée, des refoulements illégaux de migrants.

      Ce document final, pourtant très attendu, n’apporte aucune conclusion déterminante. D’autant que, sur quatre des cinq incidents encore jugés litigieux (huit ont été classés en janvier), l’enquête se poursuit.

      Sur la base des informations qui lui ont été livrées, le groupe de travail, composé de représentants de diverses institutions européennes et d’Etats membres, formule quelques recommandations qui peuvent être lues comme des critiques implicites du fonctionnement actuel de Frontex. Il prône ainsi une amélioration des rapports et de la surveillance des missions, une utilisation systématique de la vidéo, la recension de toute possible violation des droits humains et la suspension de l’aide apportée aux pays qui ne les respecteraient pas.
      Situations douteuses

      Pour le reste, la liste des « incidents » qui se seraient déroulés entre le 18 avril et le 21 octobre 2020 ne mentionne que les soupçons, parfois lourds mais jugés insuffisants, qui pèsent plutôt, en réalité, sur les gardes-côtes grecs et la marine turque, qui agissent aux limites des eaux territoriales des deux pays. Embarcations chassées, menacées, remorquées : dans certains cas, un navire suédois ou un avion danois mis à la disposition de l’agence ont recensé des situations douteuses, mais le groupe de travail conclut qu’il semble « impossible de les élucider entièrement ». D’autant que ce sont les autorités nationales qui assurent le commandement des opérations.

      Le rapport tient à souligner cependant l’importance de la mission de Frontex, présentée comme la « principale garantie de frontières solides et protégées ». Il y est rappelé aussi que, grâce aux interventions de Frontex, 28 000 personnes ont été sauvées en 2019 et près de 3 000 en 2020, tandis que 10 433 illégaux et 84 trafiquants étaient arrêtés. A propos des incidents considérés comme des « pushbacks » par des journalistes et des ONG, le document invite à considérer qu’aucun décès, aucune disparition et aucune blessure n’y seraient liés.

      Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur exécutif de l’agence, qui doit être entendu jeudi 4 mars par un comité spécial du Parlement européen, pourra se prévaloir de ces conclusions face aux diverses accusations dont il faitl’objet. L’Office de lutte antifraude (OLAF) et la médiatrice de l’Union européenne enquêtent aussi sur la gestion de l’agence, basée à Varsovie, tandis que la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, a réclamé toutes les explications sur l’action en mer Egée.
      Action de la Turquie

      M. Leggeri soulignera sans doute, jeudi, qu’il espère obtenir de la Commission qu’elle lui indique les lignes directrices précises qu’il doit suivre en ce qui concerne, notamment, l’action de la Turquie. Dans les considérations qu’il a formulées à destination du groupe de travail de son conseil d’administration, il rappelle d’ailleurs que les autorités d’Ankara entendent utiliser la migration comme un « levier politique » et il souligne que la Grèce se dit soumise aux « menaces hybrides » du régime turc.

      Soutenu entre autres par la droite française au Parlement, le directeur de Frontex transforme ainsi le débat sur le rôle humanitaire de son agence en une question géostratégique, et il incite la Commission à se positionner par rapport à l’encombrant partenaire avec lequel elle a signé, en 2016, un accord visant à réduire les flux migratoires vers l’Europe.

      Pendant ce temps, la Ligue hellénique des droits de l’homme, l’ONG Legal Centre Lesvos et l’organisation juridique Front-Lex demandent à Frontex « de suspendre immédiatement ou de cesser » ses activités en mer Egée, sous peine d’une action devant la justice européenne. Legal Centre Lesvos aurait documenté, depuis mars 2020, 17 refoulements de plus de 50 migrants entre la Grèce et la Turquie. L’ONG estime aussi que l’agence a enfreint le droit européen et violé la convention de Genève de 1951 relative aux droits des réfugiés.

      Frontex est aussi taxée de complicité dans la « détention sommaire de migrants sur les îles de la mer Egée dans des ports, des bus, des navires, des plages où l’accès aux procédures d’asile leur a été refusé ». Le 12 février, l’ONG allemande Mare Liberum faisait état, pour sa part, d’une « escalade inédite » des refoulements de migrants en mer Egée impliquant Frontex en 2020.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/03/03/un-rapport-d-enquete-interne-peu-concluant-sur-le-role-de-frontex-dans-des-r

    • Le patron de Frontex se défend devant les eurodéputés, Bruxelles maintient la pression

      Le patron de Frontex a souligné jeudi devant des eurodéputés qu’aucune « preuve » d’une implication de l’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE dans des refoulements illégaux de migrants n’avait été établie par une enquête, mais Bruxelles a réitéré ses critiques.

      Le patron de Frontex a souligné jeudi devant des eurodéputés qu’aucune « preuve » d’une implication de l’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE dans des refoulements illégaux de migrants n’avait été établie par une enquête, mais Bruxelles a réitéré ses critiques.

      Ce rapport interne, qui doit être examiné vendredi par le conseil d’administration de Frontex et consulté mercredi par l’AFP, n’a pas permis de « clarifier complètement » les circonstances de plusieurs incidents au cours desquels des refoulements de migrants auraient eu lieu. Il préconise d’ailleurs d’améliorer le système de signalement et de surveillance des missions de l’agence.

      « Il n’y a pas eu de faits étayés ou prouvés pour aboutir à la conclusion que Frontex aurait participé ou se serait livrée à des violations des droits fondamentaux », a déclaré son directeur exécutif, Fabrice Leggeri, devant un groupe d’eurodéputés qui a ouvert sa propre enquête sur ces incidents.

      L’agence est montrée du doigt depuis la publication en octobre 2020 d’une enquête de plusieurs médias l’accusant d’être impliquée avec les garde-côtes grecs dans des incidents de refoulement de bateaux de migrants à la frontière entre la Grèce et la Turquie.

      Ces accusations ont également entraîné une enquête du gendarme européen antifraude, l’Olaf, ainsi que de la médiatrice de l’UE.

      La Commission européenne, membre du conseil d’administration de Frontex aux côtés des 27 Etats membres, s’est montrée critique sur la gestion de l’agence, fustigeant notamment la lenteur du recrutement des officiers chargés de surveiller le respect des droits fondamentaux et des agents devant constituer le nouveau contingent permanent.

      Créée en 2004, Frontex a vu son mandat renforcé en 2019. Elle doit se doter d’agents en uniforme et armés, employés directement par l’agence, et non plus mis à disposition provisoirement par les Etats membres.

      Le directeur exécutif a notamment dit qu’un officier et 40 « moniteurs » chargés de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux étaient en cours de recrutement et que 300 officiers du contingent permanent étaient déployés sur le terrain ou allaient l’être la semaine prochaine.

      La commissaire européenne aux Affaires intérieures Ylva Johansson a toutefois souligné que 700 officiers auraient dû être déployés en janvier.

      Elle a aussi estimé que les « clarifications » sur les accusations de refoulements n’avaient que « trop tardé », et que ce délai n’était « pas bon pour la réputation et la confiance » dans Frontex.

      « Une agence de première classe a besoin d’une gouvernance de première classe », a-t-elle poursuivi, se réjouissant toutefois d’« entendre que beaucoup de choses sont en train d’être réglées ».

      Si des eurodéputés à gauche ont demandé la démission de Fabrice Leggeri, la droite française au Parlement européen a quant à elle pris la défense du patron de Frontex.

      Dans une lettre adressée le 26 février à la responsable suédoise, le président de la délégation française du groupe PPE (droite) François-Xavier Bellamy lui a demandé des « justifications solides et vérifiées » à ses « accusations », dénonçant une « tentative de déstabilisation » du chef de Frontex et « un procès politique ».

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/fil-dactualites/040321/le-patron-de-frontex-se-defend-devant-les-eurodeputes-bruxelles-maintient-

    • Greece accused of ‘shocking’ illegal pushback against refugees at sea

      Lawsuit filed at European court of human rights says group were abandoned in life rafts after some were beaten.

      A lawsuit filed against the Greek state at the European court of human rights accuses Athens of a shocking level of violence in sophisticated inter-agency operations that form part of an illegal pushback strategy to stop the arrival of refugees and migrants.

      The suit, filed by the NGO Legal Centre Lesvos, centres on an incident in October last year in which a fishing boat set off from Marmaris in Turkey for Italy carrying about 200 people, including 40 children and a pregnant woman. The boat ran into difficulty in a storm off the south coast of Crete, leading the captain to radio for assistance.

      The legal case claims that in an operation of unprecedented size and sophistication, instead of helping the stranded people onboard, a Greek search and rescue vessel and two small patrol boats stalled the smuggler’s boat for five hours until speedboats carrying masked commandos arrived. Several passengers claim they were beaten in the ensuing incident.

      Those onboard were separated into two groups and taken to two large coastguard boats, where armed crews of between 10 and 15 men, most wearing balaclavas, searched them and confiscated belongings including phones, passports and money.

      The passengers were then reportedly forced on to several small life rafts, towed back to Turkish waters and abandoned at sea without food, water, life jackets or any means to call for help. By the time they were picked up by the Turkish coastguard, their ordeal had lasted more than 24 hours.

      “It was like watching a movie. The men from the speedboats jumped onboard screaming and shouting, they all had guns and knives and were wearing black and masks,” said Mahmoud, a witness from Syria whose name has been changed.

      “They began beating people with batons, looking for the captain. They punched me in the face and broke my glasses … I understand they don’t want us, but you could send us back to Turkey without the need for violence. When they cut us loose on the rafts we all thought we were going to die,” he said.

      The lawsuit claims the practice of “pushbacks” has become standard for the Greek coastguard since March 2020, when Turkey, in an effort to pressure the EU, told its 4 million registered refugees that it would no longer stop them trying to reach Europe as per a 2016 deal between Ankara and Brussels.

      Athens reacted by temporarily halting all new asylum applications and allegedly employing increasingly brutal tactics to dissuade people in Turkey from making the journey.

      Exact figures are difficult to verify, but rights groups and journalists have recorded hundreds of alleged pushback incidents over the last 12 months. In most cases, people trying to cross the Aegean have been intercepted and towed back to Turkish waters. They are then cut loose either in their own boats, after the Greek coastguard has disabled their engines, or on overcrowded life rafts.

      On several occasions people claim to have been pushed back after landing on Greek soil, and passengers have been abandoned on an uninhabited Turkish islet at least twice, according to reporting by Der Spiegel, Lighthouse Reports and the New York Times.

      In at least one case, the EU border agency, Frontex, is accused of covering up evidence of a Greek pushback operation.

      These collective expulsions, as they are known, are illegal under international law but not under Greek national law. The Guardian’s requests for comment from Greek officials went unanswered. Greece has denied illegality in the past.

      The incident in October stands out because of the reported level of violence involved and the size and scope of the operation, which would have taken hours to coordinate and involved eight Greek vessels and two dozen crew from different agencies.

      “‘Pushback’ isn’t even really the right term. It’s a decision by the authorities to deliberately abandon people at sea putting their lives at risk, with no means to call for rescue and no chance at all to claim asylum,” said Natasha Ntailiani, a Legal Centre Lesvos lawyer representing some of the survivors before the ECHR.

      “It’s a new and disturbing trend characterised by planned and systematic violence, which has increased over the last year in the Aegean region. Even search and rescue vessels and materials are now being used against migrants, which is a remarkable insight into the lengths the Greek authorities are now willing to go to.”

      Testimony from 11 complainants and dozens of pages of collaborating evidence – including geo-located pictures and video, GPS coordinates, and phone and message logs from the ship’s radio, passengers, the Alarm Phone hotline and the Greek and Turkish coastguards – painted a complete and damning picture of the new tactics, the centre said.

      The suit is the fifth LCL has filed at the ECHR in recent years to allege violations of migrant and refugee rights in Greece. Progress is slow, but the applicants hope the latest case will persuade the court that pushbacks, despite the fact they are now reportedly a systemic and regular feature of Greek border policing, are illegal.

      A decision at the court last year that Spain did not breach the rights of two men it expelled from the Melilla enclave on the basis they had tried to enter illegally “as part of a large group” sets a worrying precedent.

      In light of the judgment, Frontex has since asked the European commission if it can refuse to process individual asylum claims if people are travelling in groups, as is often the case in the Aegean.

      “I didn’t even want to go to Greece. We knew that they were harming refugees when they arrive, but it was shocking to experience the reality, which is that Europe doesn’t care at all about human rights and dignity,” said Yara from Damascus, whose name has also been changed. She said she had been traumatised by her experiences on the day the storm hit the fishing boat.

      “Despite all of that, I will still try again. I can’t build a life in Syria or Turkey,” she said.

      Mahmoud echoed Yara’s thoughts. “I got kicked out of Qatar because of the pandemic. I would rather have stayed there,” he said. “If there was a legal way to get to Europe I would take it, but there isn’t. I don’t want to make that journey again, but I will, because I have to.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/26/greece-accused-of-shocking-pushback-against-refugees-at-sea

    • Grèce : refoulements illégaux en Mer Egée

      En Grèce, les « pushbacks » ou refoulements illégaux de potentiels demandeurs d’asile par les garde-côtes grecs vers les eaux turques, se sont systématisés depuis un an.

      Le gouvernement grec se félicite d’avoir réussi à tenir une de ses promesses électorales : réduire le flux de migrants.

      La pratique est en infraction avec le droit maritime et l’obligation de porter assistance aux personnes en détresse en mer, mais aussi au regard du droit européen et international dont l’article 3 de la Convention des Droits de l’Homme stipule l’interdiction du refoulement des réfugiés.

      Informés, le Haut-Commissariat aux Réfugiés de l’ONU et des commissaires européens se disent “alarmés” mais semblent jusqu’à présent bien impuissants à faire respecter le droit d’asile par Athènes. Documentés et dénoncés par des avocats et des ONG internationales, ces refoulements illégaux révèlent des pratiques cruelles et cyniques. Mais rares sont les voix en Grèce à s’élever la voix contre ces renvois aux frontières de l’Europe.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/102791-000-A/grece-refoulements-illegaux-en-mer-egee
      #Samos

    • Message de Claire Rodier via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Dans une interview au Guardian, Gil Arias Fernández, ancien directeur adjoint de Frontex a déclaré qu’il était profondément inquiet de l’atteinte à la réputation de l’agence, de sa décision d’armer les agents et de son incapacité à empêcher l’extrême droite d’infiltrer ses rangs, dans un contexte de mouvements anti-migrants en Europe.

      –—

      Frontex turning ‘blind eye’ to human rights violations, says former deputy

      The former deputy head of Europe’s border and coastguard agency has said the state of the beleaguered force “pains” him and that it is vulnerable to the “alarming” rise of populism across the continent.

      In his first interview since leaving office, #Gil_Arias_Fernández, former deputy director at Frontex and once tipped for the top post, said he was deeply worried about the agency’s damaged reputation, its decision to arm officers, and its inability to stop the far-right infiltrating its ranks, amid anti-migrant movements across Europe.

      “Weapons are not needed for Frontex operations,” he said. “They are more of a problem than a help.”

      Frontex is experiencing the most acute crisis in its 16-year history. The agency is being investigated by the European parliament over allegations of illegal pushbacks of migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean and its head, Fabrice Leggeri, is facing calls to quit over allegations he misled the EU commission. Leggeri has strongly rejected allegations about the agency’s operations.

      Arias Fernández, 65, now retired, lost out on the top role to Leggeri in 2015. He admits he did not get on with Leggeri when they worked together for a year.

      “From the first moment I saw that he had a perhaps excessive eagerness to change things. Maybe it was to put his personal stamp on things,” said Arias Fernández.

      He said decisions made by one of the EU’s most powerful agencies had led to complicity in human rights violations.

      “Frontex pains me,” he said. “Especially for the staff, because they don’t deserve what they are going through. We saw the agency as an instrument to help the member states and the migrants. These events put a dent in all that effort.

      “I do not believe that the agency has proactively violated the rights of migrants, but there are reasons to believe that it has turned a blind eye.”
      Gil Arias Fernández. ‘Frontex pains me,’ he said. Photograph: Jose Bautista/Courtesy of Fundation for Causa

      In January 2015, after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, several European politicians suggested the presence of refugees among the terrorists.

      When the media asked Frontex about any link between refugees and the Paris attack, Arias Fernández, a former police commissioner in Spain, told them there was no evidence.

      Arias Fernández believes this cost him the director’s job.

      The political pressure made the job a tough one, Arias Fernández said. “There is a lot of pressure on the part of certain states to put their people in positions of responsibility. Whether the agency is headed by a Frenchman or a Finn may determine whether there is more or less sensitivity to migration problems. The agency is independent, but ‘independent’ should be put in quotation marks because without a fluid relationship with the [European] commission, you have a hard time.

      “Operations have always been conducted unarmed and there have never been any problems. In operations where Libyan tribal clans smuggling migrants shot in the air to frighten the patrols, even there it was not considered appropriate to carry weapons. In this case, weapons are more a problem than a help. The proposal of carrying weapons came from the European Commission, which I do not know to what extent is influenced by lobbyists in Brussels.

      “There is no filter in the recruitment system. You cannot prevent people with extremist ideas from entering, unless they clearly express their position in favour of hate crimes, xenophobia and racism.”

      Arias Fernández pointed to the dearth of human rights training for Frontex officers. “But lack of information should not be used to justify certain things,” he said. “The incidents under investigation were carried out by Greek units following the instructions of their commanders.

      “When there are irregularities like this in operations, it is usually because there are instructions from the authorities responsible for coordinating the operation. The decision to turn back a boat with migrants is not taken by an officer but is an order from above.”
      A rescue boat escorts a dinghy with migrants from Afghanistan as a Frontex ship patrols off Lesbos in Greece. Photograph: Costas Baltas/Reuters

      He said he appreciated borders needed a certain level of security to know who was entering but added that immigration was vitally important for the survival of all European states.

      “I come to this conclusion because there are studies that show that if we do not resort to immigration and other incentives, the EU will have serious problems and the welfare state will be a chimera. We should learn these lessons. In the first half of the pandemic, migrants saved our bacon.

      “In Europe, movements that use populism are growing at an alarming rate, and the fight against immigrants is one of those arguments. States are excessively prudent in not touching this issue. The commission presented the new pact on migration and asylum, which contains no proposals for channelling migration through legal channels. They tried to satisfy all the blocs, Visegrád [Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia], southern states, northern states, and I fear that in the end it satisfies no one.”

      Arias Fernández said the lack of migrants being allowed into Europe would have a severe economic impact amid an ageing workforce: “Who will pay the pensions of the growing number of pensioners?”

      A Frontex spokesman denied the agency ignored migrants’ rights. “The executive director of Frontex has written several letters to the Greek authorities to address incidents that raised his concerns. Two inquiries, including one that was conducted by representatives of national authorities and the European Commission, have found no evidence of violations of human rights in Frontex operations in Greece.”

      The spokesman also denied that officers had always conducted operations while unarmed, saying: “Before this year, Frontex relied exclusively on officers provided by national authorities, who brought their own weapons to the agency’s operational activities. Today, Frontex has its own operational arm, the standing corps, whose core is made up of officers directly employed by the agency who require weapons for self-defence and to protect others.

      “Since Mr Arias left more than half-a-decade ago, Frontex has undergone a massive transformation that included a much bigger focus on cross-border crime, which means a greater chance that our officers may encounter life-threatening situations while patrolling the borders or performing other duties.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jun/11/frontex-turning-blind-eye-to-human-rights-violations-says-former-deputy

      #extrême_droite

    • Human Rights in Europe are at a crossroads

      It is not a ‘one-off’. It did not take place six, twelve or eighteen months ago, and now things are better.

      It was just one of 491 incidents since March 2020, in which 14,720 men, women and children have been denied their fundamental human rights by a coastguard armed with assault rifles and behaving like a sea-militia ‘defending’ Greece against innocent, unarmed, and peaceful men, women and children attempting to find safe places to live.

      In the morning of 10 June, a boat carrying 31 people travelled towards Kos. Closing in on Ag. Fokas, on the south east side of the island, the boat was approached by several vessels from the Hellenic coast guard, and forced back towards Turkey.

      If anyone is wondering what a pushback at sea looks like, this is how it’s being carried out. And it is illegal.

      https://videopress.com/v/vPX3Vme3

      This shocking, immoral and illegal practice has become ‘normal’ in the Aegean Sea. Greece carries it out without let or hindrance, while the EU seems unable or unwilling to act.

      Human Rights in Europe are at a crossroads.

      According to the Greek government and Frontex, this isn’t a pushback, but a ‘prevention of entry’.

      There are two major problems with this assessment. First, under international law, no country is allowed to ‘prevent the entry’ of men, women and children not suspected of any crime (as these people are not) and who intend to apply for asylum. Even if the people in this boat had not entered Greek waters, the Greek coastguard would have broken international law, by forcibly preventing people who wish to apply for asylum, from entering Greece.

      But in fact, secondly, these people had in fact already entered Greek water. It cannot be a ‘prevention of entry’ if people have already ‘entered’: it is a pushback. And it is absolutely illegal.

      In the video we can hear one of the officers on the Hellenic coast guard vessel ΛΣ150, say “everyone abide by the rules, because he’s filming”. It’s disturbing that this even needed to be said. First, because what would have happened had this person not had the presence of mind, and technology, to film? What would have happened then? How would the heavily-armed coastguard have responded to these innocent, unarmed people trying to exercise their fundamental human rights? Why did this coastguard, who noticed a person filming, need to advise his colleagues to abide by the law? What did he fear they would do?

      Secondly, the disturbing images we can see in this video are in fact not ‘abiding by the rules’. It appears the coastguard does not understand – or perhaps accept – the rules. This is a video of the Greek coastguard breaking the law, even as one member of the coastguard warns his colleagues not to do something even worse.

      Nor is this an isolated incident.

      It’s how the Hellenic coastguard – and in some cases also Frontex – have been operating for the last 15 months.

      We must demand that Notis Mitarachis, and Fabrice Leggeri, are held to account for their continued, immoral, unacceptable, and illegal activity in the Aegean Sea. We must demand that the EU – or if, as increasingly seems to be the case, the EU is unwilling – the wider international community takes legal action, now, to prevent the Greek coastguard, the Greek government, Frontex and the EU, breaking international law, and shaming the whole of Europe in the process.

      None of this is acceptable. None of it is even beneficial to either Greece or the EU.

      The time to stop this is now. The time to act is now. The EU can and must act. If it refuses, it is time for the international court to prosecute Mitarachis, Nea Dimokratia, Leggeri, Frontex, and the European Commission. Anything else is to further damage, and indeed make a laughing stock of international law, and all our human rights.

      https://aegeanboatreport.com/2021/06/28/human-rights-in-europe-are-at-a-crossroads

    • Communiqué de presse : Frontex a besoin d’une #réorganisation radicale

      Les députés du groupe de travail sur le contrôle de Frontex, sous l’égide de l’eurodéputée écologiste Tineke Strik, ont présenté aujourd’hui en commission des libertés civiles (LIBE) du Parlement européen, le rapport sur le rôle de Frontex dans le #refoulement illégal des réfugiés. Un des principaux enseignements est la nécessité d’ une réorganisation radicale de l’agence pour qu’elle respecte les droits humains.

      L’enquête menée par les eurodéputés confirme que Frontex a manqué à ses responsabilités en matière de protection des droits humains aux frontières de l’UE. L’agence avait connaissance de violations des droits fondamentaux commises dans des pays de l’UE avec lesquels elle coopère, et n’a pas réagi face à ces allégations. La direction de Frontex a sciemment ignoré les rapports des journalistes d’investigation et d’ONG, les avertissements internes du personnel et même les séquences vidéo dans lesquelles ces violations étaient visibles.

      Saskia Bricmont, députée européenne Vert/ALE, membre de la commission LIBE et responsable du rapport sur la décharge budgétaire Frontex, déclare :

      “En ne faisant pas respecter les droits fondamentaux aux frontières de l’UE, Frontex a failli à son devoir. L’agence a besoin d’une réorganisation radicale. Je salue le travail d’enquête mené par mes collègues : il est essentiel d’identifier les lacunes et les fautes afin d’y remédier au plus vite.”

      “Le rapport dévoile que Frontex était non seulement conscient des violations des droits fondamentaux, mais n’a de surcroît pas réagi de manière appropriée face à son obligation de prévenir les violations des droits humains. En dépit des différents signaux d’alerte provenant d’acteurs internes et externes, l’agence a fait preuve d’inactivité manifeste, voire de réticence à agir. Nous sommes particulièrement préoccupés par le respect des normes en matière de droits humains dans les opérations menées en Grèce et en Hongrie. Nous demandons au directeur exécutif de suspendre immédiatement les opérations en Hongrie et d’évaluer les opérations en Grèce.”

      “Il existe des signes clairs de mauvaise gestion : les rapports internes faisant état de violations des droits fondamentaux ont été ignorés, le recrutement des agents spécialisés dans les droits fondamentaux a été retardé et reste incomplet. Nous ne croyons pas en la capacité de l’actuel directeur exécutif, Fabrice Leggeri, à résoudre les problèmes que nous avons exposés. M. Leggeri a induit le Parlement européen en erreur à plusieurs reprises et a encouragé une culture d’impunité, tout en continuant à nier l’existence des refoulements illégaux.”

      “Notre rapport exhorte le Conseil d’administration de Frontex à reconsidérer la position de M. Leggeri et de l’ensemble de la direction générale. Dans un tel contexte, la décharge budgétaire ne doit pas être octroyée à l’agence. Par ailleurs, il est temps que les États membres assument leur responsabilité commune dans la défense des valeurs européennes en matière de gestion des frontières et le respect des droits fondamentaux.”

      https://twitter.com/saskiabricmont/status/1415611092894724097

      Recommandations du #rapport :

      – Frontex ne doit effectuer des opérations conjointes qu’avec des pays qui agissent dans le plein respect des droits fondamentaux. Pour remplir cette obligation, Frontex devrait surveiller l’ensemble de la zone opérationnelle et enquêter sur tous les incidents ou autres indications de non-conformité.

      – Si un refoulement est signalé à Frontex, l’agence ne devrait pas seulement enquêter en s’appuyant sur les réponses des autorités gouvernementales, mais également vérifier les informations fournies.

      – La Commission européenne devrait conditionner le financement européen de la gestion des frontières au respect des droits fondamentaux par l’État membre concerné.

      https://saskiabricmont.eu/frontex-besoin-reorganisation-radicale
      #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés

      –—

      Réaction de Frontex :

      Frontex welcomes report by the Scrutiny Working Group

      Frontex welcomes the report by the Scrutiny Working Group and its conclusions which reaffirmed that there is no evidence of the Agency’s involvement in any violation of human rights.

      The agency has been working with the Parliament’s scrutiny group in an open and transparent manner, sharing information and receiving the MEPs during an online visit to Frontex. The agency remains committed to cooperating with the European Parliament.

      “I acknowledge the conclusion of Parliament’s fact-finding scrutiny and its recommendations. Frontex is a bigger, more complex organisation than a couple of years ago, so a system that was designed in the past needs to undergo further transformation. The report underlined the challenges of the Agency’s transformation in a more and more complex security environment,” said Frontex Director Fabrice Leggeri.

      “We are determined to uphold the highest standards of border control within our operations. We will look into the recommendations and see how we can implement them to further strengthen the respect of fundamental rights in all our activities,” he added.

      Frontex has completed two stages of the inquiry into last autumn’s media allegations. Both an internal inquiry and the report by a special working group appointed by the Management Board (with Commission and Member states representatives) have found no evidence of any Frontex involvement in violation of human rights.

      The agency has already taken on board many of the recommendations issued by the working group, upgraded its reporting mechanism and reinforced its operational coordination centres to improve information exchange. It will continue working towards an effective and transparent management of EU external borders in full respect of fundamental rights.

      Recent events at the European Union’s external borders have shown that Frontex is an essential assistance for Member States and the whole EU in situations of increased migratory pressure. Our security environment is increasingly volatile and complex.

      Today, Frontex has officially launched its rapid border intervention at Lithuania’s border with Belarus and deployed standing corps officers and equipment to help secure EU’s common external border.

      https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/frontex-welcomes-report-by-the-scrutiny-working-group-0AQJWY
      https://twitter.com/Frontex/status/1415654854412877824

    • EU border agency ‘has failed to protect asylum seekers’ rights’

      Author of European parliament report says Frontex agency’s director should resign or be sacked

      The EU border agency has failed to protect the human rights of asylum seekers, according to a damning European parliament report on the organisation.

      After a four-month investigation by MEPs the report’s author, Tineke Strik, told the Guardian, that Frontex “did not fulfil its human rights obligations and therefore did not address and therefore did not prevent future violations”.

      Strik, a Dutch Green MEP, wants the agency’s director, Fabrice Leggeri, to resign or be fired, but the special cross-party group of eight MEPs, spanning rightwing nationalists to the radical left, that was convened to investigate Frontex has not made that call.

      Speaking before the report was released on Thursday, Strik continued: “We should consider in the end, can we have confidence in this executive director to really implement those recommendations [in her report] and really change it into a human rights sensitive agency? My group [Green MEPs], we don’t have confidence in him any more. We think it would be sound if the management board would draw the same conclusion and start the search for a new executive director.”

      Once an obscure EU agency, Frontex has become a central pillar of EU border management. After more than a 1.2 million people sought asylum in the EU in 2015, European leaders agreed to give the Warsaw-based organisation more staff and money, a point of consensus in the often fraught EU debate on how to manage migration. By 2027, Frontex will have 10,000 border and coastguards, while its budget has already increased more than 19-fold since its creation in 2006.

      But the agency has come under growing scrutiny over its role in alleged pushbacks in the Aegean Sea, with dozens of human rights organisations calling for it to be abolished.

      Last year Frontex was accused of complicity in forcing back asylum seekers in breach of international law, after video footage emerged of one of its ships creating waves that drove back a dingy in the Aegean Sea crammed with people. That footage came through a joint investigation by Lighthouse Reports, Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, ARD and TV Asahi, which said it had found six incidents where the agency was directly involved in a pushback in the Aegean or in close proximity to one.

      The committee said they had not found “conclusive evidence” that the agency was involved in pushbacks but concluded Frontex had failed to investigate such reports promptly. “As a result, Frontex did not prevent these violations, nor reduced the risk of future fundamental rights violations,” said the report.

      Strik said it was “pretty clear that [Frontex] were at least aware of what was going on” in the Aegean Sea. The agency’s investigations were “very superficial”, she said. “They asked for a response from the [Greek] government and when the government denied [pushbacks] the case was closed.”

      She said Frontex’s modus operandi was to rely on the word of the EU member state it was working with. “They end up asking the government, the host member state, and they almost always accept this response. Our conclusion is that Frontex did not fulfil its human rights obligations and therefore did not address and therefore did not prevent future violations.”

      The agency had repeatedly failed to respond to reports of rights violations from inside the organisation and external organisations, the MEPs said.

      The blame is placed largely on Leggeri, a former senior official in France’s interior ministry in charge of illegal migration, who has been the agency’s executive director since 2015. He has been singled out for criticism for shoring up his own power base within the agency, while failing to recruit all 40 fundamental rights monitors as required by EU law.

      MEPs found that Leggeri had appointed 63 staff to his private office, a number that far exceeds the average. By contrast, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has 30 staff in her private office. “We contrast that in the way he acts with the monitors, only delaying and undermining, yet he provides for an amazing number of staff measures for his own cabinet,” Strik said.

      The MEPs concluded that Leggeri had delayed the recruitment of three executive directors required under EU law that might have checked his power.

      “That results in a complete lack of checks and balances within the organisation and of course we blame the executive director for that, but also the management board because the management board is overall responsible for good governance in the organisation,” Strik said.

      EU member states, she said, needed to make sure their representatives on the Frontex management board had the required expertise in fundamental rights and a direct line to ministers.

      “One of the problems,” she said, was that Frontex was conceived as a security rather than a rights organisation. EU member states found the agency reassuring: “[They] talk about threats at the border. They always call for Frontex. Maybe as reassurance for their own population, ‘we have secured your borders and we have made you safe’.”

      She said there was a perception inside and outside the agency that upholding human rights was in conflict with border control. “Some of the actors still perceive that when you start acting on fundamental rights, then you become less effective on border control … [Frontex] needs to do both and it’s possible to do both at the same time, so it’s a non-discussion actually.”

      The Guardian has contacted Frontex for a response to the European parliament’s report. The agency has always denied any involvement or knowledge of illegal pushbacks.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/eu-border-agency-has-failed-to-protect-asylum-seekers-rights

    • Frontex wusste von Menschenrechtsverletzungen – und tat nichts

      Monatelang haben EU-Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier SPIEGEL-Enthüllungen zu illegalen Pushbacks von Flüchtlingen in der Ägäis untersucht. Der Bericht ist eine Abrechnung mit Frontex-Direktor Leggeri – er soll belastendes Material vernichtet haben.

      Monatelang haben EU-Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier SPIEGEL-Enthüllungen zu illegalen Pushbacks von Flüchtlingen in der Ägäis untersucht. Der Bericht ist eine Abrechnung mit Frontex-Direktor Leggeri – er soll belastendes Material vernichtet haben.

      Der europäischen Grenzschutzagentur Frontex lagen Beweise für mutmaßlich illegale Pushbacks durch griechische Grenzschützer vor, die Agentur hat es jedoch »versäumt, die Grundrechtsverletzungen anzusprechen und zu verhindern«. Das ist das Ergebnis einer monatelangen Untersuchung des Europaparlaments.

      Eine Prüfgruppe unter Beteiligung aller Fraktionen hat untersucht, was Frontex von den illegalen Pushbacks von Flüchtlingsbooten in der Ägäis wusste – und ob Frontex-Chef Fabrice Leggeri angemessen auf die Rechtsbrüche reagiert hat. Der Bericht der Arbeitsgruppe, den der SPIEGEL vorab einsehen konnte, liest sich wie eine Abrechnung mit Leggeri. Er zeichnet das Bild eines Direktors, der sich für die Einhaltung von Menschenrechten an den EU-Außengrenzen kaum interessiert und alles tut, um Verstöße zu vertuschen. Auf 17 Seiten listen die Abgeordneten seine Verfehlungen auf.

      Leggeri ignorierte sämtliche Hinweise

      Frontex habe öffentliche Berichte über Menschenrechtsverletzungen an den EU-Grenzen generell abgetan, heißt es im Report. Auch auf interne Informationen über mutmaßliche Rechtsbrüche habe die Agentur nicht angemessen reagiert. Leggeri ignoriere die Stellungnahmen und Anfragen seiner Grundrechtsbeauftragten und des sogenannten Konsultativforums. Diese sollen eigentlich dafür sorgen, dass die Agentur die Rechte von Asylsuchenden achtet.

      Trotz zahlreicher Berichte über mutmaßliche Rechtsbrüche in der Ägäis habe Leggeri nie umfassend erwogen, den Frontex-Einsatz zu beenden, oder überlegt, wie er die Menschenrechtsverletzungen verhindern könne. »Im Gegenteil, der Exekutivdirektor behauptet weiterhin, dass ihm keine Informationen über Grundrechtsverletzungen bekannt sind«, schreiben die Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier.

      Darüber hinaus habe Leggeri das Parlament lange Zeit nicht angemessen informiert. Bei seinen Auftritten im Ausschuss habe der Frontex-Direktor Informationen über einzelne Pushbacks verschwiegen. In mehreren Fällen seien Grenzbeamte davon abgebracht worden, Rechtsbrüche mittels eines sogenannten »Serious Incident Reports« an die Frontex-Führung zu melden. Selbst die Einstellung von 40 Grundrechtsbeobachtern, die die Grenzbeamten kontrollieren sollen, habe Leggeri erheblich verzögert. Sie seien noch immer nicht vollständig rekrutiert.

      Frontex machte sich bei Menschenrechtsverletzungen zum Komplizen

      Die Untersuchung des Europaparlaments ist eine Reaktion auf Enthüllungen des SPIEGEL. Gemeinsame Recherchen mit den Medienorganisationen Lighthouse Reports, Bellingcat und dem ARD-Magazin »Report Mainz« zeigten, dass Frontex in der Ägäis in illegale Pushbacks verwickelt ist und sich bei griechischen Menschenrechtsverletzungen zum Komplizen gemacht hatte.

      Frontex-Beamte, darunter auch deutsche Bundespolizisten, stoppen in der Ägäis Flüchtlingsboote, bevor sie die griechischen Inseln erreichen, und übergeben sie an die griechische Küstenwache. Die Grenzschützer setzen die Geflüchteten anschließend systematisch auf dem Meer aus – entweder auf aufblasbaren Rettungsflößen oder auf Schlauchbooten, in denen sie den Motor entfernt haben. So stellen sie sicher, dass die Flüchtlinge nicht erneut griechische Gewässer erreichen können. Oft wenden die griechischen Beamten bei den Aktionen Gewalt an, stechen auf die Schlauchboote ein oder schießen ins Wasser. Bei mindestens sieben Fällen waren Frontex-Einheiten bei solchen Pushbacks in der Nähe oder in sie verstrickt.

      Pushbacks im Mittelmeer: Wie Frontex in Verbrechen verstrickt ist

      Griechische Grenzschützer schleppen Flüchtlinge systematisch aufs offene Meer zurück. Recherchen des SPIEGEL und seiner Partner zeigen, wie Frontex in die illegalen Operationen verwickelt ist. Sehen Sie hier den Film.

      In der Nacht vom 18. auf den 19. April zeichnete Frontex aus der Luft auf, wie die griechische Küstenwache Flüchtlinge auf ein Boot ohne Motor setzte und wegfuhr – ein klarer Rechtsverstoß, der die Menschen in Lebensgefahr brachte. Die Aufarbeitung des Pushbacks vom 18. April übernahm Leggeri persönlich. Dem Parlament verschwieg er den Pushback zunächst. Stattdessen stufte er den Vorfall nachträglich so ein, dass die Grundrechtsbeauftragte der Agentur fortan nicht mehr beteiligt war.

      Leggeri ließ offenbar belastendes Material vernichten

      Einer der brisantesten Vorwürfe im Bericht des Europaparlaments bezieht sich auf den Pushback in jener Nacht. Demnach wies Leggeri die Grundrechtsbeauftragte persönlich an, alle Informationen zu löschen, die sie zu dem Vorfall gesammelt hatte. Nach SPIEGEL-Informationen soll dies aus internen E-Mails hervorgehen, die die Abgeordneten einsehen konnten.

      https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/gefluechtete-in-griechenland-frontex-wusste-von-menschenrechtsverletzungen-u

  • L’Ours Tulipe de Sophie Guerrive

    Publié le 12 mai 2020 (lendemain du déconfinement) :

    L’ours « Tulipe », à fleur de peau

    Avec son héros solitaire et amoureux, #Sophie_Guerrive livre une merveilleuse fable philosophique qui renvoie le lecteur à ses propres tourments.

    https://next.liberation.fr/images/2016/11/25/l-ours-tulipe-a-fleur-de-peau_1531035

    #bd #bande_dessinée

  • [Saturday Night Panik] SNP S06 EP 05 Invites : #Dj_Anaïs & #Sophie_Dewulf
    http://www.radiopanik.org/emissions/saturday-night-panik/snp-s06-ep-05-invites-dj-anais-sophie-dewulf

    Il fait très chaud aujourd’hui ! Tout doucement l’été arrive ! Ce soir elle nous fera l’honneur de faire monter la température avec son DJ set à partir de 00:00 sur les ondes du 105.4 FM ! Rendez vous à partir de 23:30 avec Anaïs et Sophie Dewulf qui viendra nous expliquer la violence policière dont malheureusement elle a été victime !

    #Radio_Panik #SNPanik_Mix #Radio_Panik,SNPanik_Mix,Dj_Anaïs,Sophie_Dewulf
    http://www.radiopanik.org/media/sounds/saturday-night-panik/snp-s06-ep-05-invites-dj-anais-sophie-dewulf_09293__1.mp3

  • Inch’Allah Peut-être : une série de 8 petits reportages légers, d’une douzaines de minutes chacun, sur une bande de jeunes Palestiniens, francophones et francophiles.

    J’ai trouvé ça assez sympa, même si (ou peut-être parce que...) ils ne sont pas très politisés, pleins de contradictions, issus de la bourgeoisie palestinienne (toute relative), avec leurs problèmes intimes, et donc pas forcément très représentatifs de l’ensemble des problèmes de la population palestinienne.

    Mais c’est un portrait inhabituel de la jeunesse palestinienne, où transparaît quand même le Mur, l’occupation et ses injustices...

    Inch’Allah Peut-être
    Sophie Vernet, TV5 Monde, 2019
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdeL1gXKY5_nuPBL9JtMFhNNUfhWYozP7

    #Palestine #documentaire #Sophie_Vernet

  • 22 février 1943 - Décapitation de la « #Rose_blanche » - Herodote.net
    https://www.herodote.net/22_fevrier_1943-evenement-19430222.php

    Le 22 février 1943, trois étudiants allemands d’une vingtaine d’années sont guillotinés dans la prison de Stadelheim, près de Munich. Leur crime est d’avoir dénoncé le nazisme dans le cadre d’un mouvement clandestin, « La Rose blanche » (Die #Weiße_Rose en allemand).

    Animés par une foi religieuse intense, Hans et #Sophie_Scholl (protestants) ont constitué leur mouvement de résistance avec trois étudiants en médecine que liait une solide amitié : Alexander Schmorell (25 ans, orthodoxe et fils d’un médecin de Munich) ; Christoph Probst (23 ans, marié et père de trois jeunes enfants), et Willi Graf (24 ans, catholique). Il fut aussi rejoint par Traute Lafrenz, une amie de Hans.

    La rose s’épanouit

    En juin 1942, alors que #Hitler était au sommet de sa puissance, le petit groupe décida d’appeler les étudiants de Munich à la résistance contre le régime nazi, qualifié de « dictature du mal ».

    En moins de quinze jours, les jeunes gens rédigèrent et diffusèrent quatre tracts, signés « La Rose blanche » (Die Weiße Rose). Les tracts faisaient référence à d’éminents penseurs (Schiller, Goethe, Novalis, Lao Tseu, Aristote) et citaient parfois la Bible. Leurs lecteurs étaient invités à participer à une « chaîne de résistance de la pensée » en les reproduisant et en les envoyant à leur tour au plus grand nombre possible de gens.

    #nazisme

  • @touti et @tintin proposait de faire une carte autour des ressources qui s’accumulent autour de #Matzneff
    https://seenthis.net/messages/817289#message817529
    Comme l’idée me plait bien j’ouvre un message dédié en espérant @touti et @tintin que ca vous dérange pas.

    Pour la carte des réseaux d’influence. Il y a les listes des pétitionnaires sur wikipédia

    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9titions_en_France_concernant_la_majorit%C3%A9_sexuelle

    On peu voire qu’il y a 3 pétitions. Plusieurs personnes ont signé les 3 pétitions. Comment vous voyez les choses ? Est-ce qu’il faut mettre en valeur ?
    celleux qui sont dans les 3 pétitions,
    celleux qui ont changé de discours et celleux qui n’ont pas changer,
    celleux qui sont par ailleur auteurs de féminicides (Altusser) , de viols(Matzneff),
    celleux qui sont de l’académie française (il y a en une bonne brouette)
    les organiser selon les idées politiques entre pedophobes de gauches vs pedophobes de droite
    Les épinglés avec les différentes citations qui montrent que ce ne sont pas des simples signataires mais des militant·es

    J’avais pensé à un #bingo des arguments mais en commencant à l’écrire ici je me suis dit que ca serait surtout utile à des pédocriminels pour se trouver des excuses du coup j’ai laissé tombé. Vos avis sont bienvenus là dessus aussi. Je vais essayé de me changer un peu les idées.

    • Louis Althusser - Assassine Hélène Rytmann sa compagne en 1980

      Jean-Paul Aron, écrit dans le nouvel obs - ca semble etre un lacanien - un pote de D’Ormesson - Ponte du CNRS - il est mort du SIDA en 1987 - on ne saura pas combien d’enfants il aura emené dans la tombe avec lui.
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Aron

      Roland Barthes,

      André Baudry, fondateur de la revue ARCADI ( ou on retrouve Foucault) et du réseau David et Jonhatan il semble avoir milité pour les gays catholiques - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Baudry

      Simone de Beauvoir - renvoyé du lycée Molière ou elle donnais des cours en 1939 et l’éducation nationale en 1943 pour détournement de mineurs.
      https://seenthis.net/messages/817770

      Jean-Claude Besret, un théologien catholique - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Besret

      Jean-Louis Bory, Réseau Arcadi et Front homosexuel d’action révolutionnaire (FHAR)

      Bertrand Boulin, un éducateur spécialisé alcoolique rubircard sur europe 1- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Boulin

      François Chatelet, époux de la soeur à Jospin « Il fut, avec Michel Foucault et Gilles Deleuze, à l’origine du Département de philosophie du Centre universitaire expérimental de Vincennes dite université de Vincennes, future université Paris VIII, le cofondateur du Collège international de philosophie et professeur à l’Institut supérieur des carrières artistiques (ICART). »
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Ch%C3%A2telet_(philosophe)

      Patrice Chéreau, il a l’air proche de Jospin, il a présidé à Canne https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Ch%C3%A9reau

      Copi, Militant gay, nouvel obs, hara-kiri, charlie hebdo,
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copi

      Alain Cuny, https://seenthis.net/messages/817814#message818359

      Gilles Deleuze,

      Jacques Derrida,

      Françoise Dolto, https://seenthis.net/messages/688632

      Michel Foucault, il a tout de même refusé de signé la première pétition écrite par Matzneff

      Félix Guattari, Je retrouve pas sa lettre publié avec Levi-strauss contre la féminisation de la langue - mais en pensant à Levi-strauss et au structuralistes je me dit qu’il y en a pas mal des structuralistes par ici - et Levi-strauss fait reposé toute sa théorie sur le prétendue interdit de l’inceste - alors que l’interdit c’est que les victimes parlent pas que les auteurs violent.

      Michel Leiris,

      Gabriel Matzneff, je met celui là mais il y en a un paquet sur seenthis https://seenthis.net/messages/817715

      Bernard Muldworf,

      Christiane Rochefort, ca me rend triste de la trouvé ici mais elle est présente dans les 3 pétitions pedosexuelles

      Alain Robbe-Grillet,

      ne fait pas mystère de son attirance pour les adolescentes de treize ou quatorze ans

      https://www.lexpress.fr/culture/livre/le-dernier-tabou-la-pedophilie_805287.html

      Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir faisait du #grooming pour lui

      le docteur Pierre Simon

      Philippe Sollers.

      Dennis Altman (en),

      Claude Bardos,

      le pasteur G. Berner,

      Christian Bourgeois,

      Christine Buci-Glucksmann,

      Jean-Pierre Colin,

      Dominique Desanti,

      Jean-Toussaint Desanti,

      Bernard Dort,

      Françoise d’Eaubonne,

      Philippe Gavi,

      André Glucksmann,

      Renaud Goyon,

      Daniel Guérin,

      Pierre Hahn,

      Jean-Luc Hennig,

      Christian Hennion,

      Guy Hocquenghem, https://seenthis.net/messages/505807

      Roland Jaccard, l’un des fondateurs de Causeur

      Pierre Klossowski,

      Anne Laborit,

      Madeleine Laïk,

      Georges Lapassade,

      Dominique Lecourt,

      Jacques Lefort,

      Michel Lobrot,

      Jean-François Lyotard,

      Michel Mardore,

      Dionys Mascolo,

      Gérard Molina,

      Vincent Monteil,

      Nicole Nicolas,

      Marc Pierret,

      Jacques Rancière,

      Claude et Olivier Revault d’Allonnes,

      Jean Ristat,

      Gilles Sandier,

      René Schérer, à l’air actif sur le sujet https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/mai-68/20180406.OBS4756/l-apologie-de-la-pedophilie-face-noire-de-mai-68.html
      https://www.humanite.fr/node/196102

      Victoria Thérame,

      Hélène Védrine et les Drs Frits Bernard,

      Boegner,

      Cabrol,

      Challou, Maurice Eme, Pierrette Garreau, R. Gentis, Michel Meignant, Jean Nicolas, Séguier, Torrubia.

    • La première pétition de 1977 semble avoir été écrite par Matzneff lui même

      La quête des signatures fut également menée par Matzneff lui-même, en un temps très court, avec l’aide de Guy Hocquenghem. La plupart des personnes contactées se montrèrent favorables ; il n’y eut que de rares refus (Marguerite Duras, Hélène Cixous, Xavière Gauthier, Michel Foucault entre autres).

      Une lettre ouverte fut publiée dans Le Monde sous le titre « À propos d’un procès », la veille du procès de trois Français (Bernard Dejager, Jean-Claude Gallien et Jean Burckhardt), tous accusés d’avoir eu des relations sexuelles avec des filles et des garçons de 13 et 14 ans dans l’affaire dite « de Versailles »3.

      Ce « communiqué » présente comme « scandaleux » la durée de plus de trois ans de détention provisoire des trois hommes, arrêtés à l’automne 1973, « pour instruire une simple affaire de "mœurs" où les enfants n’ont pas été victimes de la moindre violence ». Il juge disproportionnées les peines encourues par les adultes pour des relations sexuelles avec des adolescents de 13 ou 14 ans, alors que la loi reconnaît une capacité de discernement aux adolescents, qui peuvent être jugés et condamnés à partir de l’âge de 13 ans3. Le texte relève aussi que des filles de 13 ans ont le droit de se faire prescrire la pilule en France3.

      ci dessous la liste ou on retrouve bcp de doublons

      Claude d’Allonnes
      Louis Aragon
      Roland Barthes
      Simone de Beauvoir
      Judith Belladona
      Michel Bon (également psychosociologue)
      Jean-Louis Bory
      Bertrand Boulin (fils du ministre RPR Robert Boulin)
      François Châtelet
      Patrice Chéreau
      Jean-Pierre Colin
      Copi
      Michel Cressole
      Alain Cuny
      Fanny Deleuze
      Gilles Deleuze
      Bernard Dort
      Françoise d’Eaubonne (militante féministe)
      Dr Maurice Eme (psychiatre)
      Jean-Pierre Faye
      Dr Pierrette Garrou (psychiatre)
      Philippe Gavi (journaliste)
      Dr Pierre-Edmond Gay (psychanalyste)
      Dr Claire Gellman (psychologue)
      Dr Robert Gellman (psychiatre)
      André Glucksmann
      Félix Guattari
      Daniel Guérin (militant anarchiste)
      Pierre Guyotat
      Pierre Hahn
      Jean-Luc Hennig (journaliste)
      Christian Hennion (journaliste)
      Jacques Henric
      Guy Hocquenghem
      Dr Bernard Kouchner
      Françoise Laborie
      Jack Lang
      Georges Lapassade
      Madeleine Laïk
      Raymond Lepoutre
      Michel Leiris
      Jean-François Lyotard
      Dionys Mascolo
      Gabriel Matzneff
      Catherine Millet (libératrice d’importuns)
      Vincent Monteil
      Dr Bernard Muldworf (psychiatre et membre du PCF)
      Négrepont
      Marc Pierret
      Francis Ponge
      Anne Querrien
      Grisélidis Réal
      François Regnault
      Claude Revault d’Allonnes
      Olivier Revault d’Allonnes
      Christiane Rochefort
      Danielle Sallenave
      Pierre Samuel
      Gilles Sandier
      Jean-Paul Sartre
      René Schérer
      Philippe Sollers
      Gérard Soulier
      Victoria Thérame (journaliste)
      Marie Thonon
      Catherine Valabrègue
      Dr Gérard Vallès (psychiatre)
      Hélène Védrine
      Jean-Marie Vincent
      Jean-Michel Wilhelm

      Le nombre de psychiatres, psychanalystes et psychologues laisse imaginé les dégâts causé sur les victimes.

    • Pour la dernière je trouve pas de liste, seul 3 noms émégent

      En mars 1979, une lettre est publiée dans la page courrier du journal Libération, en soutien à Gérard R., alors accusé de crime sexuel sur des enfants et attendant son procès depuis dix-huit mois. La lettre rapporte que Gérard R. vit avec des jeunes filles de 6 à 12 ans « dont l’air épanoui montre aux yeux de tous, y compris leurs parents, le bonheur qu’elles trouvent en lui »10. L’affirmation qu’une fillette de 6 ans pouvait donner un consentement éclairé à des relations sexuelles avec un adulte et qu’elle en serait épanouie fut signée par 63 personnes, dont Pascal Bruckner , Georges Moustaki et Christiane Rochefort .

      Dans ce livre publié en 2004 on peu voir que les noms sont dissimulés et qu’i est déconseillé de les chercher et il est expliqué que le droit ne protege pas les mineurs en 2004 plus qu’en 1977... et pas plus qu’en 2020 d’ailleurs.
      https://books.google.fr/books?id=ISmxqy25DFoC&pg=PT18&lpg=PT18&dq=G%C3%A9rard+R.+signataire+p%C

    • Sur le site de BHL y’a un paquet de signataires pour Polanski, avec des personnes qu’on imaginait pas :/

      Jean-Luc Godard
      Mathieu Amalric
      Xavier Beauvois
      Agnès Varda
      Bertrand Tavernier
      Olivier Assayas
      Jean-Stéphane Bron
      Patricio Guzman
      Jean Paul Civeyrac
      Katell Quillévéré
      Cristi Puiu
      Louis Garrel

    • ouh là, ça va être chaud... c’est hyper compliqué... chai pas, rancière a peut-être signé un truc à un moment, mais avant de le jeter dans la mare, faudrait voir ce qu’il en dit aujourd’hui par ex. Peut-être qu’il regrette. Ce serait pas juste sinon, je trouve. Enfin, la posture vengeresse ça me branche et ça me débranche... Dommage pour le bingo des arguments... faudrait voir quand même... je sature un peu là, j’y comprends plus rien pour tout dire ; sur twitter les fafs semblent monopoliser le débat désormais, en plus avec des revendications qui me plaisent bien (au bagne !) mais que j’essaye de raffiner...

    • très intéressant toute fois de matérilalisé le lien entre les défenseurs de pédocriminel et les violeurs genre DSK. Sans le travail des féministes, de pleins de femmes, il y a plein de choses que je serais encore en train d’essayer de comprendre.

    • sinon faire un truc chronologique (pour ce qui est de la cartographie, mes connaissances s’arrêtent à la bonne vieille frise de CM2) ? ça permetterais de montrer ce qui reste, ce qui dure, ce qui a changé... De dépasser ce truc de « c’était une autre époque » il y a un bon commentaire de @supergeante là :

      https://seenthis.net/messages/505807#message506639

      J’ai l’impression que ceux qui deviendront les militants pro-pédophilie actuels profitent de ce remue-méninge pour asseoir leur discours et lui donner des lettres de noblesse via la voix de personnes connues, prêtes à lutter contre toutes les formes de censure, de moralité, de main mise de l’État (c’est bien expliqué dans le texte de Libé).

    • #guillaume_durand défend matzneff et assimile victime du sida et pédocriminalité : https://twitter.com/FallaitPasSuppr/status/1210900459222904833

      Punir Matzneff procède de l’ignorance érigée en morale.On cite Gauguin et Balthus mais citons Foucault,Gide et plus tard les victimes du Sida.Où au 19 ième Manet et Maupassant tués par la syphilis.L’âge est le prétexte d’une condamnation de la sexualité, notre part maudite

      .

      C’est fête.

    • Je suis d’accord avec toi @tintin sur l’effroi de listes qui agglomèrent des personnes qui se sont ensuite positionner contre. Il faut pouvoir le signaler, et donc réfléchir à comment atténuer ou pas. Vraiment éviter de faire un tribunal à nous tout·es seul·es, et relever seulement ce qui est publié et sourcé. Je poursuis les investigations car je veux comprendre et montrer ces collusions pour savoir par quel biais l’ensemble d’une société finit par accepter de valoriser des pédophiles ou violeurs tout en renforçant leur pouvoir de nuisance.

    • coucou @tintin, koitesse ? Ça va pas les infos que j’ajoute ?
      J’ai celle-ci en sur une femme pédocriminelle

      Femmes solidaires
      @Femmessolidaire
      ·
      3h
      Petit rappel à celles et ceux qui se cachent derrière l’époque.

      En 1969, Gabrielle Russier est condamnée pour détournement de mineur. Elle a 32 ans, son élève en a 17.

      Peut-être eût-elle bénéficié de plus de clémence si elle s’était appelée Gabriel ?

      https://twitter.com/Femmessolidaire/status/1210964815545585669?s=20

      mais bon, je vais vous laisser, je comprends pas trop les soucis

    • Peggy Sastre invente ici (2013) « le pédophile d’écriture » pour défendre tony duvert.
      http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/895754-pedophilie-partout-liberte-de-penser-nulle-part.html

      Les reports de faits présumés immondes, on en fait des idées et des opinions immondes. Le contenant devient le contenu et vice et versa. On a la gerbe, c’est impossible, intenable d’en débattre et si besoin on sortira la batte de base-ball :

      des gens st en train de debattre dans ma tl pour savoir si une gamine de douze ans consent.IRL je pense que jaurais sorti la battedebaseball
      — CrêpeGeorgette (@valerieCG) June 28, 2013

      Le débat est fermé, verrouillé, on plante des petits sens interdits un peu partout et on le fait avec d’autant plus de vigueur, de conviction, de rage, qu’on est persuadé d’avoir le bon sens (le sens commun) avec soi.

      Et comment ne pas l’avoir quand un pédophile d’écriture subit le même sort post-mortem qu’un dictateur génocidaire ou qu’un chef terroriste responsable d’une des pires atrocités du XXIe siècle ?

    • luc le vaillant ici :

      https://next.liberation.fr/livres/2004/03/25/le-monde-ado_473650

      L’intro suffit :

      Parents, planquez vos filles ! Voici Gaby, qui les désire jeunes et fraîches et n’aime rien tant que les mettre dans son lit. Mais seulement si elles en ont très envie... La vertu n’entre en rien dans cette mutualisation des consentements. En fait, l’homme s’apprécie trop pour supporter qu’on lui refuse la pareille. Ensuite, le néo-senior est resté fixé au stade ado et s’interdit tout accès d’autorité, tout abus de pouvoir.

    • Jean_christophe_buisson :

      La vérité est que la France sera toujours la France, comme dirait le général de Gaulle : excessive, querelleuse, capable un matin, en se réveillant, de vouer aux gémonies des écrivains comme Peter Handke et Patrick Besson (de fanatiques partisans de la Grande Serbie), Marc-Edouard Nabe et Renaud Camus (deux antisémites bien connus), Richard Millet (un réac de la pire espèce) ou Gabriel Matzneff (Barbe-Bleue des temps modernes)

    • D’accord avec les problèmes posé par ses listes. Le travail me semble trop grand aussi.
      Pour le bingo ca pourrait prendre la forme d’une compilation de citatons de militant·es pedo-criminels
      Il en faudrait 25 dont une particulièrement clé au centre.
      ex - « Vous avez vu les photos ? Elle fait 25 » - Costa-gavras

      J’avoue que je sature aussi.

    • promenade dans les archives du Figaro, qui est fan aussi visiblement, au moins depuis 2006. Presque sûr que les "morceaux croustillants" sont derrière #paywall

      Gabriel Matzneff : « Un journal intime, c’est la vérité à bout portant »
      https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2017/02/08/03005-20170208ARTFIG00228-gabriel-matzneff-un-journal-intime-c-est-la-verit

      Gabriel Matzneff : « Vivre m’amuse moins »
      https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2015/02/05/03005-20150205ARTFIG00023-gabriel-matzneff-vivre-m-amuse-moins.php

      Le fil de ses jours est marqué par l’amour charnel de ses amantes (Gilda, Géraldine, Anastasia, Marie-Agnès…)

      Matzneff, le dernier des princes noirs
      https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2015/02/04/03005-20150204ARTFIG00232-matzneff-le-dernier-des-princes-noirs.php

      « Matzneff est ce pécheur qui se purifie dans le péché… » À prendre avec ou sans sourire, ce mot sonne juste. Il est de son ami de longue date, Philippe de Saint Robert

      Gabriel Matzneff reçu chez Lipp pour le prix Cazes
      https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2015/04/15/03005-20150415ARTFIG00273-gabriel-matzneff-recu-chez-lipp-pour-le-prix-caze

      Cette récompense couronne son neuvième roman, La Lettre au capitaine Brunner, publié à La Table Ronde. « Roman allègre », comme il le dit, ayant pour cadre l’Occupation, et où il a voulu exprimer « tout son univers sensible ».

      Il est libre, Matz
      https://www.lefigaro.fr/lefigaromagazine/2009/04/04/01006-20090404ARTFIG00106--il-est-libre-matz-.php

      La passion selon Matzneff
      https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2006/05/04/03005-20060504ARTLIT90220-la_passion_selon_matzneff.php

      « Gaby le Magnifique » : un écrivain classique mais vivant, Par Yan Moix
      https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2013/02/07/03005-20130207ARTFIG00616-gaby-le-magnifique-un-ecrivain-classique-mais-viv

    • celui-ci est bien retors :

      « Carnets noirs 2007-2008 », de Gabriel Matzneff : l’ancien régime de la chair
      https://www.lemonde.fr/livres/article/2009/04/02/carnets-noirs-2007-2008-de-gabriel-matzneff_1175606_3260.html

      Et si le silence qui entoure désormais l’oeuvre de Gabriel Matzneff n’était pas tant dû à l’ordre moral, « pharisaïque », qu’à un changement dans le régime du plaisir ? L’auteur ne se pose pas cette question. Il ne semble pas voir la mécanique des corps sans Dieu, qui s’emboîtent plus par arithmétique que par « séduction ». Ce serait en quelque sorte invalider sa vie, reconnaître qu’elle ne fut pas celle d’un saint ou d’un martyr, mais, disons, quelque chose de plus simple, de plus émouvant aussi : une existence vouée à sauver une sensibilité perdue ou en voie d’extinction, un ancien régime de la chair, celui où le plaisir, la joie étaient intimement liés à la conscience de la faute.

    • diatribes en or
      https://www.lemonde.fr/livres/article/2012/01/12/diatribes-en-or_1628596_3260.html

      La Séquence de l’énergumène réunit les chroniques de télévision que Gabriel Matzneff donna au quotidien Combat entre 1963 et 1965. A l’époque, le sulfureux diariste n’a encore rien publié : il se fait les dents sur le petit écran sans avoir de poste. Qu’importe ! Il est déjà mousquetaire, Aramis divisé entre saint Jean Climaque et les fesses rebondies des adolescentes qu’il drague sur les transats de la piscine Deligny.

      MAMMA, LI TURCHI !, de Gabriel Matzneff
      https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2000/11/03/mamma-li-turchi-de-gabriel-matzneff_3642020_1819218.html

      Gabriel Matzneff poursuit son oeuvre originale, oublié des médias mais toujours apprécié de ses fidèles lecteurs. L’écrivain donne le meilleur de son art dans son Journal. Mamma, li Turchi ! est un roman. Ses personnages (lui-même en cinéaste libertin), brillants et lucides, apprécient les joies charnelles et culturelles. Ils s’évadent d’un Paris décevant et se retrouvent en Italie, à Venise. Le roman est impeccablement construit, les dialogues sont percutants, la subversion élégante. On y retrouve les révoltes chères à Matzneff : « li Turchi » sont les oppresseurs de tout bord qui étouffent l’individu. Matzneff corrosif, impertinent, sincère, jeune éternellement - mais la part belle du roman est l’ombre qui s’avance sur la vie d’un homme solitaire qui se voulut libre et vrai (La Table ronde, 272 p., 105 F [16,01 ]).

    • Lucien Engelmajer

      Le Patriarche. Communauté thérapeutique internationale d’origine française constituée exclusivement de toxicomanes et anciens toxicomane et prônant la réinsertion au sein même de l’institution.
      Cette association, dont le premier centre, La Boère (Haute-Garonne), ouvrit en 1971, connut un essor considérable, très généralement en marge des instances officielles, et implanta ses différentes structures dans de nombreux pays. Elle suscita de vives polémiques avant d’être reconnue comme secte dans le rapport de la commission d’enquête parlementaire sur le phénomène sectaire (rapport Guyard, 1995), ce qui conduisit à l’arrêt des subventions publiques.
      Lucien Engelmajer, leader charismatique de la communauté, ce missionnaire laïque entretenait des rapports conflictuels avec tous ceux qui ne reconnaissaient pas ses méthodes. Opposant farouche aux programme de substitution, à la légalisation des drogues, aux échanges de seringues, bataillant contre l’anonymat des séropositifs, il a toujours tenu un discours de combat, se déclarant enfermé par la presse « dans un ghetto de silence ».

      https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/la-pieuvre-du-patriarche_492053.html
      Il est mort en 2007 à l’âge de 86 ans.

    • Ohlala, c’est dur d’étudier ce monde là, c’est du genre Voici ou Gala de la pornographie verbale et médiatique, c’est à celui qui gerbe le plus loin, vraiment crade. Et je vous évite la recopie de leur diatribes pour exciter le chaland. Maigre pouvoir, misère du faux intellectuel qui se demande ce qu’il pourrait inventer pour alimenter son égo. On peut comprendre le dégout qu’ils inspirent, comme le dégout du cinéma français et de ses acteurs masculinichiants, de la littérature française malmenée par ces porcs, et des institutions qui leurs construisent des ponts d’ors avec des médias à la solde de ces nuisibles.
      J’en suis à Moix, atroce, j’arrive pas à faire mieux que Pov’ mec tout pourri du cerveau pour vous dire :(

    • Si je peux me permettre, ce genre de cartographie demande pas mal de taf et de la méthodologie.
      Plutôt que faire cela en vrac sur seenthis vous pourriez remplir un tableur collaboratif et créer des classes (écrivains, journalistes, personnalités politiques, curés...) et par ordre alphabétique. Ce serait plus efficace. Et pendant que vous compilez ces données, réfléchir à leur mise en place.

    • Hello all.
      – je pense que seenthis n’est pas le meilleur outil pour cette cartographie aussi, car on se perd dans les messages, c’est difficile de synthétiser l’évolution d’une position, de creuser chaque « fiche »... au delà du fichage lui-même d’une certaine manière, même si, de fait, je pense qu’il est important de retracer cette histoire, ces soutiens, ces ambiguïtés, ces violences, cette omerta, cette justification intellectuelle du viol sur mineurs...

      On pourrait réfléchir à un ou des outils qui permettrait notamment aussi de relever ceux et celles qui reconnaissent s’être trompés, parce que malgré tout, vu l’époque c’était possible.

      Dans mon entourage, je vois dans des familles, notamment de milieux d’intellectuels, mais pas seulement, des personnes, hommes, mais femmes aussi, reconnaître qu’ils se sont laissés emporter par l’époque, pas forcément par leurs actions mais par leur inaction et paroles, par le fait d’avoir laissé agir, et qu’aujourd’hui, ils s’alarmeraient, agiraient autrement de savoir que x ou y dort nu.e. avec des mineurs nu.es lorsqu’il.elle les accueille pour le week-end par exemple, qu’à l’époque, emportés par l’euphorie de la libéralisation sexuelle, des corps renouvelés, ils ne savaient pas non n’ont pas voulus voir, savoir, agir etc... alors que tout était là. Je pense qu’il y a des gens sincères, rongés par leur inaction, leur aveuglement, et que c’est bien aussi dans ce type de cartographie de le prendre en compte. Je ne sais évidemment pas s’ils sont nombreux à tenir cette position dans cette liste. Quand aux morts, je ne sais pas.

      – J’avais discuté avec l’historien Artières, qui a tenté pour le livre L’esprit français de voir à quelles conditions il serait possible de faire un travail d’historien sur cette période. Je scannerai l’article pour ceusses qui le veulent. Je lui ai demandé comment c’était passé ce travail, sachant, que je trouvais personnellement insupportable ne serait que de feuilleter le gay voyage de Hocquenghem. Il m’a dit que ça avait été très dur, que ça l’avait profondément affecté. Je dois dire et c’est mon second point, que je ne me sens pas capable de faire ce travail, je ne me sens pas outillée pour ne pas être dévastée par cette exploration historique. Sachant, et je ferai un billet plus tard, que je me souviens très bien de voir tout ces types et précisément ce connard de Matzneff à la télé et partout et je me souviens très bien ce que ça m’a fait, je ne peux croire que je suis la seule a avoir été maintenue la tête sous l’eau à chaque fois que je voyais sa gueule. Revoir sa photo partout là, ça fait remonter gerbe, colère, douleur et désespoir.

    • Après mon message d’hier, je voulais vous dire merci à vous tout·es sur seenthis ici sur ce fil de tenter de faire le jour sur cette intelligentsia criminelle. Le fait que nous soyons nombreus·es à vouloir comprendre malgré le désespoir et la difficulté à se confronter à cette bouillie malsaine, donne du courage pour poursuivre.
      @odilon, oui, ça peut être long de faire cette carte et peut-être ne verra-t-elle pas le jour ou autrement, mais rassemblons comme nous pouvons pour au moins essayer de comprendre.
      @supergeante merci aussi, c’est très intéressant tes interventions, notamment sur la façon dont ce sont incrustés les pédovioleurs dans les libertés et les revendications d’une sexualité différente.

    • Totalement d’accord avec toi, @supergeante. Mon billet initial est d’ailleurs la manifestation de ce que m’a provoqué la réapparition du nom de Matzneff dans l’actualité : le souvenir du violent écœurement de l’époque et de l’incompréhension totale de sa place dans le microcosme littéraire parisien.

      D’ailleurs, avec tout ça, je n’ai toujours pas la réponse à ma question de savoir si l’article du Monde a eu l’honnêteté de rappeler que ce monsieur a eu son rond de serviette dans les colonnes du Monde des Livres. Ou que la grande prêtresse de l’époque continue à tenir Matzneff pour plus que fréquentable et chie copieusement sur Denise Bombardier.

      (note : je vois que la bagarre commence sur WP,…
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josyane_Savigneau
      • ajout (+1821) le 28/12 à 19h33 d’un long passage sur l’affaire Matzneff,
      • supprimé radicalement 3 minutes plus tard pour absence de source
      • réintroduit à 20h09 (+818) avec un lien vers le remarquable article du Devoir : Tout le monde le savait https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/569861/tout-le-monde-le-savait .
      à suivre ?)

    • J’aime bien les cartes mais beaucoup moins les listes, à part celle de @les_listes_de une carte autour du cas Matzneff semble réalisable mais au-delà ça me semble tentaculaire. Il y a beaucoup de choses sur le sujet, ici sur seenthis. @mad_meg bien sûr, toujours sur les charbons ardents. Mais aussi le remarquable travail du collectif @tradfem et ses traductions. (je ne suis pas bilingue et forcément je passe plus de temps à comprendre certains articles de feminismcurrent par exemple :
      https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/06/06/suzzan-blac-art-trauma-child-exploitation

      Suzzan Blac : Il existe un tel climat de sexisme, d’apathie, d’ignorance et d’acceptabilité entourant le conditionnement et l’exploitation sexuelle commerciale des filles et des femmes. Il y en a beaucoup qui ne veulent pas ou ne prennent pas la peine de lire et de faire des recherches sur ces sujets, mais une image est instantanée et peut être ancrée dans l’esprit, alors je pense qu’elle peut mieux faire passer un message que les mots.

      Nous savons tous que l’un des genres de pornographie les plus populaires est « Teen », alors qu’est-ce que cela vous dit ? Si les pornographes (légaux) pouvaient utiliser des enfants, ils le feraient. Tout comme les proxénètes qui forcent et exploitent les jeunes adolescentes à se prostituer et exigent un prix plus élevé des nombreux parieurs qui veulent des jeunes filles. Mais ils ne peuvent pas le faire dans la pornographie parce que c’est illégal, alors ils font la meilleure chose « légale » qui soit : de la pornographie « à peine légale » mettant en scène des jeunes de 18 ans - des filles vraiment jeunes, à la poitrine presque plate, sans poils pubiens et avec une queue de cheval. Le pornographe Max Hardcore utilise des jeunes de 18 ans et les fait paraître plus jeunes en leur faisant porter des nattes, des appareils dentaires et en achetant leurs vêtements dans des magasins de vêtements pour enfants. Il les dégrade, les humilie, les agresse sexuellement et les détruit ensuite sur la pellicule.

      Le Japon n’a rendu illégales les images d’abus d’enfants qu’en 2014 et il y a encore des images d’abus d’enfants disponibles dans les magasins de vidéo. Les jeunes filles sont exploitées sexuellement dans les bars et les clubs, et sont prostituées ouvertement dans de nombreux endroits. Il existe des distributeurs automatiques qui vendent des sous-vêtements portés par de jeunes

      Traduit avec www.DeepL.com/Translator (version gratuite)
      ou celui-ci :
      https://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/09/28/youve-heard-of-rape-culture-but-have-you-heard-of-pedophile-culture
      et Tradfem :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/479395
      https://seenthis.net/messages/426500

    • j’avoue que me retrouver face à l’impuissance m’est presqu’aussi pénible qu’une plongée dans ce tas de fientes. Pourtant, je ne vois pas trop quoi proposer d’autre que cette compulsion d’articles, qui semble bien vaine aussi. Désolé si j’ai un peu pourri le fil en partant sur les chapo de roues. à voir avec le temps donc. J’ai regardé leaving neverland hier, c’est très fort, très intelligent.

    • @tintin vu aussi. En fait, suite aux articles et à l’interview de Adèle Haenel. C’est un film qui a permis à beaucoup de gens de parler.

      C’est peut-être pas très clair ce que j’ai dit plus haut, en fait, ce qui me terrasse en ce moment, c’est le côté massif...

      Je savais déjà, de manière empirique que beaucoup de gent.es étaient touchés avec une majorité d’ex-enfants, filles et de garçons, ainsi que de femmes adultes à l’âge des crimes perpétrés sur eux/elles. Il suffisait de traîner un peu dans des milieux féministes pour te rendre compte aussi du besoin de dire, de partager et de la loi du silence, et ses contours multiples.

      Maintenant, je me rends compte que c’est pire que ce que j’imaginais, des ami.es parlent enfin, des élèves en classe, des collègues, c’est atroce, je ne comprends pas comment il est encore possible de défendre les mécanismes sociaux à l’origine de ce désastre social, collectif et intime à la fois. Combien faudra-t-il de témoignages, de films, d’études, de collectes, de cartes, de listes, de décompte ? Je me dis : autant qu’il le faudra.

      Donc, quand je dis que seenthis n’est pas l’outil idéal, je dis pas ça pour entraver la démarche. Je me dis juste que ça vaudrait la peine de faire un truc hyper lisible, mais comme je le disais précédemment, en ce moment, je ne me sens pas trop capable de participer à une telle entreprise, et je ne sais pas trop comment il faudrait faire, mais je veux bien y réfléchir à un autre moment. Ces échanges sur seenthis, je pense notamment au thread sur le livre de Nabokov, j’y reviens souvent et j’ai envoyé des gens s’y plonger, donc, c’est vraiment bien que ça existe.

    • Je voyais plutôt ce démarrage comme une entreprise de compilation collective rapide en vue de construire un jour un truc plus peaufiné ensuite, comme le laissait entendre le fait que @touti réfléchissait à une structure de base de données par exemple. Ya le travail de rechercher des gens et des sources et des extraits, et ya le travail de structuration, de comment on normalise tout ça, quels champs, pour pouvoir ensuite en sortir des choses intéressantes (en terme de chrono, de liaisons, ou simplement de visualisation, etc). Le fait de déjà avoir tout un matériel au même endroit, peut aider à faire ressortir comment on voudrait le structurer, c’est déjà un premier pas, même si le reste ne suit pas, ou dans longtemps.

    • @tintin vu aussi le film leaving never land où témoignent les victimes de michael jackson, Adèle Haenel relate que (voir son interview sur mediapart) ça l’a aidé à prendre la parole pour dénoncer les agressions sexuelles de Christophe Ruggia lorsqu’elle était enfant.
      J’aimerai vraiment pouvoir dire que c’était une autre époque mais il en va de la domination sexuelle dans le capitalisme même.

      @supergeante la tâche est énorme et ce ne sera pas du tout confortable. Ici au moins on a la chance d’être nombreus·es et j’espère, de savoir s’écouter. J’ai une amie metteuse en scène qui parle du chaos qui précède ces créations, ça me donne toujours du courage de penser à cela quand ça part un peu dans tous les sens !
      @rastapopoulos je ne souhaite pas mettre en ligne de suite parce que j’y vais pas avec le dos de la cuillère et c’est pas au point du tout. Donc, comme tu dis les essais de BDD c’est juste un début, qu’au moins ça existe quelque part, en vue de …
      – superposition chronologique retenue en tout cas

    • suis assez d’accord avec @rastapopoulos (qui est un nom mishèllène trouvé par un grand pote de Matzneff, Hergé soit dit en passant (salo !)). moi ça me va de continuer à alimenter ce fil en y balançant des noms, des citations, des sources. Juste se réstreindre à matzneff ça fait chier parce qu’on va faire le portrait d’une époque (qui est aussi bien singulière, il faut le dire (c’est plus pareil, mais ça continue quand même (same same but different))), et en même temps si on doit aller jusqu’au neverland de mickael jackson, qui l’emprunte si je ne m’abuse, à lewis caroll (gros pédo aussi), ça fait de la route... on va finir en grèce antique... C’est complétement absurde parce qu’il faudrait en faire un monument, un truc gigantesque, à la hauteur, et en même temps ériger un monument pour ça, c’est déjà pas la joie et en plus s’agirait pas d’alimenter la pédopropagande (hors de question, et je pense qu’on est d’accord, d’utiliser des images de gosses par exemple)...

    • Nicolas Rey

      Je pourrais faire cinquante-deux chroniques sur Gabriel Matzneff. Je pourrais faire Matzneff et la piscine Deligny. Matzneff et Francesca. Je pourrais écrire : « Gab la rafale prend le bus », « M dîne aux Camionneurs », « Calamity Gab m’a fait découvrir Cioran », « Gabriel et Lord Byron », « Gab le magnifique et le peuple serbe ». Gabriel est mon Tintin. D’ailleurs, il avait Hergé pour ami. Il est mon guide des mauvaises fréquentations haut de gamme. Les seules qui vaillent la peine. Adolescent, je dévorais ses fameux carnets noirs comme si un grand frère vivait ce que je n’osais espérer vivre. Gabriel aimait pour moi. Gabriel buvait pour moi. Gabriel souffrait pour moi. Bon. Nous y voilà. Les carnets de Matzneff. J’ai commencé par là, comme ils disent, aux Narcotiques Anonymes. Par ses carnets noirs.

      http://www.matzneff.com/oeuvres.php?un_article=58&la_clef=52

    • @biggrizzly la fiche anglais ne donne toujours pas le détail de la liste manquante celle de libération - à mon avis il doit y avoir des gens importants dans celle ci pour qu’on en trouve pas de traces- je veux dire plus important que dans celles de Matzneff et celle de la dépénalisations des viols sur mineurs.

      J’essaye de pas sombré dans un épisode de remonté traumatique mais je ne résiste pas à revenir ici. En voyant les listes il me semble voire se dégagé plusieurs axes :

      – les réseaux homo-militants - on trouve la mythologie autour de la pédérastie grec - celleux-là confondent la lutte contre la discrimination de l’homosexualité et la pedo-criminalité. On trouve des fondateurs d’asso importantes FDLH - Arcadi
      – les poids lourds de la French Theory et des phallosophes de gauche -
      – Quelques grandes féministes parfois prédatrices sexuelles - Rochefort à signé les 3 pétitions et Beauvoir etait une prédatrice de ses éléves.
      – les libéraux individualises - pour classé les militant·es pedosexuels - Ici je pense à Millet qui milite toujours pour les violeurs et contre les victimes quelque soit leur age. - Je pense que Altusser pourrait etre mis en valeur aussi car il joint le féminicide à sa militance pour les pedo-viols.
      – J’ai vu passé plusieurs personnes liées à Jospin, ou à l’appareil du PS. aussi les Gluksmann il me semble que c’est du PS
      – On trouve quelques académiciens français et phallosophes de droite
      – Quelques prêtres et pasteurs -
      – de nombreux et nombreuses psyanalystes- psychiatres - psychologues - à mettre en lien avec les discours culpabilisant les victimes de la psychanalyse freudo-lacanienne - les immondices dites par Dolto sur les victimes d’inceste
      – des membres de prix littéraires qui se passent les plats - cf le prix de 2014 à Matzneff - on pourrais sortir la liste du jury.
      – peut etre des gens un peu « égarés » qui ont signé par amitié sans bien lire ces pétitions - Matzneff avançait caché et si la personne n’as signé qu’une fois et pas récidivé - Je connais pas Rancière mais @tintin tu avais l’air de dire qu’il était revenu sur ses positions - ca vaut le coup de signalé lorsqu’un·e signataire à pris ses distances et de quel manière.

      Il pourrait y avoir des couleurs - une qui signale la pratique affiché de pédocriminalité - une qui signale celleux qui ont signé les 3 pétitions et ne sont jamais revenu dessus et a contraire (style Dolto) - une qui signale celleux qui se sont écarté de ces pétitions

      Je ne sais pas si à partir de là on peu commencer à voire des ensembles se dessiné. Si vous voyez d’autres catégories que j’aurais pas vu n’hésitez pas à les partagé car je connais pas tous ces noms et il y a des réseaux qui me sont invisibles.

    • Waa, j’avais pas lu cette interview ou elle affirme des choses ignobles. Ok @mad_meg , il n’y aura pas d’échappatoire pour Dolto.

      « Q- Dans l’acte incestueux il y a toujours un traumatisme pour la fille, non ?
      R- Evidemment qu’il y a un traumatisme ! Nous ne vivons pas dans une société ou ces choses sont permises. Résultat, la fille ne peut pas se développer normalement car ses pulsions sont occupées a un lieu où elles ne devraient pas l’être encore. Il se produit un blocage dans l’évolution de l’intelligence.
      (…)
      Q- Donc la petite fille est toujours consentante ?
      R- Tout à fait
      Q- Mais enfin, il y a bien des cas de viols ?
      R- Il n’y a pas de viol du tout, elles sont consentantes »
      #aberrant #criminel #1979

      Et malgré sa critique de Dolto Béatrice Jade considère dans les points tout de même ’constructifs’ que « Les lois doivent faire la différence entre les enfants non nubiles et nubiles qui devraient devenir juridiquement autonomes et ne plus dépendre des décisions parentales. »
      Petit rappel
      En France, la majorité civile est fixée à 18 ans depuis le 5 juillet 1974 ; elle était auparavant fixée à 21 ans depuis 1792.

    • Oui ca fait un choc et je te recommande les paroles des chansons de son fils que je viens de mettre sur ce lien https://seenthis.net/messages/688632

      Je trouve aussi interessant ce lien https://seenthis.net/messages/818092
      posté par @tintin d’un texte de Patric Jean sur médiapart
      surtout parce qu’il fait émerger deux noms importants de la militance pour la dépénalisation des violences sexuelles sur mineurs en france et dans les pays francophones

      – Paul Bensussan : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bensussan#Les_%C2%AB_fausses_all%C3%A9gations_d'abus_sexuels_%C2%

      – Hubert Van Gijseghem : http://1libertaire.free.fr/LeoThiersVidal24.html

    • Et malgré sa critique de Dolto Béatrice Jade considère dans les points tout de même ’constructifs’ que « Les lois doivent faire la différence entre les enfants non nubiles et nubiles qui devraient devenir juridiquement autonomes et ne plus dépendre des décisions parentales. »
      Petit rappel
      En France, la majorité civile est fixée à 18 ans depuis le 5 juillet 1974 ; elle était auparavant fixée à 21 ans depuis 1792.

      Merci @touti J’avais pas vu cette critique de Béatrice Jade et merci pour ton rappel je n’était pas au courant pour cette modification de la loi en 1974.

    • La promulgation de la loi est du 5 juillet, mais son entrée en vigueur était le 1er septembre (qui était un dimanche…) Je m’en souviens assez distinctement, car en 3 jours consécutifs je suis devenu trois fois majeur :-)
      – le 31/08, j’avais accompli un an de service militaire, ce qui émancipait,
      – le 1/09, c’était l’entrée en vigueur de la loi,
      – le 2/09, j’avais 21 ans,…

      cf. ce son, du 2/09, premier jour d’inscription sur les listes électorales.
      https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/la-boite-a-souvenirs/la-boite-a-souvenirs-02-septembre-2011

    • L’article du Monde :

      À PROPOS D’UN PROCÈS
      Le Monde, le 26 janvier 1977
      https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1977/01/26/a-propos-d-un-proces_2854399_1819218.html

      Nous avons reçu le communiqué suivant :

      " Les 27, 28 et 29 janvier, devant la cour d’assises des Yvelines, vont comparaître, pour attentat à la pudeur sans violence sur des mineurs de quinze ans, Bernard Dejager, Jean-Claude Gallien et Jean Burckhardt, qui, arrêtés à l’automne 1973, sont déjà restés plus de trois ans en détention provisoire. Seul Bernard Dejager a récemment bénéficié du principe de la liberté des inculpés.

      « Une si longue détention préventive pour instruire une simple affaire de » mœurs « , où les enfants n’ont pas été victimes de la moindre violence, mais, au contraire, ont précisé aux juges d’instruction qu’ils étaient consentants (quoique la justice leur dénie actuellement tout droit au consentement), une si longue détention préventive nous paraît déjà scandaleuse.
       » Aujourd’hui, ils risquent d’être condamnés à une grave peine de réclusion criminelle soit pour avoir eu des relations sexuelles avec ces mineurs, garçons et filles, soit pour avoir favorisé et photographié leurs jeux sexuels.

      « Nous considérons qu’il y a une disproportion manifeste, d’une part, entre la qualification de » crime « qui justifie une telle sévérité, et la nature des faits reprochés ; d’autre part, entre le caractère désuet de la loi et la réalité quotidienne d’une société qui tend à reconnaître chez les enfants et les adolescents l’existence d’une vie sexuelle (si une fille de treize ans a droit à la pilule, c’est pour quoi faire ?).
       » La loi française se contredit lorsqu’elle reconnaît une capacité de discernement à un mineur de treize ou quatorze ans qu’elle peut juger et condamner, alors qu’elle lui refuse cette capacité quand il s’agit de sa vie affective et sexuelle.

      « Trois ans de prison pour des caresses et des baisers, cela suffit. Nous ne comprendrions pas que le 29 janvier Dejager, Gallien et Burckhardt ne retrouvent pas la liberté. »

      Ont signé ce communiqué : Louis Aragon, Francis Ponge, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Belladona, docteur Michel Bon, psychosociologue, Bertrand Boulin, Jean-Louis Bory, François Chatelet, Patrice Chéreau, Jean-Pierre Colin, Copi, Michel Cressole, Gilles et Fanny Deleuze, Bernard Dort, Françoise d’Eaubonne, docteur Maurice Eme, psychiatre, Jean-Pierre Faye, docteur Pierrette Garrou, psychiatre, Philippe Gavi, docteur Pierre-Edmond Gay, psychanalyste, docteur Claire Gellman, psychologue, docteur Robert Gellman, psychiatre, André Glucksmann, Félix Guattari, Daniel Guérin, Pierre Guyotat, Pierre Hahn, Jean-Luc Henning, Christian Hennion, Jacques Henric, Guy Hocquenghem, docteur Bernard Kouchner, Françoise Laborie, Madeleine Laïk, Jack Lang, Georges Lapassade, Raymond Lepoutre, Michel Leyris, Jean-François Lyotard, Dionys Mascolo, Gabriel Matzneff, Catherine Millet, Vincent Monteil, docteur Bernard Muldworf, psychiatre, Négrepont, Marc Pierret, Anne Querrien, Griselidis Real, François Régnault, Claude et Olivier Revault d’Allonnes, Christiane Rochefort, Gilles Sandier, Pierre Samuel, Jean-Paul Sartre, René Schérer, Philippe Sollers, Gérard Soulier, Victoria Thérame, Marie rhonon, Catherine Valabrègue, docteur Gérard Vallès, psychiatre, Hélène Vedrines, Jean-Marie Vincent Jean-Michel Wilhelm, Danielle Sallel nave, Alain Cuny.

    • Hello pour Rancière, j’en sais rien, j’ai bien aimé deux ou trois de ses bouquins, par association, pas envie qu’il penche dans le dégueu, mais rien de plus, c’était un exemple au hasard.

    • Pour le projet @mad_meg quelques liens utiles

      Le monde ado Par Luc Le Vaillant — 25 mars 2004
      https://next.liberation.fr/livres/2004/03/25/le-monde-ado_473650

      « Le seul collège dont vous n’avez pas fait la sortie est le Collège de France »
      https://twitter.com/vincentglad/status/1211398762247180289

      Si seulement Matzneff était le seul problème
      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/patricjean/blog/301219/si-seulement-matzneff-etait-le-seul-probleme

      Frédéric Beigbeder : Il faut sauver le soldat Matzneff
      www.matzneff.com/pdf/sagm10.pdf
      http://www.matzneff.com/sagm.php

      Ivre du temps perdu
      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/lehmann-christian/blog/301219/ivre-du-temps-perdu

      Interrogé sur Matzneff, Frédéric Mitterrand dénonce un « phénomène de meute »
      https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/matzneff-frederic-mitterrand-denonce-un-phenomene-de-meute_fr_5e09e53

      Brice Ivanovic @bi1192
      Vous vous souvenez de cette photo où posait @sonjoachim
      avec la jeunesse Lesqueniste ? Et bien grâce à @MauvaisCoton, on peut s’apercevoir que #Matzneff a donné en décembre une interview dans ce même lieu... Est-ce son appartement ? Un lieu en location ?
      https://twitter.com/bi1192/status/1211704476303790082

      Affaire Matzneff : Bernard Pivot exprime ses regrets
      https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/affaire-matzneff-bernard-pivot-exprime-ses-regrets-30-12-2019-2355311_23.php

      Quand la République décorait Gabriel Matzneff... Jacques Toubon
      https://www.lexpress.fr/culture/quand-la-republique-decorait-gabriel-matzneff_2112781.html

      Un extrait inédit de Matzneff à un autre « apostrophe »
      https://twitter.com/Claude2mougins/status/1210573466405089280

      Claude François
      https://twitter.com/thmsprlng/status/1210978478406930433

    • Je voudrais aussi documenté le fait que ce n’etait pas une autre époque, Matzneff est toujours publié, entretenu, logé et invité dans les médias. On publie toujours des ouvrages pedosexuels sous toutes sorte de prétexte
      https://www.actualitte.com/article/bd-manga-comics/petit-paul-normaliser-la-pedophilie-la-strategie-du-predateur-sexuel/91060
      et la défense des pédosexuels est toujours absolument la même
      « un pied de nez à l’ordre moral, la sexualité bien-pensante qui rassure... qui emmerde »
      Bastien Vivès n’en est pas à sa première inversion des rôles
      https://www.catsuka.com/news/2012-03-07/la-famille-par-bastien-vives--plus-in-memorial-sa-version-animee-du-nouveau

      On traite toujours Dolorès Haze en niant le viol et en l’accusant de rendre les hommes fou
      https://seenthis.net/messages/817794
      Les viols contre les mineurs sont de moins en moins réprimés. (-40% de condamnation pour viol depuis 10ans - info qui laisse les gens manifestement totalement indifférents) En France l’age du consentement sexuel est autour de 4-5 ans (tout le monde s’en fout aussi) et on valorise encore les femmes pour leur jeunesse, leur virginité (cf Moix).
      Perso je voie venir le gros déni qui accompagne ce déballage - c’etait une autre époque - ca implique que ca ne pourrais pas/plus se passé aujourd’hui -

    • Concernant #Alain_Cuny, il a joué en 1974 dans Emmanuelle, il a alors 66 ans.

      On peut noté, entre autre, une des dernière scène du film où Mario, le personnage interprété par Alain Cuny, organise et contemple le viol d’Emmanuelle :

      Mario explique à Emmanuelle que la monogamie n’est plus de mode et que c’est la jouissance, plutôt que le sentiment de culpabilité ou la raison qui doit la guider en matière de sexualité, et qu’ainsi elle atteindra un plaisir bien plus grand. Afin de lui démontrer son discours, il l’emmène dans un bar qui fait aussi fumerie d’opium où elle est violée par un des habitués, pendant que lui-même regarde la scène.

      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuelle_(film)#Synopsis

    • Tout excusé @reka :)

      Relevé aussi hier les noms de pédophiles #grands_hommes (l’Académie Française semble propice à l’omerta) cités avec ferveur chez Taddeï par ses invités Matzneff et Sollers, (son éditeur chez Gallimard) Montherlant, Peyrefitte, P Ristat, Schérer profitent de publicité sur Europe1. https://seenthis.net/messages/818185#message818267
      https://www.europe1.fr/emissions/Europe-1-Social-club/Europe-1-Social-Club-Philippe-Sollers-et-Gabriel-Matzneff-146350
      #Taddei en #2014

      + une discussion WP sur Montherlant pour éviter de dire sa pédosexualité https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Henry_de_Montherlant#Sexualit.C3.A9_de_Montherlant
      extrait WP où la tauromachie est plus importante (j’te’jure, le clavier m’en tombe)

      Quand je parle de garçons, c’est plutôt 9-14 ans que des jeunes gens. Peyrefitte et Montherlant, par ailleurs, faisaient des virées ensemble et « entretenaient » à eux deux des mères de familles complaisantes... Peyrefitte, toujours langue de vipère, prétend d’ailleurs que Montherlant s’est suicidé parce que des parents de garçons commençaient à faire du bruit et qu’il craignait un procès infamant. Enfin, tout cela n’est pas très ragoûtant et probablement pas prioritaire dans une bio sur Montherlant. D’autant qu’à côté, on ne parle même pas de sa passion pour la tauromachie, plus éclairante pour comprendre son œuvre. Jastrow | 兔 30 jun 2004 à 17:18 (CEST)

    • En amont en 1959/1960, note l’affaire des #ballets_roses avec la DST et André Le Troquer, ministre de De Gaulle à la libération, et président de l’Assemblée Nationale. 22 condamnations de pontes.
      http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/Affaire_des_ballets_roses_(1959)/fr-fr
      Mocky en traite dans un film visible sur YT où il dénonce la pédosexualité institutionnalisée, il raconte aussi (toujours YT) n’avoir pas pu le diffuser.
      L’affaire des ballets roses, Affaires sensibles
      https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/affaires-sensibles/affaires-sensibles-30-decembre-2015

      Note aussi #Charles_Trenet 13 juillet 1963 :
      "Ce jour-là, Charles Trenet est écroué à 20h30 à la maison d’arrêt d’Aix-en-Provence. Son secrétaire, âgé de 18 ans, vient d’avouer avoir joué le rôle de « rabatteur » pour attirer chez le chanteur, au domaine Les Esprits, des adolescents. Charles Trenet est inculpé d’attentats aux moeurs sur la personne de 4 mineurs de moins de 21 ans (mais ayant plus de 18 ans). Le chanteur nie tout en bloc. (...) Il restera 28 jours en prison. (...) Revenant sur les accusations portées contre lui, il affirme (...) : « Je suis victime d’un coup monté. Mais j’ai des preuves irréfutables. » (...) Beaucoup de bruit pour rien, finalement : l’affaire se terminera pas un non-lieu." Livre de Bernard Revel

    • Info Depuis hier, le site de Matzneff est tombé, plus aucun article dispo http://www.matzneff.com

      Je poursuis le relevé des accointances des diffuseurs publics. Quelqu’un·e a-t-ielle accès à la liste des signataires défenseurs du pédocriminel Dugué, avant son procès, danst une lettre publiée dans la page Courrier de Libération avec Moustaki, Dolto ?
      https://www.lexpress.fr/informations/le-devoir-d-inventaire_641580.html
      « Lettre en soutien à Gérard R ». article datant de mars 1979

      Merci !

      Je rappelle que le journal L’Express a été pour le moins complaisant à l’égard de Matzneff (plusieurs pages qui l’encensent y ont d’ailleurs disparues mystérieusement).

    • @touti J’ai pas réussie à trouvé la liste que tu cherche seul 3 noms sont mentionnés à partir de l’article de l’expresse que tu a linké et qui sert de base aux autres. Les noms sont P.Bruckner, C.Rochefort et G.Moustaki
      voir ici https://seenthis.net/messages/817814#message817834
      J’ai pas vu que Dolto y était mentionné, il me semble que Dolto n’a signé que la première pétition et pas seconde écrite par Matzneff, ni la troisième (avec une réserve pour la 3eme car on a pas la liste et peut être qu’il y a Dolto dedans).

    • A moins que la journaliste Remy se soit trompée, dans le lien que je donne juste au-dessus, le paragraphe commence par 4 noms …

      Signée cette fois par une multitude de personnalités, Louis #Althusser, Jacques #Derrida, André #Glucksmann, et même Françoise #Dolto (voir l’encadré page 84). En mars 1979, pour soutenir Gérard R., un pédophile qui attend depuis dix-huit mois son procès, une lettre publiée dans la page Courrier de Libération accuse la « morale d’Etat » : « Ce que vise l’ordre moral, c’est le maintien de la soumission des enfants-mineur(e) s au pouvoir adulte. » L’auteur de la lettre appelle les lecteurs, en particulier les femmes, apparemment rétives, à signer le texte suivant : « L’amour des enfants est aussi l’amour de leur corps. Le désir et les jeux sexuels librement consentis ont leur place dans les rapports entre enfants et adultes. Voilà ce que pensait et vivait Gérard R. avec des fillettes de 6 à 12 ans dont l’épanouissement attestait aux yeux de tous, y compris de leurs parents, le bonheur qu’elles trouvaient avec lui. » Au bas de ce texte, 63 signatures. Parmi elles, Pascal Bruckner, Georges Moustaki, Christiane Rochefort et d’autres, plus attendus ou moins connus.

      Apparemment la liste est publiée dans un encadré page 84 de l’Express de 01/03/2001, si quelqu’un y a accès …

    • A mon avis le problème viens de la mise en page. La partie sur la pétition que tu cherche commence ici :

      En mars 1979, pour soutenir Gérard R., un pédophile qui attend depuis dix-huit mois son procès,

      et il n’y a que

      Au bas de ce texte, 63 signatures. Parmi elles, Pascal Bruckner, Georges Moustaki, Christiane Rochefort et d’autres, plus attendus ou moins connus.

      –------

      cette phrase que tu as prise avec a été déplacé de la fin du paragraphe précedent et crée la confusion. En fait pour moi ca donne :

      Quelque temps plus tard, une lettre ouverte à la commission de révision du Code pénal - jouant sur la confusion des actes commis sur des moins de 15 ans par des adultes ou par des mineurs de 15 à 18 ans - exige que cette « infraction » ne soit plus un crime et qu’on tienne compte « essentiellement du consentement du mineur ». Signée cette fois par une multitude de personnalités, Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida, André Glucksmann, et même Françoise Dolto (voir l’encadré page 84).

      (l’encadré page 84 devrais en principe contenir cette liste : https://seenthis.net/messages/817814#message817831 )

      puis dans un autre paragraphe

      En mars 1979, pour soutenir Gérard R., un pédophile qui attend depuis dix-huit mois son procès, ect...Au bas de ce texte, 63 signatures. Parmi elles, Pascal Bruckner, Georges Moustaki, Christiane Rochefort et d’autres, plus attendus ou moins connus.

      et là on en sais pas plus et il faudrait retrouvé le libé de mars 1979 pour avoir cette liste.

      La confusion ne viens pas de la journaliste Remy mais de la mise en page web de son texte qui s’est fait un peu malmené.

    • Matzneff : les signataires d’une pétition pro-pédophilie de 1977 ont-ils émis des regrets ? - Libération
      https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2020/01/02/matzneff-les-signataires-d-une-petition-pro-pedophilie-de-1977-ont-ils-em

      L’article est écrit avec les pieds ou je fatigue ? Pas grand monde sur la liste, deux personnes très exactement, en tout cas publiquement : Sollers dit qu’il ne signerais plus aujourd’hui, mais continue à défendre cohn bendit, et un psy, muldworf, que je ne connaissais pas. Cohn bendit quand à lui, se serait repenti en privé à un journaliste du monde...

      Rien compris à la fin de l’autre naze.

    • L’académie française à primé 2 fois Matzneff pour ses récits de viols d’enfants
      http://www.academie-francaise.fr/gabriel-matzneff

      Gabriel MATZNEFF
      Œuvres
      1999 Ensemble de son œuvre

      Prix de l’Académie
      2009 Prix Amic
      3 000 €
      1987 Prix Mottart
      40 000 F

      –---
      Quand Gabriel Matzneff recevait l’insigne d’officier des Arts et des Lettres des mains de Jacques Toubon
      https://www.francetvinfo.fr/culture/livres/affaire-gabriel-matzneff/quand-gabriel-matzneff-a-ete-decore-de-l-insigne-d-officier-des-arts-et

      –---

      Je ne croi pas avoir vu souligné l’aspect raciste des violences sexuelles commises par Matzneff. Celui ci raconte que lorsqu’il est en voyage il préfere des enfants plus jeunes que lorsqu’il chasse des enfants sur le territoire français.
      #racisme #colonialisme #tourisme_sexuel #prostitution

      En 1990, Matzneff publie Mes amours décomposés, son journal intime pour les années 1983-1984, dans lequel il évoque sa vie quotidienne, ses amours avec de multiples partenaires dont plusieurs adolescentes âgées de quatorze à seize ans, et son renvoi du Monde à la suite de l’affaire du Coral. Il raconte également son voyage à Manille, aux Philippines, au cours duquel il se livre au tourisme sexuel, y compris des viols avec des « petits garçons de onze ou douze ans ». À Manille, il fréquente notamment des Occidentaux venus à la recherche de contacts sexuels, comme Edward Brongersma, juriste et homme politique néerlandais et défenseur connu de la pédophilie34.

      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Matzneff

      en passant sur la fiche wikipédia de Matzneff je relève que Philippe Tesson a lancé sa carrière et qu’il était un grand ami de Hérgé.

      Philippe Tesson, alors directeur de publication du quotidien Combat, le remarque et lui propose d’écrire une chronique chaque jeudi. À compter de cette période, Matzneff ne cesse d’écrire pour de nombreux organes de presse aux opinions politiques très contrastées2 : Aux Écoutes, Notre République, La Nation française, Pariscope, Les Nouvelles littéraires, Matulu, Le Nouvel Adam, Le Quotidien de Paris, Le Figaro, Le Monde (de 1977 à 1982)5, Impact Médecin, la Revue des deux Mondes, Newmen, L’Idiot international, Le Choc du mois. Depuis 2013, il tient une chronique irrégulière sur le site du Point5.

      En 1964, il participe à la création du Comité de coordination de la jeunesse orthodoxe. Il sera, de même, à l’origine de l’émission télévisée Orthodoxie, dont il demeurera le coproducteur jusqu’en 1972, année où, son divorce d’avec Tatiana (épousée en 1970) ayant entraîné chez lui une crise religieuse, il se défera de ces deux charges. Il rencontre #Hergé la même année, en décembre. Leur amitié ne cessera qu’à la mort de ce dernier, en mars 1983[réf. souhaitée].

      –---

      La présence des tenant·es de la psychanalyse qui sont très nombreux ici, est à mettre en parallèle avec le travail de #Sophie_Robert qui à levé le voile sur la misogynie de la doctrine freudienne et lacanienne. Elle a montré qu’en 2017 la psychanalyse tiens toujours le même discours culpabilisant pour les victimes et déculpabilisant pour les auteurs qu’en 1977.
      cf :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/759335
      https://seenthis.net/messages/547141
      #Freud #Lacan #psychanalyse

    • Un siècle de pédophilie dans la presse (1880-2000) : accusation, plaidoirie, condamnation
      Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu
      https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-temps-des-medias-2003-1-page-31.htm#re26no26
      ce passage en particulier :
      La Révolution sexuelle des seventies : le temps de la plaidoirie
      source : notes et références du journal Le Gai pied / wikipedia
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Gai_Pied#cite_note-7
      @unagi en fait un billet plus large
      https://seenthis.net/messages/818701

    • Dans les listes que je recherche, il y a celle des inculpés et condamnés pour l’affaire des ballets roses en 1959/1960.

      Dans le sinistre des #grands_hommes pédosexuels, il y a #Montherlant (1895,1972) légion d’honneur et académicien, ami de Roger #Peyrefitte (1907,2000), lui même pédosexuel dont la victime à 12 ans est Alain-Philippe Malagnac (1951,2000)

      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_de_Montherlant

      Selon d’autres sources, il aurait perdu son œil lors d’une agression. Cf. #Montherlant et les garçons. Roger Peyrefitte écrivit : « La réalité, hélas ! est tout autre. Il s’est fait tabasser, une nuit, à la sortie d’un cinéma par une bande de garçons, qui avaient vu Montherlant tripoter le petit frère de l’un d’eux. Ils l’ont assommé, et à moitié aveuglé. Ce dramatique incident, qui aurait pu lui valoir le sort de Pasolini, lui a certes abîmé la vue, mais ne l’a en rien menacé de cécité. Après sa mort, son ophtalmologue lui-même l’a déclaré. » (Propos secrets. Paris, Albin Michel, 1977, page 73.)

      Pour Alain-Philippe Malagnac, c’est assez glauque, il meurt dans un incendie en 2000, très certainement par suicide suite au pacte avec Peyrefitte.
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain-Philippe_Malagnac_d%27Argens_de_Vill%C3%A8le

      Cette mort brutale à l’âge de quarante-neuf ans six semaines après celle de Peyrefitte, pose quelques questions. La thèse de l’accident est celle qui a est retenue par les enquêteurs qui affirment n’avoir trouvé aucun liquide inflammable11, même si Peyrefitte, dans ses romans, évoque un « pacte de suicide » entre eux, c’est-à-dire l’intention de se tuer à la mort de l’autre. Un jeune ami de Malagnac a péri également dans l’incendie et une quinzaine de toiles de Salvador Dalí ont été détruites dans le sinistre.

    • @sinehebdo Pour P.Val ca ne m’entonnerais pas de ce sordide personnage. Ca me semble tout de même préférable de sourcer, pas pour épargné ces types, mais pour évité des problèmes à seenthis ou/et à toi car c’est le genre de mecs qui ont les moyens de nuire. Et aussi pour avoir une base de donnée utilisable. Il y a déjà beaucoup de monde concerné, des gens pour qui il y a des faits et/ou propos avérés, autant s’occupé de celleux là, c’est déjà un travail vertigineux.

      Pour les 343 salauds de putiers, j’avais aussi relevé que les signataires de ces pétitions des années 1977-1979 comportent quelques misogynes et même un auteur de féminicide (Altusser) - Peut etre que parmi les 343 salauds on trouve des signataires de 1977 et 1979 ou des proches de Matzneff (il me semble qu’il y a Bégbédé). A ce moment là ca serait pas mal de les mettre en valeur. Je suis d’accord avec la continuité de la pedocriminalité et de la misogynie, mais faire une carte des réseaux pedosexuels c’est deja pas gagné alors faire une carte des réseaux misogynes...

      Sinon cet article de tv5 monde (que j’ai pas encore lu mais seulement survolé) m’as l’air assez fouillé sur le sujet
      https://information.tv5monde.com/terriennes/en-france-la-polemique-gabriel-matzneff-continue-vers-un-metoo

    • Vanessa Springora : "Par son statut d’écrivain, Gabriel Matzneff redoublait son entreprise de prédation par une exploitation littéraire"
      L’Invité(e) des Matins par Guillaume Erner
      https://www.franceculture.fr/societe/quand-des-intellectuels-francais-defendaient-la-pedophilie
      https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/linvite-des-matins/affaire-matzneff-pedophilie-et-litterature-vanessa-springora-est-linvi

      ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““"

      Quand des intellectuels français défendaient la pédophilie
      03/01/2020 (mis à jour à 12:15)
      Par Cécile de Kervasdoué et Fiona Moghaddam
      https://www.franceculture.fr/societe/quand-des-intellectuels-francais-defendaient-la-pedophilie

    • @mad_meg, j’étais contente de partager, je le ferai autrement désormais, justement pour ne pas polluer cette liste je liais des posts seenthis externes. Heureusement, je ne suis pas idiote ni mes recherches inutiles. La source ne me convenait pas pour le traitement que j’en fais, aussi je n’ai pas perdu mon temps comme je l’ai expliqué dans le lien donné https://seenthis.net/messages/818757
      même si tu ne sembles pas comprendre ce que je fais !)
      https://seenthis.net/messages/817289#message817520

      Donc, comme c’est apparemment « ton » fil, je sors, bisou :)

    • Stéphanie Lamy, sur twitter, :

      https://twitter.com/WCM_JustSocial/status/1210876050307203078

      Avec #Matzneff certain.e.s découvrent que les propagandistes pédocriminels noyautent des milieux pour faire avancer leur « cause ». A l’époque les littéraires, aujourd’hui les services sociaux, psys, magistrature... tous les postes qui assurent l’impunité des auteurs.

      (...)

      #Jean_Marc_Ghitti est professeur agrégé et docteur en philosophie.
      Il enseigne notamment à l’institut de formation en travail social (AFORE) à Saint-Étienne
      Pour lui « L’émotion d’horreur devant la pédophilie peut conduire à l’erreur, car l’émotion trouble le jugement à sa source ». Jean-Marc Ghitti, pour qui les accusations de pédocriminalité sont forcement des « fausses accusation » enseigne donc cette propagande aux travailleurs sociaux (avec d’autres thèses pro-pédo). Il est aussi l’un des fondateurs du collectif de pères divorcés La #GrueJaune.

      En 2012, le #Dr_Marcel _Rufo a expliqué à une mère désemparée que la grande majorité des enfants sexuellement agressés vont bien. Il bénéficie du soutien de politiques comme #Catherine_Troendlé @C_Troendle (Vice Présidente du Sénat, Sénateur du Haut Rhin, Présidente du groupe d’amitié France-Allemagne) & il est régulièrement auditionné sur la pédocriminalité http://patricjean.blogspot.com/2012/12/rufo-et-la-pedophilie.html

      (...)
      Bref je ne vais pas faire toute la liste des propagandistes pro-pédocriminels d’aujourd’hui. #Matzneff à l’époque était non seulement propagandiste mais aussi prédateur. C’est ça la grande différence avec aujourd’hui : les propagandistes le font surtout à but commercial.

    • En fait, ce post c’est un peu #la_poubelle. J’espère qu’on est toutes et tous ok. Je tiens à vous dire que je suis bien content de vous avoir pas loin. Et que j’espère que ça secoue pas trop (moi j’ai passé un genre de cap chelou mais je fais pas trop le malin en vrai...)

    • Ca me va pour la poubelle @tintin
      C’est sur que ca remue de fouiller là dedans et que ca fait remonter des traumas. J’espère que tu arrive à dormir et à pensé à autre chose et que tu tirera du positif pour toi de toutes ces recherches.

    • Christian Giudicelli.

      Giudicelli n’est pas un romancier à gros tirages, mais ce notable des lettres est bien connu des cénacles parisiens. Le juré Renaudot est un intime de Matzneff, son agent le plus précieux aussi : son « fidèle complice », résume-t-il dans Les Spectres joyeux (2019). Lui-même est membre du comité de lecture de Gallimard.
      (...)
      « Christian est un esthète », commentent ses amis du prix, sans qu’on comprenne bien ce que cela veut dire. Dans les livres du lauréat 2013, il figure souvent sous le surnom « Eight One One » – 811 –, comme un numéro de chambre d’hôtel. Ensemble, « Christian » et « Gabriel » partent souvent en vacances à Manille. Sur la biographie détaillée publiée sur un site « autorisé » tenu par un fan de Matzneff, et supprimé le 30 décembre, on pouvait lire les dates de leurs nombreux séjours communs aux Philippines dans les années 1980. Du « 26 avril-26 mai 1986, voyage à Manille avec Christian Giudicelli ». Matzneff n’a jamais fait mystère du tourisme sexuel qu’il pratique avec de jeunes « gosses » de Manille, âgés de « 11 ou 12 ans ».

      Voir article du monde du 06/01 - https://seenthis.net/messages/819342

    • Autres soutiens de Matzneff cités dans cet article

      L’admirateur de Montherlant a longtemps fréquenté Jean-Marie Le Pen et Alain de Benoist. Mais en ce début des années 2010, une nouvelle génération de droite dure, non plus « païenne » mais catholique, s’interroge. « Le prix Renaudot décerné à un défenseur de la pédophilie, mais que ne pardonnerait-on pas au nom du “talent” ?, s’indigne Le Salon beige, un site qui soutient aujourd’hui Marion Maréchal Le Pen.

      (...)

      Matzneff est un dandy. Il a longtemps vécu dans une chambre de bonne dont le loyer était payé dans les années 1980 par le couple Yves Saint Laurent et Pierre Bergé (qui a été co-actionnaire à titre personnel du groupe Le Monde)

      (...)

      L’Etat aussi sait se montrer généreux. Dès les années 1970, alors que Matzneff s’apprête à publier Les Moins de seize ans, la romancière Lucie Faure, jury du prix Médicis et épouse du président de l’Assemblée nationale appuyée par l’académicien Maurice Rheims, intercèdent pour que l’écrivain touche des « aides à la création » du Centre national du livre (CNL), une émanation du ministère de la culture. « C’est la première fois que l’Etat m’a donné des pépètes », se vante-t-il.

      (...)

      Et en 2002, le ministre de l’époque, Jean-Jacques Aillagon – qui assure « ne pas se souvenir de l’épisode » –, a prié le patron du CNL, Jean-Sébastien Dupuis, de lui obtenir une allocation. Douze mille euros annuels, puis depuis 2013, 6 000 euros.

      (...)

      « FOG », enfin, le président du jury Renaudot 2013, s’accroche et continue d’expliquer que « la pédophilie était très courante au temps des Grecs », mais se déclare « solidaire » de Vanessa Springora.

    • 2001 pétition de soutien à CohnBendit dans le déni total #déprimant
      https://www.liberation.fr/tribune/2001/03/01/cohn-bendit-et-mai-68-quel-proces-societe-de-paranoia_356312

      Nous remercions la génération de la révolution sexuelle d’avoir déverrouillé la vieille famille où l’enfant et la femme étaient ­ et restent encore trop souvent ­ des objets, y compris des violences sexuelles de leur entourage.

      Véronique Dubarry, Stéphane Lavignotte, Guilhem Lavignotte, Erwan Lecoeur, Christine Villard, Thomas Giry, Julien Lecaille, Arnaud Wasson-Simon, Irène Steinert (Pays-Bas), Su Friedrich (New York), Silvia Caracciolo (Rome), Gilles Collard (Belgique), John Symons (Boston), Pierre Fay (Cap Cod, Etats-Unis), etc.

      Soutien (génération des parents) : Anne Coppel, Serge Quadruppani, Alain Dugrand, Alain Lipietz.

      Romain Goupil
      https://www.liberation.fr/evenement/2001/02/23/romain-goupil-cineaste_355609

      « Rien n’a changé, les attaques sont toujours les mêmes, lancées par le même genre de mecs qu’il y a trente ans. Moi, ça me donne envie de dire aux réactionnaires qui nous tombent dessus en ce moment : oui je suis pédophile, oui je suis gay, oui je suis lesbienne. Evidemment, toute cette affaire est dégueulasse pour Dany Cohn-Bendit, comme pour Joschka Fischer. Et je les soutiens.

    • Suite de mes recherches et demande à la communauté seenthis pour les signataires non sourcés et sans date de naissance

      https://seenthis.net/messages/818757#message819492

      il y en a 2/3 pour lesquel·les les faisceaux concordent, avec l’école de sexologie par exemple, voici celles et ceux qui manquent

      Boegner Docteur psychiatre au CHS de Fleury-les-Aubrais
      Cabrol Docteur psychiatre
      Challou Docteur psychiatre au CHS de Fleury-les-Aubrais
      Fanny Deleuze traductrice
      Maurice Eme Docteur psychiatre
      Docteur R.Gentis psychiatre
      Anne Laborit Directrice d’Ecole
      Jacques Lefort Chargé de recherches au CNRS
      Michel Meignant Docteur psychiatre
      Vincent Monteil professeur à l’Université de Paris VII
      Nicole Nicolas
      Jean Nicolas Docteur gynécologue-accoucheur
      Séguier Docteur psychiatre au CHS de Fleury les Aubrais
      Torrubia Docteur psychiatre au CHS de Fleury-les Aubrais
      Jean-Michel Wilhelm
      Pierre-Edmond Gay docteur psychanalyste
      Raymond Lepoutre
      Négrepont photographe (Livre les enfants de Papiers ? )
      Gérard Soulier
      Gérard Vallès Docteur psychiatre

    • macron fait le mariole avec ces copains pédocriminels cohn-bendit et romain goupil
      tvs24.ru/pub/watch/1463/cohn-bendit/

      Rappel du lobbying des pédosexuels en allemagne qui sont quand même arrivés au Bundestag via les verts pour modifier les lois, ce qui a été documenté et dénoncé.
      Regarde plus près ce que fait Macron qui refuse de mettre un âge sur le consentement ou modifier la loi pour retirer la prescription sur les viols.

    • Nouvelle contribution de Finkielkraut à la culture du viol et du pedo-viol.

      Le philosophe Alain Finkielkraut s’est exprimé sur cette histoire sur CNews ce 7 janvier : « il n’y a pas eu de viol puisqu’il y a eu consentement, mais il y a eu en effet détournement de mineur ".
      ...
      Monsieur Finkielkraut nous explique sur LCI que Vanessa Springora, à 14 ans, était « consentante », qu’il ne s’agit « pas de pédophilie » et qu’il ne s’agit « pas d’un viol ». Peu étonnant venant d’un « philosophe » qui en 1977 écrivait avec Pascal Bruckner dans « Le Nouveau Désordre Amoureux » une défense immonde des textes du pédophile Tony Duvert : « Au fond, la Loi ne demande aux amants que ceci : de ne pas faire les enfants ; en d’autres termes, de rester pleinement génitaux. Et inversement : le corps de l’enfant demeure aujourd’hui en Occident le dernier territoire inviolable et privé, l’unanime sanctuaire interdit : droit de cité à toutes les “perversions”, à la rigueur, mais chasse impitoyable à la sexualité enfantine, son exercice, sa convoitise. La subversion, si l’on y croit encore, ce serait de nos jours moins l’homosexualité que la pédérastie, la séduction des “innocents” (d’où le scandale que provoquent les livres de Tony Duvert alors qu’ils devraient stimuler, susciter des vocations, dessiller les yeux). » Notons qu’Alain Finkielkraut a aussi pris la défense de Roman Polanski, le réalisateur, suite à son viol envers une mineure, en disant que sa victime « n’était pas une enfant » car elle « posait pour vogue ». Vomitif.

      Un consentement se doit d’être « libre et éclairé ». Lorsqu’on a, en dessous de 15 ans, on ne possède pas le bagage de connaissances nécessaires, l’expérience, la solidité pour dire « non » face à un adulte envers qui, par essence, on a confiance. Il n’y a pas de consentement face à la perversité d’une contrition imposée par l’adulte, ici Matzneff vis-à-vis de la très jeune Vanessa Springora.

      Pénétrer un(e) mineu(r)e est un viol. Attoucher un(e) mineur(e) est un délit. Non, un enfant et/ou un(e) adolescent(e) ne peut pas, par définition, consentir à une relation sexuelle. Laissez les enfants vivre leur enfance et les adolescent(e)s vivre leur période transitoire vers l’âge d’adulte en toute tranquillité. Monsieur Matzneff, sachez ceci : c’est vomitif d’abuser de son statut d’autorité à des fins de domination, d’emprise sexuelle.

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/aurore-van-opstal/blog/100120/non-monsieur-finkelkraut-une-mineure-ne-consent-pas

    • Ce mec est dangereux. Peut-être hors sujet en ce qui nous concerne...

      https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/author/samuel-comblez

      #Samuel_Comblez est un psychologue de l’enfance et de l’adolescence et directeur des opérations de l’Association e-Enfance à Paris. Durant 12 ans, il a exercé au sein de Fil Santé Jeunes avec des adolescents via un dispositif internet et téléphone. Il a également été psychothérapeute pour le service pédo-psychiatrie à l’hôpital de Meaux. Il fait partie de la Commission de classification des films du CNC dépendant du Ministère de la Culture en qualité de commissaire expert. En septembre 2018, il a sorti son premier ouvrage intitulé « La sexualité de vos ados, en parler, ce n’est pas si compliqué ? » aux éditions Solar

      https://www.lci.fr/famille/pedophilie-comment-trouver-les-mots-justes-pour-mettre-en-garde-son-enfant-21421

      Parmi plein d’autres clichés (le pédocriminel est « avant tout » un malade à soigner, il a des pulsions irréprésibleuh) il y a cet appel à ? Quoi ?

      En revanche, je ne suis pas pour l’idée de porter plainte quand cela se passe dans le cadre familial. Notamment parce que l’enfant va porter sur ses épaules la responsabilité d’avoir mis un membre de sa famille en prison, ce qui n’est pas évident. Il me semble qu’il est préférable de mettre en place des soins, du coup l’enfant peut se dire que sa parole a permis de soigner quelqu’un plutôt que de le punir.

      #wtf

    • un truc qui me tracasse en passant, y a un lien, autre que d’expression, entre les #ballets_roses des années 50 et les #ballets_bleus évoqués pour parler de l’affaire du Coral (dans un message que je ne retrouve plus) ? Le #coral ce serait, aussi, une affaire de pédoprostitution, avec, cette fois au centre, toute une partie de la gauche intello du début des années 80 ?

    • je pense aussi à #présumés_innocents cette expo au Capc de Bordeaux, où une grosse partie du milieu, avait bien joué aux abruti(e)s, en prenant les gens pour des nazes parce ce qu’ils ne tolèraient pas leurs petits jeux « border line »... J’ai trouvé en premier clic cet article là-dessus :

      De juin à octobre 2000 a lieu une exposition de prestige au CAPC de Bordeaux : Présumés Innocents . Cet événement célèbre le millénaire en rassemblant 200 œuvres de 80 artistes, de tout pays, particulièrement célèbres. Le thème qui les rassemble est l’enfance. Les médias sont unanimes : Bordeaux est une ville dont le rayonnement culturel dépasse les frontières, c’est une référence mondiale dans le milieu de l’art. On y trouve même le zeste de scandale nécessaire à la bonne réussite de ce genre de manifestation : la réaction hostile du maire de Bordeaux, Alain Juppé, qui a néanmoins financé l’exposition mais refuse de l’inaugurer et que ses services culturels l’annoncent en ville sur les affichages municipaux.

      Élitistes contre populistes

      Il faut attendre la rentrée scolaire pour entendre les premières protestations, en particulier de la part des parents d’élèves. Le 24 octobre une plainte est déposée par l’association La Mouette dont l’objet est la lutte contre la pédophilie. En effet, plus de 1500 enfants, de la maternelle aux classes terminales, ont visité l’exposition.

      Les deux chefs d’accusation sont redoutables : Diffusion d’images à caractère pédopornographique et Corruption de mineurs par exposition de documents portant atteinte à la dignité des enfants (vidéos, photos, installations etc.). Vingt œuvres sont incriminées dans le genre de la vidéo de Elke Krystufek : l’artiste se masturbe avec un concombre avant de se coudre le sexe...

      La polémique apparaît dans les journaux. Deux camps s’affrontent. D’un côté les associations plaignantes perçues par les médias de grande diffusion comme une nouvelle forme de populisme , de poujadisme moral. De l’autre, le milieu officiel qui défend sa politique culturelle. Le ministre de la Culture, Jean Jacques Aillagon, vient au secours du directeur du CAPC mis en cause, Henry-Claude Cousseau, respectable haut fonctionnaire aujourd’hui directeur de l’école des Beaux-Arts de Paris.

      Il existe en effet un certain consensus de la part des personnalités éclairées en faveur de ce genre de manifestations... Jusque parmi les ecclésiastiques : Mgr Rouet dans son livre L’Église et l’Art d’avant-garde (Albin Michel, 2002), signale le courage des artistes mis en cause : Loin d’offrir une image idyllique de l’enfance, ils ne baissent pas les yeux devant sa violence... Les artistes tentent de sonder le chaos des pulsions en liberté (p.22). Il regrette l’attitude des associations qui ont porté plainte : Elle s’inscrit dans l’inflation des pratiques répressives exercées aussi bien par le pouvoirs politiques que par certaines associations de défense de la moralité publique (p. 23).

      http://www.libertepolitique.com/Actualite/Decryptage/Presumes-Innocents.-L-art-contemporain-devant-les-juges

      y avait lévêque là-dedans, et pleins d’autres « ouvreurs de consciences »

    • et aussi, puisque je suis dans l’art on a les pétées de thunes, complétement stupides, parfaitement médiocres soeurs #bettina_rheims et #nathalie_rheims qui ont fait du flirt pédoporno un quasi fond de commerce.

      Pour Nath’ :

      Quand une petite allumeuse de 12 ans décide de mettre le grappin sur un comédien de 40 ans, ça fait des étincelles

      https://www.parismatch.com/Culture/Livres/Nathalie-Rheims-innocence-en-emois-Place-Colette-814971

      Pour Beth’, c’est de la photo, donc je publie pas. Juste une piste :

      https://www.liberation.fr/medias/1996/12/21/evian-recadre-sa-pub-jugee-trop-denudee_190413

      Beth’, au début des années 2000, elle financait les éditions #léo_scheer, qui ont à leur catalogue, le premier manuel du parfait pédocriminel de mtznf (ils en ont six de ses bouquins)...

      c’est un atlas qu’il faut faire... Avec des dessins à la kalash pour reprendre une idée de la survivante Nikki de Saint-phalle

    • https://www.letemps.ch/societe/revolution-sexuelle-mai-68-genere-un-tourbillon-dabus
      Malka Marcovich, (historienne) déterre un texte du pape du nouveau roman Alain Robbe-Grillet, publié en 1973 dans un recueil de photographies de David Hamilton

      … les « nouveaux philosophes reconnaissaient toute la pertinence des livres de Tony Duvert et de son apologie de la sexualité avec les enfants, qui devait selon eux « stimuler, susciter des vocations, dessiller les yeux » (dixit Pascal Bruckner et Alain Finkielkraut dans Le Nouveau Désordre amoureux).

      WP
      La thèse de 3e cycle de Bruckner, consacrée à l’émancipation sexuelle dans la pensée du socialiste utopiste Charles Fourier (« Le corps de chacun est accessible à tous »), a été dirigée par Roland Barthes (et soutenue en 1975 à l’université Paris VII)

    • c’est pas mal finalement de se restreindre à l’époque, même s’il faudra nécessairement une mise en abyme, littéralement, car comme le disait la supergéante, il s’agit d’un problème massif.

    • William Reich, père inspirateur (Dolto, Foucault)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich
      j’ai choisi la page en anglais car les versions françaises WP édulcorent bien souvent les biographies et les informations y sont plus complètes et sourcées
      Notamment l’histoire du criminel Orgonomic Infant Research Center (OIRC) in 1950 et le nombre de tarés influenceurs pour avoir acheté son truc magnétique accumulateurs d’orgone !

    • Hum, pas que …

      Several well-known figures used orgone accumulators, including Orson Bean, Sean Connery, Allen Ginsberg, Paul Goodman, Jack Kerouac, Isaac Rosenfeld, J. D. Salinger, William Steig and Robert Anton Wilson. Mailer—who owned several orgone accumulators, including some in the shape of eggs—wrote about Reich enthusiastically in The Village Voice, as a result of which Orgonon became a place of pilgrimage and the orgasm a symbol of liberation.

      #beat_generation

      Et sur l’influence d’américains aux méthodologies plus que douteuses voir Alfred Kinsey (sur le WP anglais) dont le rapport (1948/1953) a été publié par Daniel Guérin (un des signataires) en 1955 chez Julliard (le même éditeur qui publie le pire de Matzneff sous la direction de son ami #Jacques_Chancel) et glorifié par les sexologues français dont certains seront condamnés pour viols ou pédocriminalités.

      « Bien entendu nous possédions tous en commun une culture sexologique de base dont les travaux les plus notables étaient ceux d’Alfred Kinsey et Pomeroy en 1949 et puis ceux, merveilleux, de William Masters et Virginia Johnson en 1966.

      Nous avions reconnu le sérieux du National Sex Forum. Nous donnions de l’importance aux somatothérapies et surtout à la bioénergie qui s’inspirait des écrits de Wilhelm Reich. »
      Gellman 2014

    • wow, bien vu. Je vois bien ça, en carte.

      Moi, là, en littérature, et un peu dans la même époque, j’ai :

      « #Kate_Millett, une grande figure de la pensée contemporaine » de #Dworkin :

      Quand Millett a écrit La politique du mâle #Henry_Miller, #Norman_Mailer et #DH_Lawrence étaient les références de la libération sexuelle. Ces écrivains avait une influence de premier plan sur la génération naissante des années 1960. Il est difficile aujourd’hui d’appréhender l’emprise qu’ils avaient sur l’imagination. Pour la gauche et la #contre_culture naissante, ils étaient les écrivains de la subversion. En fait, ils ont contribué à acculturer une génération dans la conviction que la force et la violence étaient des éléments précieux du sexe. L’analyse de Millett a détruit leur autorité.

    • Oui, c’est la même maison d’édition Julliard mais pas la même direction, joli pied de nez de Springora. Bon, ceci dit, de 1959 à 1992 on retrouve à la tête de Julliard Christian Bourgois (signataire N°xx) même promo que Chirac à Sciences Po, et qui va publier Copi, Glucksmann, Pierret …

      @mad_meg tu aurais une idée de qui est la toile accrochée dans le bureau de Bourgois ?

      Le texte recouvert de peinture est un poème de Ginsberg « On Neal Cassidy’s Ashes » avec des photos des roadtrip de la #beat_generation

    • Pour ce qui est des responsabilités, vite fait, il me semble qu’on peut dire qu’hocquenghem a fait rentrer la pédophilie dans le Fhar, et que les lesbiennes l’ont quitté pour ça. disons pour #1979, après les mouvements homo ont fait le ménage aussi... Mais c’est une peu ce qui me reste de la lecture de « l’histoire de la pédophilie ».

    • Pas trop d’accord avec tes raccourcis @tintin, les lesbiennes quittent le FHAR quand leur nombre et leurs voix surtout, (cf video sur YT où presque aucune femme ne s’exprime) deviennent minoritaires lors des rendez-vous aux Beaux Arts, devenu lieu de débats et aussi de rencontres dans les caves entre mecs.
      Je n’arrive pas encore à appréhender le rôle d’Hocquenghem mais il quitte le FHAR assez tôt, en 1972.
      Concernant les féministes signataires, si je ne m’avance pas de trop, la défense des enfants semble y avoir été reléguée profitant ainsi aux pédocriminels (Il y en a plusieurs dans la pétition qui ont été condamnés par la suite) car liée à la maternité bourgeoise alors honnie.
      Plusieurs historiennes, sociologues, etc ont travaillé sur cette question, merci de citer tes sources, ça facilite les recherches :)

    • merci pour les précisions @touti j’ai mal formulé mon truc... Franchement, je m’y perds total dans ce merdier, mais je découvre plein de choses (genre dworkin là (quelle claque)). Un peu de mal, cependant, à avoir une carte en tête...

    • oui, c’est page 166 : « Guy Hocquenghem joue un rôle central dans ce rapprochement [entre millitant homo et pédo] (...) » ; Pas le temps là de tout recopier. Pour les lesbiennes faut que je revoit. Je vais mieux préparer mon coup, avec citations etc.

    • donc dans « histoire de la pédophilie » de Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu, page 166.

      Guy Hocquenghem joue un rôle central dans ce rapprochement [entre millitant homo et pédo] qui, à distance du désir de respectabilité et de l’humanisme d’ #Arcadie_ [fondé par #André_Baudry], revendique une sexualité mécanique celle du "sexe-machine [...] le Futur sexuel n’est pas fondé comme l’ordre répressif de la Nature ; il divise rationnellement un secteur libéré, celui d’un érotisme de plus en plus commercialisé et avoué entre mâles et un secteur sauvegardé, femmes qui se refusent aux étreintes brutales, enfants mis hors d’atteinte des pédérastes (in « Guy Hocquenghem _Prélude , la dérive homosexuelle , Paris, JP Delaye, 1977 p.12 »

    • sinon, outre altantique, en 1992, #John_Irving patauge dans sa merde, à partir de cette « erreur » logique", qui a aussi fait florès en fronce :

      Pornography and the New Puritans - The New York Times
      https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/29/books/pornography-and-the-new-puritans.html

      the unproven theory that sexually explicit material actually causes sexual crimes.

      Euh... Le principe du #porno, c’est que c’est vrai. C’est pas juste un film, une oeuvre de pure imagination. C’est un film où des gens « baisent » pour de vrai. Je pourrais mal paraphraser Dworkin, mais c’est de vrais anus, de vraie bites etc.

      Le porno ne cause pas de crimes sexuels dans le sens où tous les gens qui regardent du porno ne commettent pas de crime sexuel, mais tous ces gens regardent de vrais crimes sexuels, produit par le porno.

      Le porno produit donc, littéralement, des crimes sexuels. Et par centaines de milliers aujourd’hui...

      Comment est-ce qu’on ne peut pas comprendre ça ? Ou alors le mec n’a jamais vu de porno...

    • permettez que je réponde à ma propre question :

      prouver la réalité d’un postulat (aussi fou soit-il) par tous les amalgames et toutes les confusions possibles, où peuvent se rejoindre allègrement des intellos aux sensibilités inverses, extrême-droite et ultra-gauche, mais avec des pratiques comparables de propagandisme acharné

      http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article2265

      Cet article parle du SAP, syndrome d’aliénation parentale et de ses soutiens... bazar à cartographier peut-être... c’est de 2006.

    • du sap donc :

      http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=1364

      M. #Van_Gijseghem n’est pas un psychologue marginal ou isolé. Professeur à l’université de Montréal, il est également expert judiciaire (1) et intervient dans la formation de magistrats, de psychologues, de policiers, de gendarmes et de travailleurs sociaux dans différents pays. En France, où il est entre autre conférencier à l’Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, un récent rapport du Ministère de la Justice recommandait qu’une méthodologie introduite par Van Gijseghem soit utilisée par les policiers accueillant la parole d’enfants victimes de violences. En Belgique, en pleine affaire Dutroux, des gendarmes ont été formés par ce même Van Gijseghem en matière d’écoute et de recueil de témoignages de victimes de violences. En Suisse, il est intervenu dans la formation de magistrats et de policiers du Canton de Tessin et auprès des policiers du Canton de Neuchâtel.

    • même source :

      Christine Delphy écrivait - dans le Monde Diplomatique de mai 2004 - à propos des lobbies masculinistes : « Le plus souvent, ces groupes de pression agissent de façon souterraine, en formant des ’experts’ qui témoigneront devant les tribunaux, en écrivant des livres de ’psychologie’ où les avocats des hommes violents et des pères incestueux, ainsi que les auteures d’ouvrages ’baquelachiens’, puisent leurs arguments ». Puis, « Ils argumentent volontiers sur de ’fausses allégations’ des enfants ou encore sur le ’syndrome des faux souvenirs’. Autant d’expressions popularisées dans les tribunaux et les écoles de magistrature par les ’experts’ #Hubert_Van_Gijseghem et #Paul_Bensoussan, notamment ».

      par contre, #baquelachiens ?

    • Gardner, l’inventeur du #syndrome_d_aliénation_parentale (SAP), considère par exemple :

      "Il est ici pertinent pour ma théorie que la pédophilie sert des buts procréateurs. Évidemment, la pédophilie ne sert pas ce but de façon immédiate puisque les enfants ne peuvent tomber enceinte ni rendre d’autres enceintes. L’enfant attiré dans des interactions sexuelles dès l’enfance est susceptible de devenir hautement sexualisé et de rechercher activement des expériences sexuelles durant les années précédant la puberté. Un tel enfant « chargé à bloc » est susceptible de devenir plus actif au plan sexuel après la puberté et donc susceptible de transmettre rapidement ses gènes à sa progéniture. [...] L’idéal est donc, du point de vue de l’ADN, que l’enfant soit sexuellement actif très tôt, qu’il ait une enfance hautement sexualisée avant d’entamer sa puberté

      « théorie » que l’on retrouve sous une autre forme par là :

      https://seenthis.net/messages/803380#message803388

    • MEDEF des rapports hommes-femmes - ces associations réactionnaires de pères divorcés qui luttent pour maintenir leur droit de propriété sur les enfants et les femmes - pour lequel il intervient et qui le citent souvent dans leurs bibliographies et sur leurs sites internet.

    • #Sos_papa « nos combats » :

      http://www.sospapa.net/presentation/nos-combats

      2 – Instaurer une véritable formation spécifique pour tous les intervenants dans les conflits familiaux : JAF, intervenants sociaux (médiateurs, enquêteurs sociaux, experts médico-psychologiques, etc…), forces de l’ordre, éducation nationale, etc afin de les sensibiliser au fait que l’enfant a un véritable besoin de ses deux parents.
      Les former entre autres au syndrôme de l’aliénation parentale et au conflit de loyauté.

    • sos papa «historique» :

      SOS PAPA est créé en 1990 par #Michel_Thizon, Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur.

      Historiquement basé dans la ville de Le Pecq, mais rapidement mise en place de délégations et de correspondants sur la France.

      Notre première marraine a longtemps été une mère exemplaire et non moins actrice connue en la personne d’#Anny_Duperrey.

      Transfert du siège social à Paris dans les locaux du 84 Bd Garibaldi, Paris XV° et élargissement de la couverture nationale.

      Notre nouvelle marraine sera désormais l’illustre et définitivement grande dame qu’est Mme #Evelyne_SULLEROT, Académicienne, auteure et historiquement reconnue parmi les premières féministes, qui a d’ailleurs été à l’origine de la création du Planning Familial.

      Intégration de l’association au sein de l’UNAF (Union Nationale des Associations Familiales) qui conforte notre caractère familial.

      L’association devient officiellement « association d’aide aux victimes ».

    • sur Arcadie, pas mieux que wikipédia pour l’instant :
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Baudry

      La revue Arcadie a été lancée en janvier 1954 par André Baudry, #Jacques_de_Ricaumont, #Roger_Peyrefitte et l’auteur et ex-séminariste #André_du_Dognon. #Jean_Cocteau offre un dessin inédit (marqué du mot "liberté" écrit à l’envers) à sa signature pour le premier numéro (tiré à 1 500 exemplaires seulement). Elle fut aussitôt interdite à l’affichage et à la vente aux mineurs (seuls les abonnés pouvaient donc l’acheter). André Baudry fut poursuivi en 1955 pour outrage aux bonnes mœurs et condamné à 400 000 francs d’amende. L’interdiction ne sera levée qu’en 1975, mais la revue n’a jamais cessé de paraitre (11 numéros par an, de janvier 1954 à août 1982, soit 314 exemplaires en tout, dont un numéro double chaque été). « Arcadie », à son apogée, tirera à 40.000 exemplaires destinés à toute la France (et au-delà). Elle avait des liens forts et des échanges avec les revues homosexuelles Der Kreis (Le Cercle, de Suisse) et One (États-Unis)

    • très bon boulot ici de #stéphanie_lamy sur les #MGTOW truc #masculiniste bien gore d’il y a un an.
      https://twitter.com/WCM_JustSocial/status/1086583194151989248

      La bonne nouvelle, dit-elle, c’est que :

      une grosse partie de tout ce petit monde MGTOW France ne cesse de se taper dessus mutuellement depuis l’été dernier. L’histoire de leur autodestruction est à mourrir de rire. Ils ont (soit disant) crée un « faux » site BDSM ou il n’y avait que des H dominants et où les F « soumises » devaient payer - « POUR PIÈGER LES FÉMINISTES ». Finalement ça s’est terminé en pugilat entre eux.

      Je trouve cette fille hyper affûtée sur pleins de ces sujets, et ça n’a pas l’air d’être la dernière pour le pistage :

      Sinon, il me semble avoir trouvé les identités de Mos Majorum et une floppé d’autres.

  • Le 20 décembre 2019, je reçois, par mail, ce message de "pub" d’une formation qui nous est proposée dans notre #université (#Université_Grenoble_Alpes) :

    L’#UGA nous informe de la mise en place à la formation #communication_assertive et bienveillante dans les relations professionnelles .

    Deux sessions au choix sont ouvertes :

    Soit les 29 & 30 juin 2020
    soit les 03 & 04 décembre 2020

    La date limite d’inscription est : j - 15 avant la date de la formation

    La formation est placée sous le thème " #efficacité professionnelle ".

    Objectifs de la formation :

    A l’issue de la formation, les participants seront capables de :

    – Décoder leur comportement et celui des autres dans les relations professionnelles

    – Communiquer avec #tact et #diplomatie

    – Etablir des #attitudes_positives au quotidien

    – Développer des relations professionnelles harmonieuses et efficaces

    Programme :

    1. Prendre conscience de son comportement

    – Identifier les raisons de ne pas de comprendre

    – Comprendre l’image que l’on renvoie à ses interlocuteurs

    – Prendre conscience de l’image de sa communication écrite

    – Identifier son comportement dans les situations relationnelles

    2. Savoir dialoguer avec tact et souplesse

    – Pratiquer l’écoute active et savoir utiliser les 5 types de questions

    – Utiliser les 3 techniques de reformulation

    – Améliorer sa communication non verbale

    – Etre congruent entre son langage verbal et non-verbal

    – Ajuster sa communication à son interlocuteur

    – Choisir son vocabulaire pour communiquer avec précision et tact à l’écrit

    3. Savoir soutenir une position claire et diplomate

    – Etre assertif : utiliser la méthode DESC

    – Exprimer son avis sans juger l’autre

    – Formuler des critiques constructives

    – Faire face aux critiques

    – Formuler un refus sans provoquer de tension

    – Faire et accepter des compliments dans le monde professionnel

    Durée : 2 jours

    Public : Toute personne souhaitant optimiser sa communication afin d’améliorer ses relations professionnelles

    –--------

    Sur ce, je réponds à une collègue, en colère :

    Plus de moyens, moins de compétition, moins de darwinisme social résoudrait la moitié des problèmes sans formations à la communication bienveillante !

    –-> je fais évidemment allusion aux propos tenus par #Antoine_Petit (à la tête du #CNRS) qui a appelé à une loi « darwinienne » pour le financement de la #recherche. « Une loi ambitieuse, inégalitaire — oui, inégalitaire, une loi vertueuse et darwinienne, qui encourage les scientifiques, équipes, laboratoires, établissements les plus performants à l’échelle internationale, une loi qui mobilise les énergies. »
    https://seenthis.net/messages/815560

    #formation #bienveillance #communication_bienveillante #travail #relations_professionnelles #inégalités #performance #compétition #attitude_positive #harmonie #hypocrisie #image #tact #souplesse #écoute_active #techniques_de_reformulation #communication #communication_non_verbale #langage_verbal #langage_non-verbal #vocabulaire #méthode_DESC #critiques_constructives

    • Et parallèlement à l’#Université d’#Amsterdam... la week of #work_stress !

      Message from the works council

      Dear all,

      The week of 11th of November is the week of work stress. It is the week where the university brings out its petting puppies, makes you bikeblend your smoothie, and has you beat a few djembe tunes to let go of your #stress. Some might argue that it is a nice gesture of the employer, but we of the FNV in the OR find it a slap in the face of the employee. It adds insult to injury.

      This waste of money again shows that the faculty is not taking work pressure seriously. We said it last year, and we said it again this year: “stop monkeying around and actually deal with the causes of work pressure”. Work pressure is not that difficult. There are either too many tasks for the number of people, or there are not enough people for the number of tasks. So the answers are also simple. If an organization is financially healthy, you hire more people. If the organization is financially unhealthy, you are stuck with reducing the tasks. There is no rocket science involved.

      Yet as you can see in this week of work stress, the faculty seems keen to responsiblize the individual for the work pressure he or she is experiencing. This leads to offers such as #time_management (we just received an email that there are two spots still available), #yoga, and #mindfulness. But these are just bandaids ("lapjes voor het bloeden" as the Dutch expression goes) that obscure the structural faults of the system. There are too many administration processes. There is too much institutional distrust that you are not doing your work correctly leading to for instance to ’#jaargesprekken' being moments where you defend yourself instead of discussing how you would like to grow as a professional. There are criteria for promotion that seem to change during the process. We have to accept budget cuts in our teaching programme while at the same time the faculty wants to start new programmes that make new claims on budget and staff.

      Recently, our support staff at EOSS was confronted with a report that was framed as research about the high work pressure they are experiencing. Yet it actually placed all the blame at the staff of EOSS and suggested their so-called inefficient work and non-conformance to instructions from management was the cause of their work pressure. Another signal that work pressure is not taking seriously by management and the individual employee is again responsibilized for his or her work’ stress’. The Works Council will keep pushing the Faculty and the UvA to make meaningful structural changes that address work pressure instead of blaming the victim. Namaste.

      XXXX (FNV Works Council Representative)

      Reçu via email d’une amie/collègue qui y travaille...

    • Et petit exemple d’#Angleterre (#UK):

      Universities have driven their workers into the ground. That’s why I’m striking

      Our eight days of action are in response to a marketised sector that has prioritised profit over the welfare of staff and students.

      Workers in higher education across the UK are on strike. One of the reasons we are striking is because of the poor conditions we face today – which were, in large part, decided by the 2010 election.

      Nearly a decade ago, the Tory and Lib Dem coalition government conspired to transform higher education, unleashing the forces of marketisation. The physical and emotional landscape of the university has fundamentally changed in the intervening years. The devastation wrought cannot be overstated. Contrary to justifications for reform by Tories and Lib Dems, the contemporary university is not sustainable, and reforms have reduced standards and entrenched inequality.

      In public discussion of the – shameful – tripling of student fees and mounting student debt, the changes to university funding that this brought about are often neglected. The 2010 coalition government replaced the old system of block grants with money paid per student per course, and lifted the cap on the number of student places available. Now, universities compete for funding by competing for students, with each other, and between their own departments.

      Most remarkably, this was done in the name of improving standards. It has left its scars on the physical landscape of universities, no longer able to fit in the number of students they have enrolled, and the springing up of new buildings, luxury accommodation and gyms all designed to attract prospective students. If the modern university has a soundtrack, it would be constant drilling for the construction of new, shiny buildings, temples to “student satisfaction”.

      Marketisation does not mean the immediate insertion of the profit motive into previously public goods. It means, at least in the first instance, making those public goods profitable. Students are in more and more debt, workers are paid less and less, while private companies and developers are given access to a potentially lucrative market.

      What does this mean for workers in higher education? They face a proliferation of perverse incentives: instead of research and teaching, lecturers are expected to take part in a perpetual recruitment drive. Instead of supporting students emotionally and academically, staff in student services, often facing cuts and “restructures”, are expected to act as the vanguard of “employability”.

      With more students, permanent staff are expected to take on more and more work. Temporary staff are expected to paper over structural gaps, providing a “flexible” workforce who are hired and fired in response to fluctuations in student numbers. Research shows that part-time staff and those on hourly rates are only paid for 55% of their work. Staff in general work, on average, the equivalent of two days unpaid per week. Given these low wages, many temporary staff are effectively paid less than the minimum wage.

      The expectations placed on staff cannot be met. It is not possible to produce the kind of work expected in the amount of time we are paid to do it. New methods of evaluation and student metrics create even more work, and overlook the key fact that asking students if they enjoyed a course reveals very little about whether that course was well-taught. Student services are stretched to breaking point, and instead of releasing the tension by, for example, increasing funding, services are instead outsourced, with trained counsellors replaced by generic “advisers” and, even, apps.

      When we say that the expectations on staff cannot be met, we mean that it is not possible to live under these conditions. There is nothing else left to squeeze. The doctrines of flexibility and precarity are in no way specific to higher education. They are paradigmatic of contemporary working practices. This means the struggle against precarity is not just a struggle for better conditions for academic workers – it is the insistence that a better life is possible for all of us. The disruption to teaching that comes from workers’ poor health, unnecessary pressure and precarity is much, much greater than the disruption caused by the cancellation of classes.

      Despite the deprivations of the picket line – early mornings, hours standing in the cold, lost pay – I have rarely seen colleagues so happy. The lifting of the neoliberal impulse to be constantly working, every interaction a chance for self-development, every minute a chance to get something done, has profound effects. Reclawing time from management’s extractive demands gives us a glimpse of how the university could be.

      The University and College Union dispute, which runs until next Wednesday, is about pay and pensions for some 43,000 members of the union, all working in academia. Even if we won on both counts, our futures, and the future of higher education, will not be secure without a fundamental rethink of the way in which universities are funded in the UK.

      We cannot afford to merely attempt to reform a marketised sector, based around fees. Almost 10 years on from the seismic higher education reforms of 2010, we face another general election. The only party now offering a rethink of fees and funding, rather than the shuffling of proverbial deckchairs, is Labour.

      We must not let students’ interests be pitted against workers. They are one and the same. So far during the strike, universities have bribed students to cross the picket line with gimmicks like free breakfast and free parking. They have attempted to ban solidarity action by students with a sustained campaign of misinformation, including the suggestion that joining picket lines is illegal and that students must cross them because they are members of NUS and not UCU. We are warned that students might feel anxious about the strike and that by picketing our workplaces we are letting them down.

      In these moments, management attempts to call upon a sense of duty we might feel towards our students. But as workers in higher education, we should not be content to merely provide a better version of the kind of education-as-commodity that management insists on.

      With our strike and the election, we have a chance to start fundamentally re-imagining the university. It’s the only thing that might save it.

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/universities-workers-strike-marketised-sector-money-staff
      #grève

    • Et hop une autre offre de formation arrivée ce jour dans ma boîte mail :

      "Mieux vivre ses émotions dans les relations professionnelles"

      Public : Tout collaborateur qui souhaite mieux vivre ses émotions afin de favoriser ses relations professionnelles.

      C’est classé dans la rubrique « #efficacité professionnelle »

      Et voici un aperçu du contenu :

      #intelligence_émotionnelle #émotions #réactions_émotionnelles_parasites #dysfonctionnement #mots #visage #corps #couleurs #saveurs #musique #timbres_psychologiques #élastiques_émotionnels #alexitymie #vague_des_émotions #pensée_positive #mots_déclencheurs #respiration

    • 10.12.2021, nouveau message des services centraux de notre université (qui semble de plus en plus inspirée !!) :

      Programme de #pause_active destiné à l’encadrement

      A l’attention des personnels en situation d’encadrement (cadres administratifs et techniques, responsables pédagogiques, responsables scientifiques)

      Madame, Monsieur,

      Suite à une expérimentation menée au printemps dernier et dans le cadre de l’accord-cadre Qualité de Vie au Travail de l’UGA, le SUAPS et la Direction de l’environnement social (DGDRH-DES) vous proposent des séances de Pause Active en visioconférence.

      Ces temps courts, de 20/25 mns vous permettront de :

      Bien débuter la journée

      Apprendre à apprivoiser le stress, prévenir le stress chronique

      Lutter contre l’épuisement professionnel

      – *Prévenir les troubles musculo-squelettiques

      Être plus efficace et concentré

      Ils se déroulent les jeudis à 8h et 8h30, jusqu’au 9 décembre pour le 1er semestre

      Puis au 2nd semestre, à partir du 13 janvier

      Pas d’inscription préalable, juste une connexion !

      Comment se déroulent les séances ?

      Séance à 8h00 : #Sophrologie :

      Prendre conscience des différentes parties de son corps

      Se libérer des tensions physiques, mentales et émotionnelles

      Respirer, se poser, prendre un temps pour soi

      Activer les capacités utiles pour sa journée de travail

      –-

      Séance à 8h30 : Réveil musculaire en douceur :

      Étirements légers, respiration, focus sur l’ensemble du dos pour dénouer les tensions.

    • J’avais oublié d’ajouté cela sur ce fil :

      Arrive aujourd’hui, 21.10.2020, un message de mon #université (#Université_Grenoble_Alpes) qui nous invite à s’inscrire à une #formation...
      La formation s’intitule :
      Gestion du #stress pour les enseignant(e)s

      La troisième annonce en ce genre, les deux précédentes étaient des formations qui portaient sur :

      1. Gestion de #conflits (formation mise sous le thème « #efficacité_professionnelle »)

      2. Mieux vivre ses #émotions dans ses #relations_professionnelles (aussi mise sous le même thème : #efficacité_professionnelle)

      Comme dit ma collègue @mobileborders :
      « De la #responsabilisation_personnelle des #failles_structurelles... »

      https://seenthis.net/messages/882135

    • 07.01.2022... on commence une nouvelle année avec de nouvelles formations. Cette fois-ci c’est... le #co-développement !

      Formation Co-Développement Enseignants/Enseignants-chercheurs

      –-> le plus drôle dans tout ça, c’est la "#méthode_Payette_et_Champagne" (ou "paillettes et champagne" si vous préférez).

      « une méthode subtile et exigeante alors qu’elle paraît simple en apparence » dit A. Payette
      https://esprit-co-developpement.fr

      Pas trop bien réussi à en savoir plus après une brève recherche sur la toile (si il y a des motivé·es...)

      J’en ai fait un mini-tweet :

      https://twitter.com/CDB_77/status/1479350762329280514

    • Avril 2022... Dans notre institut, comme partout ailleurs dans les facs françaises (et au-delà), on souffre d’un déficit STRUCTUREL en personnel enseignant... Pour info, notre institut « tourne » avec environ 40% des heures d’enseignement qui sont données par du personnel précaire, dont des #vacataires... Outre ce problème STRUCTUREL, il y a aussi la difficulté à pouvoir embaucher lesdits vacataires... deux difficultés avant tout :
      – iels sont payé·es, à l’heure, en dessous du smic, donc iels préfèrent faire autre chose dans la vie...
      – iels ne peuvent être embauché·es que si iels ont un contrat par ailleurs (donc, chômeur·es, circulez, on ne peut pas vous donner du taf... qui est payé moins du smic, mais bon...)

      Résultat des courses : c’est une galère pas possible pour les responsables de formations à la fac de trouver des enseignant·es pour les cours présents dans la maquette...

      Donc : problème structurel...

      Or, voici ce que notre direction nous propose, une réunion pour discuter de cette problématique « vacataires » (très bien) :

      "Lors du dernier conseil d’UFR, la problématique des vacataires d’enseignement (recrutement, constitution des dossiers, paiement) a été abordée et il a été émis le souhait d’organiser un temps de travail à ce sujet.

      ... et voici la phrase suivante :

      Ce sujet faisant également écho à celui lié à la qualité de vie au travail, il semble primordial d’y travailler dessus de manière prioritaire."

      –-> le lien avec la fameuse #QVT... ce n’est pas un problème de QVT, c’est un problème de #politique_universitaire, bordel ! Non, on ne va pas résoudre cela avec des séances de sophrologie ou avec des pauses actives !

    • « En termes d’émotions, là c’est moins évident : on parle de plus en plus de burnout, mais à la force physique s’est substituée une injonction à la force mentale, à prendre sur soi. Et si ça ne va pas, on va faire en sorte que les individus s’adaptent au monde du travail, mais on ne va jamais faire en sorte que le monde du travail s’adapte au #corps et à l’esprit des individus. On va donner des sièges ergonomiques, des ergosquelettes, on va créer des formations gestes et postures, on va embaucher des psychologues pour que les gens tiennent au travail, sans s’interroger sur ce qui initialement a causé ces souffrances. »

      https://www.frustrationmagazine.fr/entretien-rivoal

      #adaptation #résilience #force_mentale #émotions

      signalé ici :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/969443

    • Le business du bonheur

      La psychologie positive, conceptualisée aux États-Unis à la fin des années 1990, s’est imposée en Europe par le biais du management d’entreprise. Enquête sur une discipline contestée, proche du développement personnel.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/099779-000-A/le-business-du-bonheur

      voir aussi le trailer sur twitter :
      https://twitter.com/ARTEfr/status/1567845341793320962

      signalé sur seenthis par @olivier_aubert :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/971462

  • Sudanese refugees in Niger protest, demand relocation

    December 17, 2019 (KHARTOUM) - Sudanese refugees in Niger have staged a sit-in outside the UNHCR office #Agadez town in central Niger to protest their tough conditions and to demand their relocation from the Sahel country.

    For years Agadez on the edge of the Sahara, has been a key stop for refugees and travellers mostly young men in search of better opportunities abroad heading north Africa countries and Europe.

    In a report released in May 2019, the UNHCR estimated that 1,584 persons, mostly Sudanese, are currently registered by UNHCR in Agadez. 23.8% are minors and 126 are unaccompanied or separated children.

    Rights activists from Agadez told Sudan Tribune that all the Sudanese refugees in the refugees camp 15 km outside Agadez decided to leave their camps and to stage a sit-in at the UNHCR office in the area on Monday, December 16, 2019.

    Since Monday, the refugees say resolved to continue their peaceful protest until the UN refugees agency settle their situation.

    Some of the refugees say they can even accept a return to their areas of origin in Darfur but they would not regain the camp.

    Activists pointed out to their poor living conditions and lack of basic health service and education for the children of the refugees who are in the camp since 2017.

    “There is an increase of chronic and serious diseases, there is racism, corruption, and discrimination against Sudanese refugees and other nationalities from other countries and the delay in the legal procedures for asylum,” wrote in an email sent to the Sudan Tribune on Tuesday.

    Many of the Sudanese refugees fled Libya following the increase of attacks on refugees and foreigners by the various militias and armed gunmen who demand ransom for their release.

    https://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article68720
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Niger #réinstallation #manifestation #résistance #réfugiés_soudanais

    ping @isskein @pascaline @karine4

    • Niger : des migrants incendient un centre d’hébergement en signe de protestation

      Des demandeurs d’asile de retour de Libye ont incendié leur centre d’hébergement près d’#Agadez, où vivent un millier de personnes dans l’attente de la délivrance d’une carte de réfugiés.

      Amenés de force après un #sit-in de #protestation de plusieurs jours devant les locaux du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les refugiés (HCR) d’Agadez, des demandeurs d’asile ont mis le feu à leur #centre_d’hébergement, un camp situé à 15 km d’Agadez et où vivent un millier de personnes dans l’attente d’une éventuelle #carte_de_réfugiés.

      « 80% du #centre_d'accueil détruit par une minorité de réfugiés du Darfour à Agadez qui ne veulent entendre parler que de #réinstallation en Europe. Détruire l’espace d’asile au Niger ou ailleurs est plus facile que de le construire et de le protéger. C’est un triste jour pour la protection des réfugiés au Niger », écrit sur son compte Twitter Vincent Cochetel, envoyé spécial du HCR pour la situation en Méditerranée centrale.


      https://twitter.com/cochetel/status/1213519641563320322?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E12
      http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20200104-niger-migrants-incendie-camp-hebergement-agadez

      Selon plusieurs sources, les demandeurs d’asile exigent, entre autres, un statut de réfugiés avec délivrance immédiate de leur carte, des soins de qualité et une meilleure collaboration avec le HCR et les autres partenaires humanitaires.

      Le gouverneur d’Agadez estime que les migrants ont posé de « faux problèmes ». Le centre dispose d’eau, de nourriture, d’un médecin. Toujours selon le gouverneur, plus de 160 cartes de réfugiés ont récemment été délivrées. « Le processus de détermination est très avancé », indique le #HCR. D’autres cartes seront bientôt distribuées par les autorités nigériennes, apprend-on.

      Après l’#incendie de ce camp, le gouverneur de la région a dénoncé « l’ingratitude des réfugiés ». Une enquête est en cours pour déterminer l’ampleur des dégâts. Les auteurs de cet acte seront poursuivis. Malgré cet incident, précise une source du HCR, plusieurs centaines de réfugiés à la merci de l’harmattan seront relogés. Il a fait cinq degrés à Agadez ce samedi.

      http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20200104-niger-migrants-incendie-camp-hebergement-agadez
      #feu

    • Commentaire de #Sophia_Bisio sur FB :

      Non, Monsieur Cochetel, un camp qui brûle n’est pas un jour triste plus triste que les autres pour la protection des réfugiés.

      Comme tout système de camp où l’on trie et isole les indésirables, le camp HCR d’Agadez était une prison à ciel ouvert pour le millier de réfugié.e.s soudanais.es qui y vivaient, ou plutôt y survivaient.

      Car ces camps ne sont pas des lieux de vie mais bien des lieux de survie.

      Lorsque j’avais visité ce camp en décembre 2018, plusieurs centaines de personnes y survivaient péniblement, après avoir fui la guerre dans leur pays et le chaos libyen pour la plupart d’entre elles. Installé en plein désert, isolé de tout, à 15 km de la ville, le camp était exposé au vent et aux tempêtes de sable, déclenchant chez de nombreuses personnes des troubles respiratoires. Les conditions sanitaires étaient épouvantables. Des familles entières s’entassaient sous des tentes en plastiques inadaptées au climat désertique, dans lesquelles, l’été, la température pouvait atteindre 70 degrés. Pas d’eau courante. Pas de travail. Pas d’école pour les enfants. Pas de perspectives d’avenir.

      Déjà en 2018, des résidents du camp se joignaient aux manifestations devant les bureaux du HCR dans la ville d’Agadez pour protester contre leurs conditions de vie et la lenteur de la procédure de réinstallation. En décembre 2019, après un an de plus d’attente dans la poussière du désert, ce sont plusieurs centaines de résident.e.s du camp qui se sont rassemblés pour une grande marche jusqu’au centre-ville afin d’organiser à nouveau un sit-in devant les bureaux du HCR, avant d’être une fois de plus renvoyé.e.s à la poussière.

      Hier, le camp brûlait, incendié, selon la version relayée par le HCR, par une minorité énervée de Soudanais du Darfour. Représentant spécial du Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés pour la Méditerranée centrale, Monsieur Cochetel s’indignait alors contre ces personnes qui « détruisent l’espace d’asile », ajoutant : « c’est un triste jour pour la protection des réfugiés au Niger ».

      Non, Monsieur Cochetel, un camp qui brûle n’est pas un jour triste plus triste que les autres pour la protection des réfugiés.

      C’est un signal.

      Le signal que ces hommes et ces femmes qu’on tente d’invisibiliser et de réduire au silence peuvent encore se rendre visibles.

      Le signal que ces politiques migratoires, par lesquelles l’humanitaire tend à devenir le cheval Troie des pires politiques sécuritaires, doivent être dénoncées et combattues avec celles et ceux qui les subissent.

      https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2538844326358556&set=a.1562653620644303&type=3&theater
      #Vincent_Cochetel #Cochetel

    • More than a thousand asylum seekers take part in mass sit-in in Niger

      More than a thousand asylum seekers have been taking part in a mass sit-in in front of the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Agadez in northern Niger since December 16. They are protesting the terrible living conditions that they are forced to endure while waiting for the UNHCR to examine their cases, and are calling for better conditions and an acceleration to the entire process.

      A majority of the residents of the UN camp for asylum seekers in Agadez in northern Niger walked the 15 kilometres into town to take part in a protest on December 16.

      Nearly 1,600 asylum seekers are still waiting for refugee status. The large majority of them — more than 1,400 — are Sudanese. Others hail from the Central African Republic, Chad and Pakistan. Most of them arrived in 2017 and they blame both the UNHCR and Nigerien authorities for the extremely difficult conditions in the camp.

      https://observers.france24.com/en/20191224-niger-asylum-seekers-take-part-mass-sit-protest

    • Thread de Eric Reidy sur twitter, 05.01.2019

      Security forces forcefully dispersed a peaceful sit-in in front of #UNHCR's office in Agadez, Niger yesterday (Jan. 4). Many people were injured & 100s of people’s phones & belongings were confiscated.
      2/ Sudanese asylum seekers, many from Darfur, have staged a sit-in in front of the #UNHCR office in since Dec. 16 when they walked out en masse from a UNHCR administered camp 15km outside of #Agadez.
      3/ In a statement the asylum seekers said they had been completely neglected. Many suffered from psychological conditions & chronic diseases worsened by the harsh desert environment & that treatment by UNHCR staff & the handling of their asylum claims led to a total loss of trust

      4/ The Sudanese asylum seekers started arriving in Agadez in late 2017, seeking safe-haven from war & exploitation in #Libya. The population peeked at around 2,000. Tensions arose w the host population & the Nigerien gov viewed the Sudanese w suspicion & as a security threat.

      5/ In May 2018, the Nigerien gov deported 135 ppl back to Libya in violation of int law. UNHCR lobbied hard to prevent any further deportations & reached an agreement w authorities in #Niger to establish the camp outside of Agadez to reduce tensions

      https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/special-report/2018/07/05/destination-europe-deportation

      6/ At some point, the relationship between the asylum seekers & UNHCR appears to have broken down leading to the recent protests, which have now ended with security forces using violence & the camp outside of #Agadez being burned down.

      7/ I’m still piecing everything together, but it’s important to keep in mind that this is a vulnerable population. Many have been displaced multiple times & experienced violence & tragedy in the past. They have been seeking safety for yrs & still haven’t found it. (Will update)

      https://twitter.com/Eric_Reidy/status/1213802520490831872

    • Niger breaks up Sudanese refugees sit-in as fire destroys their camp
      https://www.sudantribune.com/local/cache-vignettes/L500xH282/agadez_camp_destroyed_by_sudanese_from_darfur_on_4_january_2020_tadres…jpg

      Niger’s authorities forcibly broke up a sit-in of Sudanese refugees outside UNHCR office in the arid area of Agadez, while some of them reportedly set ablaze the camp once returned by the police.

      Hundreds of Sudanese refugees in Niger had staged a sit-in outside the office of the UN agency for refugees in Agadez on 16 December to protest the bad conditions in the camp. Also, they blamed the UNHCR officials for neglecting them pointing to the long delay in the processing of asylum requests.

      For their part, the international officials asked the refugees to end the protest and return to their camps first before to deal with their demands. However, the Sudanese who had fled the insecurity in Libya refused to regain the camp.

      On Saturday morning, local officials and police and security officers surrounded the sit-inners and asked them to take the vehicles they brought with them to return to their camp 15 km from Agadez.

      Refugees who requested anonymity told Sudan Tribune that the security forces beat the refugees and shoved them to the vehicles when they refused the orders to evacuate the site.

      Photos and videos of the raid showed protesters severely injured on the head and legs.

      Aid workers in the area said the local authorities three days ago had informed the UNHRC of their plan to disperse the sit-in.

      Tragic development

      Once the authority forcibly moved the first batch of protesters back to the camp, a huge fire tore through the refugee camp and reduced it to ashes.

      When asked about the authors of the blaze some refugees said “irresponsible” refugees were desperate and set fire on the camp to protest the forced return to the camp.

      The tents were highly flammable, aid workers said.

      For his part, Vincent Cochetel, UNHCR Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Situation, said in a tweet on Saturday that the Sudanese refugees destroyed the camp because they demand to be resettled in Europe.

      “80% of the reception centre destroyed by a minority of refugees from Darfur in Agadez who only want to hear about resettlement to Europe,” said Cochetel.

      “Destroying the asylum space in Niger or elsewhere is easier than building and protecting it. It is a sad day for refugee protection in Niger,” he added.

      The authorities arrested many refugees while others fled in the desert and their whereabouts are unknown.

      Also, it is not clear what the Nigerien authorities will do for the over 200 refugees who were waiting outside the UNHCR office to be transported to the camp.

      Refugees say they fear that they would be transported to Madama on the border between Niger and Libya.

      On 7 May 2018, Nigerien police deported 135 Sudanese refugees to Madama and expelled to Libya as they had already protested the bad conditions in Agadez camp. The move had been denounced by critics as a violation of international law.

      https://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article68808

    • Niger: Sudan refugee sit-in violently dispersed

      Niger security forces broke up the sit-in set up by Sudanese refugees in front of the offices of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in Agadez on Saturday, reportedly using excessive violence.

      Speaking to Radio Dabanga from Agadez, a refugee reported that 453 refugees were detained. 230 refugees suffered various injuries. Army officers and policemen stole 670 mobile phones from them.

      Their camp reportedly burned down completely. Hundreds of refugees, among them children, women, disabled, and seniors, spent Sunday night in the arid desert in the freezing cold. There are shortages of water, food, and medicines.

      The refugees called on the international community to intervene urgently and save them from the conditions in which they live. They also demand their resettlement procedures be completed.

      Three weeks ago, thousands of refugees left the refugee camp in Agadez in protest against the failure to complete their resettlement procedures and the deteriorating conditions in the camp.

      The Sudanese refugees in Niger have been a topic in the peace talks in Juba during the past weeks.

      Last year, Niger’s authorities sent Sudanese refugees back to Libya, the country they fled from to Niger.

      https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/niger-sudan-refugee-sit-in-violently-dispersed

    • Agadez/Incendie #centre_humanitaire : 335 demandeurs d’asile interpellés

      Après l’incendie du centre d’hébergement survenu hier matin et attribué à un groupe de demandeurs d’asile, M.Seini, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance d’Agadez a tenu un point de presse auquel la presse privée n’était pas conviée.

      Dans le souci d’informer nos lecteurs, nous vous livrons son contenu.

       » le 16 décembre 2019, plusieurs dizaines de demandeurs d’asile ont entrepris une marche de protestation qui les a conduit devant le bureau local du HCR Agadez. Ils avaient décidé d’occuper illégalement les espaces publics aux abords dudit bureau et maintenu un sit-in qui a perduré jusqu’au 4 janvier 2020.
      Vu qu’ils occupaient ces espaces en violation de la loi, la question a été inscrite au menu de la réunion du conseil de sécurité régional du 2 janvier 2020. Au cours de cette réunion, il a été décidé de faire respecter la loi notamment de les faire déguerpir. Et au besoin de les ramener sur leur site d’hébergement. C’est ainsi que le 4 janvier 2020, les autorités régionales et municipales se sont déplacées sur les lieux accompagnées des forces de sécurité. Après sommation donnée par le maire, les agents de sécurité ayant constaté que ces gens n’ont pas obtempéré, ont alors intervenu pour les embarquer et ramener sur leur site d’hébergement. Une fois là-bas, dès qu’ils étaient descendus des bus et camions qui les transportaient, ils ont mis le feu au centre et en même temps s’en sont pris aux forces de l’ordre en leur jetant des projectiles. Il ressort des constatations faites par les services que sur les 331 habitations qu’ils appellent RHU, 290 sont complétement calcinées. Ainsi que l’infirmerie. Des pare-brises de bus ont été cassés et deux personnes légèrement blessées. 162 téléphones portables, 31 couteaux et 12 barres de fer ont été pris sur les manifestants. Parmi eux, 335 identifiés comme meneurs de l’incendie ont été interpellés et mis à la disposition des enquêteurs de la police.
      Voyez-vous ! Ces gens qui sont sensés être là pour avoir la protection se comportent ainsi jusqu’à commetre des infractions graves à la loi pénale notamment attroupement non armé sur la voie publique, la rébellion, la destruction volontaire des biens meubles et immeubles, publics, et l’incendie volontaire de lieu servant d’habitation.
      Donc, malgré leur nombre très élevé, et au vu de la gravité des faits qui leur sont reprochés, nous avons décidé de les poursuivre pour qu’ils répondent de leurs actes. Compte tenu du fait qu’ils sont des étrangers, des avis de poursuite seront notifiées aux autorités compétentes ».

      A Agadez, beaucoup de gens s’inquiètent du sort de centaines d’autres demandeurs d’asile qui n’ont plus de toit et parmi eux des femmes et des enfants.

      Pour Athan, un de ces demandeurs d’asile : » le Haut Commissariat aux Réfugiés (HCR) d’Agadez est l’unique responsable de ce qui nous arrive à Agadez ».

      La visite prévue demain mardi 7 janvier 2020 à Agadez de Mme Alexandra Morelli, représentante du HCR au Niger apportera t-elle une solution à ce problème ? Attendons de voir.


      https://airinfoagadez.com/2020/01/07/agadez-incendie-centre-humanitaire-335-demandeurs-dasile-interpelles

    • Demandeurs d’asile soudanais à Agadez : La grande désillusion

      L’installation d’une antenne du Haut Commissariat pour les Réfugiés à Agadez en Mai 2016 a contribué fortement à l’afflux de demandeurs d’asile de plusieurs nationalités. La majorité d’entre eux, après avoir fui leur pays en guerre, cas du Darfour au Soudan, se sont retrouvés piégés dans l’imbroglio libyen. C’est ainsi que près de 3000 soudanais ont cherché refuge à Agadez, une ville du nord Niger.
      Sur place, l’espoir d’une vie meilleure s’est peu à peu transformé en un véritable cauchemar. D’aucuns parmi ces prétendants à l’asile, las d’attendre, posent des actes désespérés sous forme des signaux.
      Le 14 avril dernier, un jeune soudanais a tenté de mettre fin à ses jours en se tailladant le cou. D’autres s’attaquent aux biens d’autrui pour se nourrir. Des actes contraires à la loi et au bon sens. Pourquoi et comment en est-on arrivé à ce stade ?
      APAC–Niger a mené l’enquête sur un drame que tente vaille que vaille de minimiser à l’opinion et les autorités en charge de la question et les ONG concernées.

      ----------------

      Depuis la dégradation de la situation sécuritaire en Libye les ressortissants soudanais ont connu des difficultés à mener une vie tranquille, ils ont alors choisi d’immigrer vers le Niger. « Notons que la première grande vague est arrivée à Agadez en 2017. Tous ces migrants ont transité par la frontière du sud libyen, Sebha et Mourzouk en passant par Madama et Dirkou à la frontière avec le Niger », selon M. Soukeyrajou Yacouba, responsable à la Direction régionale d’état civil.
      Dès leur arrivée à Agadez ils ont été pris en charge par l’Organisation Internationale pour la Migration (OIM) et le Haut Commissariat pour les Réfugiés (HCR) appuyés par des ONG comme l’APBE (Action pour le Bien-être) et COOPI une ONG Italienne.
      Après l’enregistrement et l’enrôlement biométrique, dénommé BIMS, les migrants qui le désirent font une demande d’asile au niveau de la Direction de l’état-civil. « L’asile est octroyé par l’état du Niger seul habilité à le faire car le Niger reste souverain sur cette question, les migrants ayant fui la guerre pour des raisons sécuritaires sont priorisés par rapport à ceux qui ont fui pour des raisons économiques, d’autre part les mineurs non accompagnés très vulnérables bénéficient d’un traitement particulier vu leur situation, on trouve très souvent des cas de tortures sur les migrants venant de la Libye », a expliqué à APAC M. Soukeyrajou Yacouba. « C’est un long processus qui demande de la patience », explique un commis du service de l’état-civil. Une patience que n’ont plus aujourd’hui les Soudanais présents à Agadez.

      Déception et désolation au quotidien

      Malgré tous les efforts des ONG pour leur venir en aide, leurs cris de détresse s’amplifient. Ils crient leur ras-le-bol à qui veut les écouter. Dans le camp ou dans les rues d’Agadez. Ils ne s’en cachent point. « Si j’avais su que je me retrouverai dans une telle situation à Agadez, j’aurais préféré rester d’où je viens. Au moins là bas, j’étais dans une communauté humaine, j’avais le moral. A Agadez, nous sommes loin de la ville. Comme si nous sommes des animaux. Nous sommes abandonnés à nous-mêmes ici. On n’a pas accès aux soins les plus élémentaires. On n’a pas une ambulance qui peut rapidement évacuer un malade vers la ville. Chaque soir, nous sommes dans la hantise que Boko Haram nous attaque. », nous a confié Mahmoud H, un jeune soudanais de 22 ans.

      Venus d’abord par petits groupes à Agadez, le nombre de demandeurs d’asile soudanais n’a fait que croitre au fil de mois jusqu’à atteindre presque 3000 personnes. Toutes sont en quête de protection et d’un mieux-être au Niger après avoir fui la guerre au Darfour et les sévices en Libye. Mais hélas, pour beaucoup, c’est la grande désillusion : « nous avons quitté l’enfer libyen pour tomber dans l’enfer d’Agadez. Ici aussi nous sommes mal vus ! C’est la suspicion et la haine dans tous les regards », disent-ils.

      Assis à même le sol d’un des hangars du centre d’accueil pour les réfugiés inauguré en mars 2017, Aly, est démoralisé. Il ne parle pas. Il observe. Dans ses yeux, aucune lueur. Ni de joie, ni d’espoir. Il refuse de regarder ses “ cochambriers”.
      Il nous confie en aparté. “ Ma place n’est pas ici. Pas sous ce hangar. Pas avec ces gens-là. On se bagarre tous les temps. Je ne suis pas comme eux et personne ne veut me comprendre. J’ai un statut que je n’ai pas choisi et qui fait que bien qu’étant homme, ma place n’est pas avec les hommes”.

      L’aveu d’Aly est clair mais non encore avoué. Un de ceux avec qui il partage le hangar balance le secret d’Aly : “ C’est un pédé ! C’est haram ! On ne veut pas de lui sous le même toit que nous”, dit-il rageur. Comble de cynisme ! Summum de l’intolérance, il dit menaçant à notre adresse : “On ne mange pas avec lui ! Il est malade. C’est un fils de Sheitan ! ”.

      Comment se fait-il que Aly, bien qu’ayant un statut particulier soit mis avec des hommes qui n’ont aucun respect pour son choix de vie ? “ Où voulez-vous qu’il soit ? Avec les femmes ? ”, nous répond calmement un agent du centre. “ Est-ce qu’il a même avoué au HCR son statut ! Je ne crois pas ! », a fait remarquer l’agent.
      Joint par le reporter de APAC Niger, le service du HCR Agadez dit ceci : « nous n’avons pas eu de cas pareil ! »

      Assiatou, est elle aussi une jeune femme du Darfour. Sa vie est un drame grandeur nature. Elle a tout perdu au Soudan du sud. Parents et conjoint.
      En Libye, elle a souffert vingt-sept mois les affres de violences sexuelles. “Les hommes sont cruels. Le sexe, partout et toujours le sexe. Comment puis-je me protéger quand on ne te demande aucune permission avant d’abuser de ton propre corps ? Dites-moi comment dire non à un homme drogué et violent qui a le droit de vie et de mort sur toi ? Mon corps de femme m’a permis de survivre jusqu’à aujourd’hui mais au prix de maints viols et supplices. De 2012 à aujourd’hui, j’ai porté trois grossesses que je n’ai jamais désirées. Deux sont mortes en Libye et j’ai le dernier ici avec moi ! Ne me demandez pas qui en est le père, je vous jure que je l’ignore !”.
      Son statut de femme éprouvée et allaitante fait qu’elle est mieux traitée que les autres. « Elle a beaucoup besoin de soutien surtout moral », fait remarquer une volontaire humanitaire trouvée sur place.

      À Agadez, Aly et Assiatou ont trouvé plusieurs centaines d’autres demandeurs d’asile. Tout comme eux, ils ont fui dans la douleur. Le Soudan d’abord, et la Libye ensuite. Hélas, leur rêve de liberté, leur espoir d’un lendemain meilleur se meurt aujourd’hui à Agadez.
      Au contact de dures réalités, Aly et Assiatou ne croient plus aux organisations internationales d’Agadez. « Elles font de la discrimination entre nous et les Erythréens ! Ce n’est pas normal », a fait le jeune soudanais Aly.

      « Ces soudanais ne sont pas reconnaissants…. »

      Ces demandeurs d’asile ignorent-ils que depuis la fin d’année 2017, 1.450 réfugiés, dont 1.292 Soudanais, sont arrivés dans la cité du nord du Niger jusqu’à atteindre le chiffre record de 3000 aujourd’hui ? Bien-sûr que non ! Devant leur afflux, et prises au dépourvu, les organisations humanitaires présentes à Agadez ne savent plus où donner de la tête. « On ne peut que s’occuper des personnes considérées comme « les plus vulnérables ». C’est-à-dire les femmes, les enfants et les malades », explique un agent du HCR en poste à Agadez.

      Et pourtant de l’avis d’un agent de la Direction de l’Etat-civil, « Leur situation s’améliore de plus en plus. Tenez bien ! Au début, les hommes vivaient en pleine rue, juste en face de nos locaux, des fois sous 42° de chaleur. Ils n’avaient même pas accès aux toilettes et faisaient leurs besoins à l’air libre ou dans des parcelles vides. Mais aujourd’hui, ils mangent bien, dorment bien et se promènent sans problème dans la ville d’Agadez ».

      Mais bon nombre de soudanais joints par APAC réfutent ces dires. Ils soulignent « qu’ils manquent de tout : nourriture, soins de santé, espaces sanitaires adéquats et même qu’ils n’ont droit à aucune intimité ».
      « C’est un site temporaire », nous a répondu à ce sujet Davies Kameau, chef de bureau UNHCR Agadez. « Nous attendons que les soudanais soient d’abord reconnus comme demandeurs d’asile par le Niger », a t-il poursuivi.

      Pour beaucoup de ces soudanais, le droit à l’asile leur est refusé au Niger et : « ce n’est pas normal. C’est un déni de droit clair et simple ! On fait des faveurs aux autres mais pas nous ! », a dénoncé lui aussi Hadji, un soudanais trentenaire.

      Le statut de réfugié peine à leur être accordé

      « Vous n’êtes pas sans savoir qu’il n’y a pas encore eu de session de la Commission nationale d’éligibilité (CNE) pour le cas d’Agadez mais il y a eu une commission d’éligibilité délocalisée à Tahoua pour statuer sur le cas de demandes jugées urgentes. Six ont été accordées et une rejetée. (…). C’est vrai que les gens ont l’impression que ça traîne mais en vérité c’est le souci de bien faire qui fait que le processus prend du temps », affirme. Soukeyrajou Yacouba à APAC.

      D’après nos sources jusqu’à à cette date, le Niger refuse de se prononcer sur la finalité de ces demandes d’asile.
      Pourquoi alors ? Joint par le reporter de APAC, Lawali Oudou, acteur de la société civile d’Agadez a expliqué : « Cela fait plusieurs mois que les négociations concernant le statut à accorder aux soudanais peinent à aboutir. C’est parce que les autorités du Niger ont peur de prendre cette lourde responsabilité surtout au sujet d’Agadez, une région instable et qui a connu deux rébellions armées ».
      En effet, le prétexte de la sécurité explique le refus de l’Etat du Niger d’accorder le droit d’asile à ces soudanais. « Ils sont en lien avec des pays en guerre : la Libye, le Tchad, le Soudan. Ils sont arabophones, tout comme la majorité des terroristes. On a peur qu’ils installent des bases terroristes ici », a affirmé à notre confrère Le Point le député Mano Aghali. « Les populations d’Agadez commencent à manifester contre la présence de ces gens dans la ville d’Agadez. C’est pourquoi nous prions le HCR d’accélérer le processus pour trouver une solution », s’est alarmé quant à lui Rhissa Feltou, alors maire d’Agadez.
      Mansour B. un jeune nigérien qui habite non loin du centre pour les réfugiés fait partie de ceux qui ne veulent plus des soudanais à Agadez. Et il le dit sans ambages : « ces soudanais ne sont pas reconnaissants vis-à-vis du Niger ». Il explique qu’ : « ils doivent remercier le Niger car aucun pays ne peut accepter ce qu’ils font ici à Agadez. Ils draguent nos femmes et nos filles souvent devant nos yeux ; ils coupent nos arbres et partent vendre le bois au marché pour acheter de l’alcool et de la drogue. Trop, c’est trop ! ».

      Des griefs infondés selon les soudanais

      Pour les soudanais, tous ces griefs sont infondés. « Nous sommes des civils et non des militaires. Nous n’avons aucun contact avec des groupes mafieux. Les autorités et même les populations locales nous comparent à des rebelles soudanais, pas comme des réfugiés. Si nous étions des combattants, on allait rester au pays pour nous défendre mais pas fuir comme des lâches », explique Al-Hassan.
      En attendant que leur cas soit clair, les soudanais se rongent les ongles à une quinzaine de kilomètres d’Agadez. Des couacs surviennent des fois entre eux mais aussi avec les populations riveraines du centre.

      Jusqu’à quand cette situation peut-elle tenir ? Un vent nouveau souffle au Soudan avec le changement de régime survenu. Peut-il augurer un lendemain meilleur pour tous ces jeunes soudanais bloqués aujourd’hui à Agadez ? L’Europe leur ouvrira t-elle un jour les bras ? Seront-ils laissés à Agadez pour qu’au fil du temps ils puissent se fondre à la population ?
      Telles sont les questions qui taraudent les esprits à Agadez et auxquelles des réponses doivent être données.


      https://airinfoagadez.com/2019/08/29/demandeurs-dasile-soudanais-a-agadez-la-grande-desillusion

    • Refugees in Niger Protest Against Delay of Resettlement and Dire Conditions

      Almost 1000 people have protested in front of the office of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in Agadez, Niger, against the poor conditions in the UNHCR-run facility and the delay of resettlement procedures. The systemic isolation in the centre is considered a model for “outsourcing of the asylum system outside Europe”.

      Hundreds of people, among them many refugees from Sudan, marched 18 km from the humanitarian centre where they are accommodated to the UNHCR headquarters to submit a memorandum bearing their demands to expedite their resettlement procedures and denounce the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in the facility. The march turned into a sit-in and is part of on-going series of refugee protests in Niger since early 2019.

      According to one of the protesters the facility is located in the middle of the desert lacking “the simplest means of life” as well as adequate education. Chronic disease is spreading among the refugees, many of which are unaccompanied who have been waiting in the facility for over two years, he added.

      In 2017, UNHCR established an Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) in Niger for the evacuation of vulnerable people from Libya identified for resettlement to Europe and elsewhere. As of November 2019, 2,143 out of 2,913 of those evacuated by UNHCR have been resettled.

      An increasing number of self-evacuated refugees have also arrived in Agadez from Libya with the hope of being resettled. Niger agreed to the ETM under the condition that all refugees would be resettled in Europe. However, as stated in a MEDAM police brief, for the self-evacuees, resettlement becomes increasingly unlikely and they were moved to a refugee camp outside the capital, which hampers local integration and their economic autonomy.

      The network Alarm Phone Sahara commented. “This situation occurs in a context where European states are seeking to outsource the processing of cases of refugees, who have fled wars and persecution in countries like in East Africa, to countries far from the borders of Europe. The state of Niger is currently serving as a model for the outsourcing of the asylum system towards outside Europe, receiving considerable amounts of money from EU member states.”

      Since 2017, a total of 4,252 persons have been evacuated from Libya: 2,913 to Niger, 808 to Italy and 531 to through the Emergency Transit Centre to Romania.

      https://www.ecre.org/refugees-in-niger-protest-against-delay-of-resettlement-and-dire-conditions

    • Agadez/Incendie centre humanitaire : » Je me suis sentie trahie… », affirme #Alexandra_Morelli, représentante du HCR au Niger

      En visite ce matin à Agadez, Mme Alexandra Morelli, représentante du HCR au Niger a répondu aux questions de Aïr Info :

      Extrait :


       » Je suis ici à Agadez pour apporter toute ma solidarité aux autorités locales et pour gérer ensemble cette crise. Pour comprendre profondément la nature et s’assurer qu’on continue à s’assurer qu’on continue à protéger et à donner de l’assistance aux victimes même parmi les soudanais de cet acte de vandalisme qui n’a pas de commentaires. Après l’incendie du site humanitaire ma réaction est celle d’une femme, d’une mère qui a cru en ses enfants, qui a tout fait avec le gouvernement du Niger pour leur garantir un espace de paix et de protection. Je me suis sentie trahie. C’est la première émotion humaine que j’ai eue, une émotion de douleur. Mais aujourd’hui, nous mettons les émotions de côté et on travaille avec le pragmatisme et la lucidité guidés par la solidarité et la loi du Niger ».

      Interview réalisée par
      Anicet Karim

      https://airinfoagadez.com/2020/01/07/agadez-incendie-centre-humanitaire-je-me-suis-sentie-trahie-affirme-a

    • A protest dispersed, a camp burned: Asylum seekers in Agadez face an uncertain future

      ‘Nobody can believe this is happening… because there [are] children, there are women that are sleeping inside the camp.’

      Early in the morning on 4 January, security forces carrying long, wooden sticks arrived outside the office of the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) in the city of Agadez, Niger: 600 or more asylum seekers, mostly from Sudan, were gathered in the street in front of the office.

      Since mid-December, they had been staging a sit-in to protest what they said was UNHCR’s “complete neglect” of their living conditions and the slow processing and mishandling of their asylum cases.

      By the end of the day, security forces had dispersed the sit-in, dozens of demonstrators were allegedly injured, more than 330 were arrested, and the camp set up to house asylum seekers outside the city was almost entirely burned to the ground.

      The events were only the latest in the more than two-year saga of the Sudanese in Agadez – a story that has always been part of a bigger picture.

      The arrival of the Sudanese to the long-time migration hub in northern Niger, beginning in November 2017, followed on the heels of European policies aimed at curbing the movement of people from West Africa to Libya and onward to Italy, as well as the initiation of a programme by the EU and UNHCR – the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) – to evacuate people from Libyan detention centres, bringing them to Niamey, Niger’s capital, to await resettlement to Europe.

      Against this backdrop, some Sudanese in Libya, facing violence, rampant abuse, exploitation, and even slavery, turned south to escape, spurred on by rumours of aid and safety in Niger, and the vague possibility of a legal way to reach Europe. But authorities in Niger, itself focal point of EU efforts to stem migration in recent years, were not enthusiastic about the arrival of the Sudanese and worried that the presence of UNHCR in Agadez was acting as a “pull factor”, attracting people to the city from Libya.

      UNHCR is in a complicated position in Niger, according to Johannes Claes, an independent consultant and migration researcher who has followed the situation in Agadez since 2017.

      The organisation has had to navigate between allaying government fears of a “pull factor” while providing protection and services to the Sudanese, running the ETM – the “human face” of the EU’s otherwise harsh migration policies – and responding to a growing number of refugees and Nigeriens displaced by conflicts along the country’s borders. “It hasn’t been easy for them to manage this,” Claes said. “That is quite obvious.”

      Underlying the entire situation is a global shortage of refugee resettlement spots. UNHCR projects that 1.4 million refugees are in need of resettlement this year out of a population of nearly 26 million refugees worldwide. Last year, around 63,000 refugees were resettled through UNHCR-facilitated programmes, down from a high of 126,000 in 2016.

      “UNHCR everywhere is just overwhelmed by the numbers because they are completely dependent on slots allocated in Europe and North America, and those are really very, very few,” said Jérôme Tubiana, an independent researcher focusing on conflict and refugees in Sudan and Niger.
      Global resonance, local grievance

      Caught between restrictive EU migration policies and the global lack of resettlement spots, UNHCR’s struggle to provide services, protection, and long-term stability to asylum seekers and refugees has not been limited to Niger.

      In the past year, asylum seekers and refugees have protested in front of UNHCR offices in Libya, Lebanon, and elsewhere, and African asylum seekers in particular, including many Sudanese from Darfur, have accused UNHCR of discrimination and neglect. “[The protest in Agadez] was part of… a global story of frustration and a feeling of being, really, not treated as victims of war or mass crimes,” Tubiana said.

      Despite the global resonance, the trigger for the protest in Agadez appears to have been a local incident that took on symbolic significance as it spun through the rumour mill of a population that was already angry about the slow pace at which their asylum cases were being heard and desperate for information about their futures.

      “The core of the problem is why the procedures are slow and why some people were informed… that their files had been lost,” a Sudanese asylum seeker in Agadez told TNH on 17 December, the day after around 600 people walked out of the camp where they were housed and set up the sit-in in front of the UNHCR office. “There is a complete lack of credibility… represented by the loss of the files,” the protesters said in a statement that circulated via text message.

      “We know that these people are fighters, soldiers, and they came here because now they expect to go to Europe.”

      UNHCR Niger confirmed that the government agency responsible for processing asylum requests had misplaced around five files several months earlier, but it said the files had been reconstituted and resubmitted for consideration. “From UNHCR’s side, we can strongly confirm that no registration files nor resettlement requests have been lost and that no one has to re-conduct interviews,” UNHCR Niger told TNH.

      But by the time news about the files spread, the Sudanese had already been growing frustrated, disillusioned, and distrustful for quite some time, and UNHCR’s reassurances fell on deaf ears.
      A shaky beginning

      From the beginning, the position of the Sudanese in Agadez has rested on shaky ground.

      Hundreds of thousands of West Africans, sharing a common language and cultural background with Nigeriens, have passed through the city en route to Libya over the years.

      The Sudanese were the first group of outsiders to turn south from Libya in search of protection, and Nigerien authorities didn’t trust their motives. “We know that these people are fighters, soldiers, and they came here because now they expect to go to Europe,” Niger’s minister of interior, Mohamed Bazoum, told TNH in 2018.

      But UNHCR has maintained that the Sudanese are not fighters. For the most part, they had been driven from their homes in Darfur by conflict and government-sponsored ethnic cleansing that began in the early 2000s. They had lived in camps for the displaced in Sudan or Chad before humanitarian funding ebbed or conflict followed them and they began criss-crossing the region in search of safety, stable living conditions, and better prospects for their futures. In the process, many had been tortured, trafficked, raped, or had witnessed and suffered various forms of violence.

      At the peak in 2018, there were nearly 2,000 Sudanese in Agadez, and tensions with the local community simmered as they filled up limited UNHCR housing in the city and spilled into the streets. At the beginning of May, authorities arrested more than 100 of the Sudanese, trucked them to the Niger-Libya border, dropped them in the desert, and told them to leave.

      The incident was a major violation of the international laws protecting asylum seekers, and in its aftermath, UNHCR, which had been caught off guard by the arrival of the Sudanese in the first place, scrambled to make sure it wouldn’t happen again and to carve out a space where the Sudanese and other asylum seekers would be safe.
      ‘It was a bit existential’

      The government and UNHCR settled on a plan to open the camp – which UNHCR calls a humanitarian centre – 15 kilometres outside Agadez to de-escalate tensions, and the government eventually agreed to start hearing asylum claims from the Sudanese and others. But a message had already been sent: the number of Sudanese coming to Agadez slowed to a trickle and several hundred ended up returning to Libya or headed elsewhere on their own.

      By last December, there were around 1,600 asylum seekers, mostly Sudanese, in Agadez, and 1,200 of them were housed at the humanitarian centre. According to UNHCR, 223 people had already received refugee status in Niger, and around 500 were set to have their cases heard in the coming months. Thirty-one of the most vulnerable had been transferred to Italy as part of a humanitarian corridor, and around 100 others were in line for refugee resettlement or other humanitarian programmes that would take them out of Niger.

      “It’s not a humane situation.”

      “It was slowly, slowly ongoing, but there was a process,” Alessandra Morelli, UNHCR’s head of office in Niger, told TNH. “Nothing was in the air or in… limbo.”

      “We managed to stabilise a little bit a large group of people that for years were going from one place to another in [search] of protection,” Morelli added. “I think that was the success.”

      But many of the Sudanese in Agadez saw the situation differently. The humanitarian centre was isolated and on the edge of the desert. In the summer, the weather was very hot and in the winter, very cold. There was little shade, and the insides of the tents boiled. Storms carrying billowing clouds of sand would blow out of the desert, blocking out visibility and blanketing everything in dust. Attempts to drill wells for water failed. “It’s not a humane situation,” one asylum seeker told TNH last April. “The way they treat us here they wouldn’t treat any person.”

      “We saw… very high rates of mental illness, numerous suicide attempts, women miscarrying on a regular basis or having very, very… low-weight babies; people were wandering off into the middle of the desert due to mental illness or desperation,” a former UNHCR staff member, who worked for the organisation on and off for six years and spent eight months in Agadez, told TNH on condition of anonymity. “It was a bit existential.”

      UNHCR partnered with organisations to provide psychological support and medical care to the asylum seekers. “[But] the level of service and the treatment that these people have been receiving… has been very low,” said Claes, the migration researcher. “It is very hard to service that camp. It is not an easy area to be operating, but it’s also not impossible,” he added.
      Protest and dispersal

      The low level of service, slow processing of asylum requests and lack of clear information about what was happening with people’s cases grated on the Sudanese.

      “This is not the first time that people are expressing themselves as unhappy,” Claes said. “This was obviously the worst that we’ve seen so far, but it was not entirely unexpected that this would at some point get out of hand.”

      When the sit-in began, UNHCR in Niger said the asylum seekers were pushing to be resettled to Europe. “Resettlement is a protection tool for the most vulnerable, not a right,” UNHCR Niger told TNH. “Most asylum seekers currently in Agadez are not among the most vulnerable refugees, and other more vulnerable cases will be privileged for resettlement.”

      The claim that the protest was only about resettlement prompted the former UNHCR employee to speak out. “They keep rolling out resettlement as this kind of strawman to distract from the fact that these people have been neglected,” the former employee said. “They’ve been neglected because they’re not a priority for anybody.”

      As the sit-in wore on, the governor of Agadez, Sadou Soloke, warned in a radio broadcast that the sit-in would be dispersed – forcibly if necessary – if the protesters did not return to the camp outside the city. “We can no longer stand by and watch them trample on our laws while they are being hosted by us,” the governor said of the asylum seekers.

      The protesters did not seek the required authorisation before the sit-in began and “rejected any proposal for a friendly settlement”, Agadez mayor Maman Boukari told TNH in writing. “In accordance with the provisions of the law, we ordered the police to move the refugees,” he said.

      “Nobody can believe this is happening… because there [are] children, there are women that are sleeping inside the camp.”

      But the asylum seekers at the sit-in had no intention of returning to the camp before their grievances were addressed. The way they saw things, going back to the camp would only mean more waiting and uncertainty. “We expect disaster at any time because we have lost trust in the government and employees of UNHCR,” one demonstrater told TNH via text message on 3 January, anticipating the dispersal.

      The following morning, security forces arrived with lorries and buses to take people back to the camp.
      Aftermath

      As the smoke settled from the fire at the humanitarian site, different versions of what transpired emerged.

      According to asylum seekers at the sit-in, security forces forced people into the vehicles, beating those who didn’t comply, and severely injuring many. Mayor Boukari told TNH that no force was used to disperse the demonstration and that there were no recorded cases of injury.

      Cell phone videos taken by asylum seekers show several instances of security forces hitting people with sticks or batons, and dragging them across the ground. Photos taken afterward show people with bloody wounds on their heads and bandaged limbs. But it is unclear from the videos and photos how widespread or severe the violence was, or what injuries people sustained.

      Despite the different versions of events, one thing is certain: once back at the camp, a confrontation broke out between security forces and some of the asylum seekers. It appears – from accounts given to TNH by the mayor, UNHCR, and at least three asylum seekers – that an unknown number of people, angry at the dispersal of the sit-in, then started a blaze and burned most of the camp to the ground. Other accounts, that seem less credible, suggest the government used teargas at the camp and started the fire.

      “The discussion of what Agadez will become is still on going with the government.”

      “[Security forces] beat them… too much. When they’re back [from the sit-in], they hate everything and destroy it,” said one asylum seeker, who didn’t participate in the protest but was in the camp during the fire. “This is [a] crazy idea. Nobody can accept [it]. Nobody can believe this is happening… because there [are] children, there are women that are sleeping inside the camp,” the asylum seeker added.

      Miraculously, no one was seriously injured in the fire.

      In its aftermath, 336 people were arrested for arson and planning the sit-in. As of 30 January, 196 were still being held in custody, of which 61 had been formally charged, according to UNHCR. Other Sudanese who are not currently in custody are also expected to receive judicial summons, UNHCR added.

      After several weeks, the government gave UNHCR permission to install temporary shelter for the people still staying at the camp – they had been sleeping outside in rough shelters they cobbled together or in communal buildings on the site that survived the fire.

      But the future of the effort to create a space to protect asylum seekers and refugees in Agadez is still uncertain. UNHCR is transferring some asylum seekers from Agadez to housing in Niamey and another UNHCR centre near the capital. “The discussion of what Agadez will become is still on going with the government,” Morelli said.

      In the meantime, the asylum seekers still don’t have any more certainty about their futures than they did before the protest started, and some have told TNH they feel even more vulnerable and disillusioned. UNHCR said the government will respect the status of people who have already been recognised as refugees and continue to review asylum claims from people who have submitted files.

      That process has already dragged on for more than two years, and ambiguity about why it is taking so long and where exactly it is heading was at the root of the protest to begin with. Following the dispersal, one Sudanese asylum seeker told TNH that he feared persecution by authorities in Niger and had returned to Libya with two of his friends. Others do not want to return to the violence and chaos of Libya and feel they have no option but to stay in Niger.

      “I’m still in UNHCR’s hands. What they tell me, I’m ready,” one asylum seeker told TNH. “People, they hate the situation… [but] there’s no other choice.”

      https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2020/02/10/Sudanese-asylum-seekers-Niger-Agadez-protest-EU-migration-policy

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

    • Le business meurtrier des frontières

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sur le blog :

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

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

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

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

    • How Private Security Firms Profit Off the Refugee Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Financing the industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Key findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Air Surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sensors and cameras

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

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

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

      Surveillance centres

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

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

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

      Artificial intelligence

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

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

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

  • À la marche des « Mutilés pour l’exemple » | Sophie Divry
    http://cqfd-journal.org/A-la-marche-des-Mutiles-pour-l

    Victimes de violences policières, particulièrement graves et nombreuses pendant le mouvement des Gilets jaunes, les « Mutilés pour l’exemple » ont formé un collectif au printemps dernier. Éborgnés, amputés, traumatisés, ils doivent s’adapter à la nouvelle vie qu’on leur a imposée. Le 22 septembre, ils manifestaient à Bordeaux, demandant la fin de l’impunité et du carnage policier. Reportage et témoignages. Source : CQFD

  • Améliorons les débats sur le genre, le sexe et les droits des transgenres
    par #Sophie_Allen, #Jane_Clare_Jones, #Holly_Lawford-Smith, #Mary_Leng, #Rebecca_Reilly-Cooper et #Kathleen_Stock
    (Des philosophes féministes radicales et critiques du concept de genre invitent leurs opposant·e·s à éviter certains arguments qui sont clairement déficients.)
    http://tradfem.wordpress.com/2019/10/05/ameliorons-les-debats-sur-le-genre-le-sexe-et-les-droits-des-tran

    Nous sommes un collectif de philosophes universitaires féministes radicales, critiques du concept de genre. Certaines d’entre nous affirment, dans leurs travaux, que les femmes sont, par définition, les êtres humains adultes femelles. Selon ce point de vue, une “transfemme” ne peut être classée comme femme, puisqu’elle n’est pas un être humain adulte femelle. Le reste d’entre nous sont présentement agnostiques sur cette question, hésitant entre 1) adopter exclusivement cette première position et 2) adopter également une position qui affirmerait l’existence d’un autre sens, significatif, à donner au concept de « femme », soit son application aux personnes occupant un certain rôle social féminin, sur la base d’une appartenance perçue à la catégorie de sexe féminin.

    Contrairement à la première acception, cette seconde définition implique qu’une partie des transfemmes comptent comme femmes, en au moins un sens. Néanmoins, cette inclusion est limitée, puisqu’un grand nombre de transfemmes n’occupent pas un rôle social féminin sur la base d’une appartenance perçue à la catégorie du sexe féminin.

    Dans les deux cas, nous sommes toutes sceptiques quant à la valeur politique de comptes rendus de l’être-femme (womanhood) qui l’identifient essentiellement à la possession d’une « identité de genre » féminine. Nous insistons toutes également sur le fait qu’il est politiquement essentiel de maintenir une différentiation conceptuelle claire entre les hommes et les femmes, afin de pouvoir continuer à identifier et à qualifier des modèles de comportements oppressifs basés sur le sexe et des stéréotypes socioculturels nocifs au sujet des « façons correctes » d’être, respectivement, des hommes et des femmes.

    Notre objectif ici n’est pas de résumer nos arguments en faveur de ces conclusions : nous le faisons ailleurs dans nos travaux (dont vous trouverez les liens sous nos noms, en tête de cet article). Nous souhaitons plutôt mettre en lumière divers sophismes et faux procès que nous avons souvent remarqués dans des réflexions sur nos travaux.

    Traduction : #Ana_MINSKI pour #Tradfem
    Version originale : http://medium.com/@kathleenstock/doing-better-in-arguments-about-sex-and-gender-3bec3fc4bdb6
    #philosophie_féministe #transgenrisme #identité_de_genre #non-mixité_féministe

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

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

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

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

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


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

    –---

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

    ping @karine4

  • « Merkel will die Wirtschaft zerstören und Armut herbeiführen » Karsten Hilse, AfD (MdB) 10.09.2019 - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzfDCS_seUE&t=185

    La droite au parlement allemand se compose surtout d’idiots finis. Ce monsieur essaye de démontrer au parlement que les Nations Unis sont un gouvernement mondial communiste qui poursuit le but d’appauvrir le monde entier. Allumez les sous-titres et amusez vous bien. (à partir de 3:00)

    Cette page contient les « preuves scientifiques » irréfutables pour ces affirmatons.

    Unabweisbare Schlussfolgerung nach Vorgabe der Bundesregierung : 97,5% Wissenschaftler-Konsens- Merkel ruiniert deutsche Wirtschaft – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
    https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2019/09/01/unabweisbare-schlussfolgerung-nach-vorgabe-der-bundesregierung-97

    In den Quellen haben wir nach Abstracts bzw. wissenschaftlichen Texten bzw. nach Dokumenten gesucht, die explizit die folgenden Hypothesen zurückweisen:

    Hypothese 1: Die Regierung Merkel hat das Ziel, die deutsche Wirtschaft zu zerstören und Armut herbeizuführen.

    Hypothese 2: Die UN ist ein kommunistisches Regime, das den vermeintlich menschengemachten Klimawandel nutzt, um Armut herbeizuführen.

    Hypothese 3: Unter den Parteien des Bundestages herrscht Konsens darüber, dass ihr Daseinszweck in Korruption und Selbstbereicherung besteht.

    Ergebnis:

    Die drei Hypothesen werden alle bestätigt.

    #AfD #Allemagen #politique #extrême_droite

  • Militarisation des frontières en #Mer_Egée

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

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

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

    –-----------

    Commentaire de Martin Clavey sur twitter :

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

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

    • Σε δοκιμαστική λειτουργία το αερόσταστο της FRONTEX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Zeppelin over the island of Samos to monitor migrants trafficking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #Méditerranée #mer_Méditerranée #Libye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sophia : The EU naval mission without any ships

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


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

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

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

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

      Juan Fernando López Aguilar, EU Civil Liberties Committee

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

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

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

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

      Operation Sophia has saved 45,000 lives

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

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

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

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

      Matteo de Bellis, Amnesty International

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Dans les contrées poétiques de Sophie Loizeau
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/culture-idees/070619/dans-les-contrees-poetiques-de-sophie-loizeau

    Une égale attention à l’écriture, à la nature, aux êtres : tel est le partage du sensible auquel convie Sophie Loizeau, jusque dans ce livre récent, "Les Loups", aux éditions Corti. Alors que se tient à Paris du 5 au 9 juin la 37e édition du Marché de la poésie, elle met en mots pour Mediapart son appréhension d’un « nous » au monde qui serait plus inclusif. #Entretien.

    #sophie_loizeau,_poésie_de_langue_française

  • Le Média : Denis Robert n’exclut pas de licencier Aude Lancelin pour faute lourde
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/250519/le-media-denis-robert-nexclut-pas-de-licencier-aude-lancelin-pour-faute-lo

    Créé par des proches de La France insoumise, Le Média connaît une nouvelle crise : fraîchement nommé directeur de la web-télé, le journaliste Denis Robert pourrait décider de licencier pour faute lourde Aude Lancelin qui occupait avant lui cette fonction. Il assure que « rien n’est décidé encore ». « Plusieurs hypothèses sont à l’étude, dont celle-là », dit-il.

    #Confidentiel #sophia_Chikirou,_Le_Média,_Aude_Lancelin,_Denis_Robert

  • Le #phallus et le néant

    Entretien avec #Sophie_ROBERT ; scénariste et réalisatrice du documentaire : « #Le_Phallus_et_le_Néant, à la découverte du vrai visage de la #psychanalyse ». Enquête sur les dérives de la psychanalyse et de ses praticiens éminents. Théorie sexuelle, discours sexistes et dogmatiques, une immersion au sein d’une corporation scellée.

    Pour écouter l’entretien :
    http://libradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sophie-Robert.5.mp3


    #sexisme #film #documentaire

    • Elle n’est pas en conflit avec les psychanalystes mais seulement avec les psychanalistes Freudo-Lacanien·nes. Elle dit ne pas avoir de problème avec les psychanaliste jungien·nes et d’autres tendances. Pour les entretiens avec ces freudo-lacanien·nes elle dit avoir pour projet de faire une série de docs, du coup on peu pas dire que ce sont des chutes, c’est plutot qu’il y a un angle d’approche différent - premier film sur l’autisme, second sur la misogynie...

    • @aude_v C’est monté au sécateur, la parole de chaque personne intervenante est tordue jusqu’à lui faire dire le contraire de ce qu’elle veut sans doute dire, et un tel montage est tellement grossier qu’il saute aux yeux (et aux oreilles). Les biais de cette fausse réalisatrice sont parfaitement transparents. J’avais écrit la chronique décryptage du premier, j’ai bien peur de ne pas avoir la force avec celui-là !

      @mad_meg Aude a raison, ce second film est fabriqué avec des chutes et ou des plans du premier. Elle n’a pas pu retourner pour ce second film, les psychanalystes interviewés par elle se sont sentis tellement trahies. Par ailleurs son approche avait été on ne peut plus anti éthique puisqu’elle s’était fait passer pour journaliste ce qu’elle n’est pas et qu’elle tournait un documentaire commandé par Arte qui a entièrement nié la chose.

    • @aude_v Bien sûr va voir le film. Et ne manque pas de nous en dire quelque chose par la suite. Personnellement je n’ai pas la force.

      Et quand tu écris :

      il faut débusquer le sexisme partout où il se trouve

      Bien d’accord, en revanche il me semble que cela ne rend service à aucune cause, fut-elle bonne et celle de la lutte contre le sexisme est évidemment une bonne cause, quand elle est défendue avec des moyens aussi intellectuellement malhonnêtes, je pense même que cela porte préjudice et corrompt la cause en question.

  • « Neige » conte philosophique et musical d’après Maxence FERMINE

    La Simplesse présente « Neige » Conte Musical pour Tout Public à partir de 7 ans. L’association tourangelle a vu le jour en 2016 pour organiser le festival « 37° à l’ombre ». Le 29 juin 2018, au Château d’Azay-le-Rideau a été créé « Neige » inspiré de Maxence Fermine. Mis en scène par Mario Gonzalez, ce conte philosophique et musical réunit une comédienne, un artiste mime, une harpiste et une chanteuse soprano, dans une scénographie d’ombres chinoises et porté par des mélodies japonaises traditionnelles ainsi que des pièces de Claude-Achille Debussy... https://www.silencecommunity.com/shop/fr/spectacles-pour-organisateurs-fr/75-spectaclespourorganisateurs-neige-fr.html

    #spectacle #conte #musique #philosophie #association #Tours #Mario_Gonzalez #Gonzalez #harpe #mime #comédie #chant #soprano #ombres_chinoises

  • WOW ! Courageuse #Sophia_Aram...
    Je suis pas forcément d’accord avec tout (ceci dit, presque !) mais qu’est-ce que ça fait du bien d’entendre une femme racisée mettre les points sur les hics (RN & RIC) du soulèvement des #Gilets_Jaunes.

    (oui, je sais, #NotAllMen #GiletsJaunes, #Blablabla #LarmesJaunes...)

    vidéo seule https://youtu.be/N7xlK1hLOE0


    avec le texte : https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/le-billet-de-sophia-aram/le-billet-de-sophia-aram-24-decembre-2018

    Quand on voit le nombre d’exactions, de violences, de haines, de propos antisémites, racistes, homophobes, sexistes proférées pendant ces manifestations par des gens portant un gilet jaune, pensez-vous vraiment qu’il y aurait aussi peu de gilets jaunes que ça dérange, sans magie ?

    Alors, je ne sais pas si la magie va continuer d’opérer longtemps, ce que je sais, c’est qu’il y a un miracle qui tarde à se produire, c’est que la justice sociale soit portée par un mouvement efficace et pérenne, parce je crains que ce ne soit pas exactement ce qui se profile pour ceux qui l’attendent encore sur les ronds-points...

    • Je ne trouve pas du tout ce discours courageux en date du 24 décembre il est dans la droite ligne adoptée par les médias dominants : déconsidérer les GJ et maintenir un discours de mépris. Assez exaspérée de voir que la gauche alternative (qui certes s’en est pris plein la gueule depuis 20 ans) semble si infantile et jalouse depuis le début au point de s’axer uniquement sur cet argumentaire. Quel dommage.
      #la_voix_de_son_maitre

  • « Il est irresponsable de faire croire que la #France pourra continuer à vivre au-dessus de ses moyens jusqu’à la fin des temps »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/12/17/il-est-irresponsable-de-faire-croire-que-la-france-pourra-continuer-a-vivre-

    Les #sophismes de Stéphane Lauer, éditorialiste au « Monde » : on ne peut pas à la fois demander plus d’argent à l’Etat et refuser de payer des taxes.

    Pas un mot sur les cadeaux fiscaux faits aux plus riches.

    #MSM

  • CE FIL DE DISCUSSION COMPLÈTE CELUI COMMENCÉ ICI :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/724156

    v. aussi la métaliste sur les ONG et les sauvetages en Méditerranée :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/706177

    –-----------

    Un bateau de pêche espagnol « coincé » en mer Méditerranée après avoir secouru 12 migrants

    Un navire de pêche espagnol est « coincé » en mer Méditerranée depuis plusieurs jours avec 12 migrants à son bord. Aucun pays n’a en effet accepté de les accueillir depuis leur sauvetage la semaine dernière, a indiqué mardi 27 novembre le capitaine du bateau.

    « Nous sommes coincés en mer, nous ne pouvons aller nulle part », a déclaré à l’AFP Pascual Durá, capitaine du « #Nuestra_Madre_Loreto ». Depuis jeudi dernier, les 13 membres de l’équipage du navire cohabitent avec 12 migrants originaires du Niger, de Somalie, du Soudan, du Sénégal et d’Egypte. Ils ont été secourus après le naufrage de leur bateau pneumatique en provenance de Libye.

    « Renvoyés vers l’endroit qu’ils fuient »

    L’Italie et Malte leur ont refusé l’entrée dans leurs ports. Quant aux services espagnols de sauvetage maritime, avec lesquels les marins sont en contact, ils ont seulement offert la possibilité de les renvoyer en Libye. ""Si nous allons vers la Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie", a indiqué le capitaine, précisant que « dès qu’ils entendent le mot ’Libye’, ils deviennent très nerveux et hystériques, il est difficile de les rassurer »."

    « Nous ne voulons pas renvoyer ces pauvres gens en Libye. Après ce qu’ils ont accompli pour venir jusqu’ici, nous ne voulons pas les renvoyer vers l’endroit qu’ils fuient », a-t-il ajouté. Le capitaine du navire assure qu’il ne dispose plus que de six ou sept jours de provisions et qu’une tempête approche.

    Depuis le début de l’année, plus de 106.000 migrants sont arrivés en Europe par la mer, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations, qui a enregistré 2.119 décès pendant cette période.

    https://www.nouvelobs.com/monde/migrants/20181128.OBS6155/un-bateau-de-peche-espagnol-coince-en-mer-mediterranee-apres-avoir-secour
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #sauvetage #Méditerranée #frontières

    • #Nuestra_Madre_de_Loreto”: appello urgente dei parlamentari europei per l’apertura di porti sicuri.

      “NUESTRA MADRE DE LORETO”. APPELLO URGENTE DEI PARLAMENTARI EUROPEI PER L’APERTURA DI PORTI SICURI.

      RICHIESTA URGENTE ALL´UE ED AI GOVERNI EUROPEI PER CONSENTIRE AL PESCHERECCIO “NUESTRA MADRE LORETO” DI SBARCARE IN UN PORTO SICURO.

      Stiamo rischiando di essere testimoni di un’altra tragedia nel Mar Mediterraneo. Un peschereccio spagnolo, “Nuestra Madre de Loreto”, è bloccato da giorni in mare dopo aver salvato 12 persone che tentavano di raggiungere la costa Europea dalla Libia a bordo di un gommone.

      Nessun Paese Europeo ha consentito all’imbarcazione spagnola di attraccare e probabilmente sono in corso negoziati per riportare questi migranti, che potrebbero avere diritto di protezione internazionale, in Libia.

      Secondo l’UNHCR e la Commissione Europea la Libia non è un Paese sicuro. Per cui non può essere considerato un porto sicuro per lo sbarco. Non ha mai sottoscritto la Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati, mentre media e organizzazioni internazionali riportano violazioni sistematiche dei diritti umani nei centri di detenzione per migranti.

      Mentre si attende l’autorizzazione allo sbarco, le condizioni metereologiche stanno peggiorando e l’imbarcazione scarseggia beni essenziali, cibo e carburante. Si sta esaurendo il tempo a disposizione: abbiamo urgentemente bisogno di una soluzione sensata, nel pieno rispetto delle leggi internazionali ed Europee, inclusa la Convenzione SAR. I governi Europei non possono chiedere all’imbarcazione spagnola di violare il principio di “non-respingimento”.

      Chiediamo ai governi Europei di rispettare pienamente la legge internazionale e la Convenzione SAR e di offrire un porto sicuro alla “Nuestra Madre de Loreto”, evitando così un’altra tragedia nel Mediterraneo. Chiediamo alla Commissione Europea di prendere una posizione chiara e di facilitare una soluzione rapida.

      Questo è un appello aperto, chiediamo a ciascuno di condividerlo e di chiedere ai nostri governi di rispettare i diritti umani e di dimostrare solidarietà alle persone in pericolo in mare.

      Marina Albiol, Sergio Cofferati, Eleonora Forenza, Ska Keller, Elly Schlein, Miguel Urban Crespo, Ernest Urtasun, Gabriele Zimmer (Parlamentari Europei)

      https://mediterranearescue.org/news/nuestra-madre-de-loreto-appello-urgente-dei-parlamentari-europei

    • Faute de port d’accueil, un bateau espagnol erre toujours en Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à bord

      Le Nuestra Madre Loreto, un navire espagnol, erre depuis une semaine en Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à son bord. Les rescapés refusent d’être renvoyés en Libye. Le navire demande à l’Europe l’autorisation de débarquer dans l’un de ses ports.

      Le gouvernement espagnol a indiqué mercredi 28 novembre être en contact avec l’Italie et Malte en vue de trouver un port d’accueil pour un bateau de pêche espagnol errant en mer Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à bord.

      Depuis jeudi dernier, les 13 membres de l’équipage du « Nuestra Madre Loreto » cohabitent avec 12 migrants originaires du Niger, de Somalie, du Soudan, du Sénégal et d’Egypte rescapés d’un bateau pneumatique en provenance de Libye.

      « Nous sommes coincés en mer, nous ne pouvons aller nulle part », a déclaré Pascual Durá, le capitaine du bateau.

      Le gouvernement espagnol a dans un premier temps demandé à la Libye de prendre les réfugiés en charge, comme le prévoit le droit international. Les embarcations de migrants secourues dans la SAR zone (zone de détresse en Méditerranée où ont lieu les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage) relèvent en effet de l’autorité de Tripoli depuis le mois de juin 2018.

      Les migrants refusent d’être ramenés en Libye. Face à leur refus, le navire espagnol « fait des démarches auprès des gouvernements de l’Italie et de Malte, dont les côtes sont proches du lieu où se trouve le bateau, dans le but de favoriser une solution alternative, rapide et satisfaisante » pour les accueillir, a indiqué la vice-présidente de l’exécutif Carmen Calvo dans un communiqué.

      « En aucune circonstance, [les migrants] ne devraient être renvoyées en Libye, où elles risquent d’être victimes de détention arbitraire, de torture et d’autres violences. Toute instruction donnée au capitaine du Nuestra Madre de Loreto de transférer les survivants en Libye serait contraire au droit international », s’est alarmé de son côté Matteo de Bellis, chercheur sur l’asile et les migrations à Amnesty International.

      « Si nous allons en Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie »

      Face à l’aggravation des conditions météorologiques, le bateau a pris mardi la direction de l’île italienne de Lampedusa, selon le gouvernement espagnol.

      Le capitaine du « Nuestra Madre Loreto », avait indiqué de son côté mardi que l’Italie, dont le ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini (Ligue, extrême droite) s’oppose à l’arrivée de nouveaux migrants dans son pays, et Malte lui avaient refusé l’entrée dans leurs ports.

      Il avait également souligné que les services espagnols de sauvetage maritime lui avaient seulement offert la possibilité de les renvoyer en Libye.

      Selon le capitaine, les migrants à bord de son bateau « deviennent très nerveux et hystériques dès qu’ils entendent le mot ‘Libye’ ». « Si nous allons vers la Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie », avait-il averti.

      Depuis l’arrivée du socialiste Pedro Sanchez au pouvoir, l’Espagne a accueilli un navire humanitaire, l’Aquarius, refusé par l’Italie et Malte et à trois reprises un bateau de l’ONG Open Arms. Mais elle a refusé un retour de l’Aquarius, préférant négocier avec d’autres États européens la répartition des migrants qu’il avait à bord.


      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/13639/faute-de-port-d-accueil-un-bateau-espagnol-erre-toujours-en-mediterran

    • #Sophia mission will cease unless rules changed - Salvini

      The EU’s anti-human trafficking Sophia naval mission in the Mediterranean will stop when its current mandate expires at the end of the year unless the rules of the operation are changed, Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said on Wednesday. The government says the operation currently puts too much of the burden of rescued migrants on Italy.

      “We are staying firm in our unwillingness to accept landing procedures that involve dockings only in Italian ports,” Salvini told a Schengen committee hearing.

      “Unless there is convergence on our positions, we do not consider it opportune to continue the mission”.

      http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2018/12/05/sophia-mission-will-cease-unless-rules-changed-salvini_05836d11-3f8c-474c-
      #Opération_Sophia #EUNAVFOR_MED

      #Salvini (encore lui)

    • MSF et SOS Méditerranée mettent un terme aux opérations de sauvetage de l’« Aquarius »

      Déplorant les « attaques » répétées, les ONG étudient des options pour un nouveau navire et un futur pavillon. Depuis février 2016, le bateau a secouru 30 000 personnes.

      L’Aquarius est devenu le symbole de la crise politique autour de l’accueil des migrants. Il ne sera bientôt plus. Médecins sans frontières (MSF) et SOS Méditerranée ont annoncé, jeudi 6 décembre, devoir « mettre un terme » aux opérations de sauvetage de leur navire humanitaire, privé de pavillon depuis deux mois.

      « Renoncer à l’Aquarius a été une décision extrêmement difficile à prendre », a déclaré dans un communiqué Frédéric Penard, directeur des opérations de SOS Méditerranée, en déplorant « les attaques incessantes dont le navire et ses équipes ont fait l’objet ». Mais l’ONG basée à Marseille « explore déjà activement les options pour un nouveau navire et un nouveau pavillon », et « étudie sérieusement toutes les propositions d’armateurs qui lui permettraient de poursuivre sa mission de sauvetage ». « Nous refusons de rester les bras croisés sur le rivage alors que des gens continuent de mourir en mer », a assuré M. Penard.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2018/12/07/msf-et-sos-mediterranee-mettent-un-terme-aux-operations-de-sauvetage-de-l-aq

    • MSF forced to terminate search and rescue operations as Europe condemns people to drown

      As men, women and children continue to die in the Mediterranean Sea, international medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and its partner SOS Méditerranée have been forced to terminate the lifesaving operations of their search and rescue vessel, Aquarius.

      Over the last two months as people have continued to flee by sea on the world’s deadliest migration route, the Aquarius has remained in port, unable to carry out its vital humanitarian work.

      This is due to a sustained smear campaign, spearheaded by the Italian government and backed by other European countries to delegitimise, slander and obstruct aid organisations trying to save the lives of vulnerable people in the Mediterranean.

      Coupled with ill-conceived policies aimed at trapping people outside Europe’s borders, this campaign has undermined international law and humanitarian principles.

      With no immediate solution to these attacks, MSF and SOS Méditerranée have no option but to end the operations of the Aquarius.

      https://www.msf.org.uk/article/msf-forced-terminate-search-and-rescue-operations-europe-condemns-people-dro

    • « Aquarius » : « La #non-assistance_à_personnes_en_danger est revenue en force en Méditerranée »

      Mego Terzian, président de MSF-France et Michaël Neuman, directeur d’études à MSF expliquent dans une tribune au « Monde » pourquoi leur ONG et SOS Méditerranée, l’Association européenne de sauvetage en mer, mettent un terme aux opérations de sauvetage de l’« Aquarius ».

      « Dont acte, la politique de harcèlement judiciaire, administratif, politique aura eu raison de l’“Aquarius”, déployé entre 2015 et le milieu de l’année 2018 en mer Méditerranée. » usage worldwide/DPA / Photononstop

      Tribune. Dont acte, la politique de harcèlement judiciaire, administratif, politique aura eu raison de l’« Aquarius », déployé entre 2015 et le milieu de l’année 2018 en mer Méditerranée.
      En 2014, l’opération « Mare Nostrum », mise en place par les autorités italiennes inaugurait pourtant une séquence pendant laquelle le sauvetage d’embarcations de migrants en détresse fut pourtant considéré comme légitime.

      Ce qui est d’abord, rappelons-le, une obligation légale était alors politiquement et publiquement acceptable. En 2018, les Italiens furent de nouveau à la manœuvre, signifiant cette fois-ci qu’ils ne sauraient accepter davantage que se poursuivent ces interventions : dès le début de l’été, Matteo Salvini, tout récent ministre de l’intérieur, œuvra pour fermer ses ports aux bateaux de secours, accélérant une politique de dissuasion largement entamée par Marco Minniti, son prédécesseur, qui aboutit, in fine, à la liquidation des moyens destinés à secourir les personnes fuyant la Libye.

      Bien sûr, des organisations de la société civile tentent vaille que vaille et, avec une
      remarquable ténacité, de maintenir leurs activités de secours en mer : Sea Watch, Mare Jonio, Proactiva Open Arms sont de celles-là. Les pilotes volontaires du Moonbird et du Colibri poursuivent leurs survols, tentant de déceler entre les vagues des embarcations à la dérive et d’éviter ainsi que la longue liste des décès – plus de 17 000 depuis 2014 – ne s’allonge davantage.

      Pressions italiennes

      Mais toutes le font avec d’extrêmes difficultés : ennuis administratifs récurrents, obstacles posés aux escales techniques, interdiction d’accoster en Europe, et poursuites judiciaires, comme c’est le cas de l’« Aquarius », navire de secours affrété en partenariat avec SOS Méditerranée. Celui-ci, déjà privé de pavillon sous pressions italiennes, est maintenant menacé d’une mise sous séquestre à la suite des accusations grotesques de crime organisé, de nouveau, en Italie.

      Une partie de l’équipage et des membres des équipes de MSF sont mis en cause : leur activité de secours est criminalisée. Force est de constater que ce dispositif de secours en mer, auquel nous avons participé depuis 2015 avec cinq navires différents, quelquefois en partenariat avec d’autres organisations, est mis hors-la-loi.

      Les victimes de ce combat à armes inégales sont évidemment ces personnes migrantes, demandeuses d’asiles ou réfugiées, dont plus grand monde ne semble désormais se soucier. D’ailleurs combien sont-elles, ces victimes ? Aujourd’hui, sans témoin en mer, personne ne le sait, tandis que le piège libyen se referme, un piège dont la maintenance est assurément l’œuvre d’autorités libyennes disparates mais dont la mécanique est bien due à l’ingéniosité européenne.

      Des milliers de personnes sont condamnées à tenter de survivre dans l’entrelacs de centres de détention dits « officiels » et de prisons clandestines en Libye. On ne saurait suffisamment conseiller à nos décideurs d’aller visiter ces geôles pour se faire une idée de l’avenir qu’ils promettent à leurs frères humains. Beaucoup d’autres personnes, enfin, prises dans les mailles serrées d’un dispositif militaro-technique de pointe, meurent plus en amont sur les routes dans la vaste région sahélienne.

      Absence de l’Europe

      S’il est beaucoup question d’Italie, il ne faudrait pas négliger l’unanimisme européen dans lequel cette dynamique mortifère s’est mise en place : ni la France, ni l’Espagne, ni aucun Etat ou institution européenne ne s’est réellement opposé à la mise en coupe réglée de la politique européenne de gestion des frontières par des dirigeants aux pratiques racistes et violentes. Rien de surprenant puisque la manœuvre était en cours depuis quelque temps déjà.

      Ainsi, on ne trouva personne ou presque, pour se résoudre à accueillir quelques centaines de personnes qui, par une chance inouïe, bénéficiaient ça et là du programme de relocalisation du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR). Depuis longtemps, le refoulement des indésirables aux frontières, notamment franco-italienne, était acté, tout comme l’abandon de 15 000 personnes sur les îles grecques dans des conditions épouvantables, laissés-pour-compte d’une mise en scène sordide de la frontière.

      L’errance durant plus d’une semaine du Nuestra Madre de Loreto, en est le dernier avatar : ayant secouru douze personnes, ce chalutier espagnol s’est vu refuser l’autorisation de débarquer dans les ports européens, y compris de l’Espagne, jusque-là bonne élève dans l’accueil des rescapés de la mer mais qui là prôna leur retour dans l’univers carcéral libyen. Ce n’est qu’après la décision du capitaine de faire, malgré tout, route vers l’Espagne, que le navire obtint le transfert des rescapés vers Malte.

      Non-assistance généralisée

      Aujourd’hui s’ouvre une séquence bien plus lourde de menaces. Aux côtés de la délégation du secours en mer aux gardes-côtes libyens, la généralisation de la non-assistance à personnes en danger est revenue en force en Méditerranée. On se souvient, en effet, qu’en 2011, en pleine intervention militaire occidentale en Libye, des dizaines de migrants étaient morts noyés, au terme d’une dérive de plusieurs jours, malgré les survols et observations d’un nombre important d’avions et de bateaux de l’OTAN.

      Ces pratiques de non-assistance ressurgissent : par crainte de ne pas savoir où débarquer leurs rescapés, les navires commerciaux se détournent de leurs routes habituelles, ou s’écartent lorsqu’ils aperçoivent l’embarcation redoutée. Telle est, en tout cas, la teneur des témoignages que nos équipes travaillant en Libye ont recueillis auprès des rescapés du Nivin, un porte-véhicules dont l’histoire raconte l’ensemble des lâchetés des responsables politiques européens et des agences internationales.

      Tous ceux-là avaient, pourtant, affirmé, à un moment ou à un autre, que les migrants interceptés ne sauraient être ramenés en Libye contre leur gré. Ce fut pourtant exactement ce qu’il s’est passé avec le Nivin, duquel les quatre-vingt-quinze rescapés qu’il transportait refusèrent de débarquer au port de Misrata, à l’est de Tripoli. L’occupation du navire se poursuivit une dizaine jours pendant lesquels nos équipes apportèrent de l’aide médicale à bord et constatèrent qu’aucune solution alternative à la remise en détention ne fut sérieusement examinée.

      Elle prit fin lorsque les forces libyennes lancèrent un assaut, au cours duquel une dizaine de personnes furent blessées, dont certaines grièvement. Certains sont aujourd’hui poursuivis par la justice libyenne pour crimes de piraterie. Telle est donc l’alternative pour les migrants de Libye : la folie, la torture, ou la mort. Et pour les marins, fuir leurs obligations ou subir les persécutions européennes.

      Alors que, de part et d’autre de la Méditerranée, les Etats s’arrogent le droit de vie et de mort sur des gens n’ayant pour motivation que celle de rendre leur vie meilleure, nous ne renonçons pas pour autant à porter secours là où nous le pouvons encore, à soutenir les initiatives de secours en mer et participer à en renouveler le modèle. Spectateurs et acteurs lucides, nous ne renonçons pas à contester ces logiques de sacrifice.

      Mego Terzian (Médecin, président de Médecins sans frontières (MSF)) et Michaël Neuman(Directeur d’études à MSF)

      https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/12/07/aquarius-la-non-assistance-a-personnes-en-danger-est-revenue-en-force-en-med

    • Le accuse a Open Arms, ovvero il mondo capovolto.

      Proactiva Open Arms è compagna di viaggio di Mediterranea fin dall’inizio. Insieme noi e a Sea Watch è parte dell’alleanza United4Med: una piattaforma aperta per un’Europa solidale in mare e in terra.
      Ma le ipotesi di reato contenute nell’avviso di conclusione delle indagini preliminari depositate dalla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Ragusa non ci lasciano sgomenti solo perché colpiscono ancora una volta delle persone di cui conosciamo direttamente l’integrità, e perché rilanciano la criminalizzazione del salvataggio della vita umana in mare e del rispetto della dignità delle persone salvate.

      L’accusa di violenza privata, unita a quella del favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione illegale, rappresenta un pericolosissimo uso del diritto che estende all’inverosimile il concetto di violenza, e, rispetto al soggetto offeso che in questo caso sarebbe il Ministero dell’Interno come Istituzione, rappresenta un precedente particolarmente inquietante che potrebbe estendersi praticamente ad ogni azione giuridicamente rilevante. Rimandando per i dettagli all’articolata e preziosa analisi elaborata in merito dal Giudice del Tribunale di Torino Andrea Natale, quello che emerge sempre più chiaramente è che davvero il mondo per come lo conoscevamo appare capovolto.
      Il comandante della nave Proactiva Open Arms, Marc Reig Creus, e la capo missione Ana Isabel Montes avrebbero esercitato violenza privata, disattendendo gli ordini dell’Italia e poi delle autorità libiche di non intervenire, per avere salvato centinaia di persone che stavano rischiando di annegare in mare. Successivamente, quando la cosiddetta guardia libica si è presentata sul posto, la violenza privata sarebbe consistita nel rifiuto di riconsegnare le persone salvate ai libici, ovvero nel fatto di non restituire 216 donne, bambini e giovani uomini alle sevizie e alle torture già subite nei campi della Libia.
      Anabel e Marc avrebbero poi esercitato violenza privata per non aver chiesto a Malta di fornire un porto sicuro, cosa che Malta negli anni precedenti aveva rifiutato sistematicamente di fare, ed essersi diretti verso l’Italia. Il culmine della violenza privata sarebbe stato quindi quello di avere obbligato l’Italia a fornire un porto sicuro di approdo, e quindi di avere costretto il nostro governo a non avere anche questi profughi sulla propria coscienza.
      Cosa ci sia di violento e di privato in tutti questi accadimenti, e come possa un Ministero dell’Interno in quanto Istituzione essere soggetto a violenza privata è qualcosa che davvero appare ad oggi circondata da un alone di mistero, a meno che non si guardi a queste accuse come a ipotesi di reato fortemente ideologiche e orientate da una precisa visione politica.
      Appare già distintamente, a prescindere da quello che accadrà in sede processuale, che il diritto rischia sempre di più di diventare uno strumento di potere che colpisce in maniera arbitraria, paradossalmente, il rispetto del diritto stesso, proprio mentre la violazione dei diritti diventa normale maniera di procedere dei decisori politici europei e italiani innanzitutto. E questa riflessione andrebbe estesa ad ogni ambito e non solo alle politiche migratorie che colpendo le persone rese più vulnerabili sono, come sempre, un campanello d’allarme che ci dice fino a che punto le garanzie di libertà e i diritti di ogni persona siano sempre più messi in discussione.
      Rispettare i diritti umani è un reato, violarli è un merito: c’è ancora qualcuno che crede che questo capovolgimento del mondo vada arrestato prima che travolga tutti? La storia di Mediterranea, la sua comunità di mare e quella sempre più grande di terra ci racconta di sì. E si stringe intorno a Open Arms, Marc e Anabel, ringraziandoli profondamente per ogni singola vita sottratta alla morte e portata in salvo, per tutto il coraggio, per avere difeso da anni la nostra possibilità di essere umani e di immaginare una società più giusta.

      https://mediterranearescue.org/news/accuse-open-arms

    • L’Italie ferme ses ports à un navire d’une ONG et 300 migrants à bord

      Les ports italiens seront fermés aux quelque 310 migrants sauvés en Méditerranée par l’ONG espagnole, Proactiva Open Arms, a déclaré samedi le ministre italien de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, après un premier refus des autorités de Malte.

      « Ma réponse est claire : les ports italiens sont fermés ! », a twitté le ministre d’extrême droite. « Pour les trafiquants d’êtres humains et pour ceux qui les aident, la fête est terminée ».

      M. Salvini a précisé que la demande de l’ONG de permettre l’accès au territoire italien des hommes, femmes, enfants et bébés sauvés vendredi, avait été déposée après une réponse négative de Malte.

      L’ONG a précisé que parmi les migrants, une femme et son bébé, né sur une plage libyenne, ont été emmenés à Malte par un hélicoptère des gardes-côtes.

      « Nous restons avec 311 personnes à bord, sans port où accoster, et avec des besoins », a twitté l’ONG de son côté.

      Proactiva Open Arms a annoncé vendredi avoir secouru près de 300 migrants au large de la Libye, dont des femmes enceintes, qui se trouvaient à bord de trois embarcations.

      L’ONG a posté en ligne une vidéo de certains des migrants secourus « d’une mort certaine en mer ». « Si vous pouviez aussi ressentir le froid, il serait plus facile de comprendre l’urgence. Aucun port pour débarquer, et refus de Malte de nous donner de la nourriture. Ceci n’est pas Noël ».

      Le navire avait repris fin novembre, avec deux autres bateaux d’ONG, ses missions de sauvetage en Méditerranée centrale, au large de la Libye.

      Cet itinéraire de l’immigration clandestine est le plus mortel, avec plus de 1.300 migrants morts en tentant de gagner l’Italie ou Malte depuis le début de l’année, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les Migrations (OIM).

      Les navires humanitaires opèrent dans cette zone malgré l’opposition farouche de M. Salvini, qui leur ferme les ports en les accusant de favoriser les affaires des passeurs, et les réticences de Malte.

      Une autre ONG, l’allemande Sea-Eye, a annoncé vendredi soir le départ, depuis Algésiras dans le sud de l’Espagne, d’un nouveau bateau vers le large des côtes libyennes, le « Professor Albrecht-Penck ».

      Une partie des 18 membres de son équipage sont d’anciens volontaires de l’Aquarius, ce bateau qui avait déclenché l’été dernier une crise diplomatique entre les États européens et mis définitivement à l’arrêt début décembre.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/depeche/litalie-ferme-ses-ports-un-navire-dune-ong-et-300-migrants-bo

    • Sea Watch 3 e Sea Eye: le due navi che nessuno vuole far attraccare

      Le navi delle due Ong vagano da giorni nel Mediterraneo con decine di migranti a bordo, senza un porto sicuro dove approdare e in condizioni sempre più complicate. I sogni delle persone salvate

      32 esseri umani, tra cui 3 minori non accompagnati, 2 bambini piccoli e un neonato, sono da 10 giorni in mare. Sono stati salvati dalla Ong tedesca Sea Watch. A questi si sono aggiunti altre 17 persone salvati da un’altra Ong tedesca, Sea Eye.
      Nessuno li vuole, nessun Paese europeo vuol farsi carico del destino di queste persone. L’Agenzia delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati ha chiesto agli Stati Ue di garantire lo sbarco delle due navi.

      «Non vogliamo che le persone che ci hanno salvato la vita, i nostri fratelli, passino dei guai per averci soccorso in mare», dice Youssef. «Siamo sfuggiti a torture e violenze. Quando abbiamo lasciato la nostra casa abbiamo perso i nostri affetti più cari, e proprio per questi motivi la nostra vita in futuro non potrà che essere migliore», aggiunge Lamin.

      Nonostante tutto, in queste parole c’è speranza. Se i loro nomi sono di fantasia, per proteggerne le identità, i loro sogni, ma anche le loro paure e le loro attese sono autentiche: così come lo sono le loro vite sottratte alla morte dal coraggio dei volontari della nave Sea Watch 3. Da dieci giorni è con queste 32 persone salvate dai marosi che l’equipaggio del comandante Anne Paul Lancet condivide umanità, cibo e riparo: «Durante la notte stiamo stretti sotto coperta, in questo modo tutti quanti possiamo stare all’asciutto ed evitare che qualcuno debba dormire sul ponte esposto alle intemperie», racconta Ayla, uno dei medici a bordo della nave della Ong tedesca.
      «Stamattina ho quasi pianto - aggiunge l’altro medico a bordo - perché tante persone mi pregavano solo di poter contattare le loro famiglie almeno per dire loro che erano al sicuro e stavano arrivando in Europa: volevano solo sentire le voci dei loro cari per qualche secondo. E noi non possiamo far nulla: e se io mi trovassi al loro posto, e se io avessi quegli stessi bisogni e desideri?», si chiede ancora il medico tedesco, guardando fuori l’orizzonte.
      L’inverno e il mare alto non perdonano, le temperature sono rigide e i rischi per l’incolumità delle 54 persone che si trovano sulla nave Sea Watch non dovrebbero venire sottovalutati. Al tavolo della politica europea, però, lontano dalle onde alte due metri, non si è ancora presa alcuna decisione sulla sicurezza di queste persone, tenute in “ostaggio” senza l’indicazione di un porto sicuro di approdo.
      Malta, Italia, Spagna, Germania e Olanda hanno rifiutato nei giorni scorsi di aiutarli e a bordo della Sea Watch 3 così come della Sea Eye si sta vivendo un’altra odissea umanitaria: molto simile nelle modalità alle crisi che avevano tenuto in scacco in estate le navi Aquarius, Open Arms e Lifeline delle ong internazionali, e i pescherecci Sarost5 e Nuestra Madre de Loreto che dovettero attendere giorni e giorni prima di potersi mettere al riparo in porto. E perfino della Diciotti, la nave della Guardia Costiera Italiana, costretta a navigare da Lampedusa a Catania e infine rimasta bloccata nel porto etneo in attesa che dal Viminale arrivasse l’ok allo sbarco dei migranti, in gran parte profughi di guerra dal Corno d’Africa.

      La situazione a bordo della Sea Watch inizia a farsi proibitiva, anche a causa del peggioramento delle condizioni meteo: «Non abbiamo problemi con il carburante - rassicura il capitano - ma lentamente stiamo esaurendo le provviste di cibo fresco e di sicuro nelle prossime settimane, pur cercando a bordo di sprecare meno acqua possibile, avremo problemi ad avere acqua a disposizione a causa del nostro sistema di filtraggio».
      «Ma perché non ci permettono di entrare in Europa?», chiede Amina che ha 31 anni e viene dal Sudan: lei è la portavoce dei sogni di tanti dei suoi compagni di sventura, ma riesce anche a dare voce all’interrogativo di tantissimi soccorritori che in mare hanno speso le loro vite per salvarne altre. «Oramai è diventato sempre più difficile spiegare alle persone che abbiamo tratto in salvo e con cui stiamo condividendo tantissime emozioni contrastanti e ore infinite di attesa, che dobbiamo restare in mare un giorno in più, perché dall’Europa non riceviamo indicazioni per un porto sicuro», spiega ancora Ayla, la dottoressa olandese, convinta che «i Paesi europei abbiano scelto finora di non assumersi la responsabilità delle vite delle persone in gioco sul confine mortale dell’Europa».
      Come abbiamo raccontato su Avvenire, Amina e le altre 31 persone sono state salvate dalla Sea Watch 3 lo scorso 22 dicembre grazie alla collaborazione con la ong Pilotes Volontaires che sorvola i cieli con l’obiettivo di avvistare gommoni e imbarcazioni in emergenza. Da allora e in attesa di ricevere indicazioni per approdare sulla terraferma l’equipaggio del capitano Lancet non si è arreso e - sostenuto anche dalle persone salvate «Sono qui per aiutare», ha detto subito Youssef mettendosi a disposizione del comandante - ha continuato a pattugliare la zona di search and rescue (Sar) libica, rispondendo alle chiamate di soccorso. Così era accaduto per le 75 persone che erano a bordo di un gommone pochi giorni fa, ma di cui non si sono più avuto notizie, probabilmente perché ingoiati dal mare o ripresi da una motovedetta libica che li ha riportati nei campi di detenzione.

      «Ho davvero paura di tornare in Libia, ho provato a scappare due volte senza riuscirci - ha raccontato ancora Amina lasciando uscire le parole con lentezza -. Quello che ho passato è stato terribile», così tanto da non riuscire quasi più a parlarne, come accade spesso con i traumi più violenti. «Avevamo molta paura quando eravamo sul gommone. Non abbiamo usato il telefono satellitare per il terrore di essere localizzati e ripresi dai libici - ha aggiunto Youssef -. Grazie a Dio siamo stati molto fortunati e i nostri fratelli ci hanno salvati. E ora possiamo prepararci a scoprire quello che sarà il nostro futuro in Europa».

      I bambini provano a raccontare i loro giorni più tristi e le paure attraverso i disegni. Uno di loro ha riportato su carta tre momenti: la vista del barcone su cui sarebbero saltati per lasciarsi alla spalle l’inferno libico, poi il gommone che si sgonfia, mentre i 32 temevano di perdere la vita, e infine la visione della Sea Watch 3, l’unico soggetto disegnato completamente a colori. Un passaggio, dal bianco e nero del gommone alla vivacità della nave di salvataggio, che da solo spiega i timori e le speranze di chi adesso, finalmente al sicuro, non si spiega il perché delle porte chiuse.
      Un sogno e un desiderio, quello dell’Europa, che emerge ancora dalle parole straziate dal dolore di Amina: «Noi donne dobbiamo essere forti – si lascia andare la donna, mentre i medici di bordo le prestano le cure –. Soprattutto possiamo essere libere in Europa. Lì possiamo vivere la nostra vita, ecco perché voglio raggiungerla». Quell’Europa che però sembra aver voltato loro le spalle.

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-migranti-bloccati-in-mare

    • E LA NAVE VA… È piena di naufraghi nessun porto la vuole

      Da dieci giorni in mare decine di profughi e nessuno li vuole

      C’è un bambino appena nato che ha trascorso la notte di Capodanno in mezzo al mare. Al largo di Malta. Le autorità europee hanno deciso che è bene così. Che se l’è meritata. Insieme a quel bambino ci sono due ragazzini un po’ più grandi, tre quattr’anni, altri tre adolescenti senza genitori, e poi ancora 26 adulti, tutti africani, tutti in fuga dalla guerra, scappati dai campi di prigionia in Libia. Stavano su un gommone il 22 dicembre, volevano arrivare in Sicilia, ma il gommone ha iniziato a sgonfiarsi, le onde erano alte, il vento gelido, e loro pensavano di essere a pochi minuti dalla morte. Poi li ha avvistati un piccolo aereo da ricognizione di una Ong tedesca, Dio lo benedica, ed ha lanciato la esseoesse ad una imbarcazione sempre della stessa Ong tedesca, la Sea Watch. L’aereo ha fornito al comandante della Sea Watch le coordinate del gommone, e la Sea Watch ha raggiunto i naufraghi in tempo. Li hanno fatti salire a bordo, li hanno asciugati, riscaldati, hanno dato loro da mangiare. Il bimbo neonato ha smesso di piangere. I 31 naufraghi hanno ringraziato il personale tedesco e olandese a bordo, erano commossi, non si aspettavano più di poter sopravvivere.

      Hanno raccontato a Ilaria Solaini, che è una giornalista inviata dell’Avvenire, i loro sentimenti, il terrore di morire o di finire nel lager libici. Hanno detto che avrebbero voluto poter parlare un minuto solo, al telefono, con i loro cari lasciati a casa. Ma non hanno potuto. Hanno chiesto di poter sbarcare in un porto europeo. Malta, Spagna e poi Italia hanno risposto con un no secco. Hanno detto che loro devono difendere i confini. Anche Germania e Olanda – che non dispongono di porti ( né di confini) nel Mediterraneo – hanno detto di no. Le onde da qualche ora si sono fatte più alte. Il meteo dice che da stanotte si va sottozero. Di acqua non ce n’è tantissima. Di cibo poco. I medici a bordo della nave temono che possano apparire delle malattie. I marinai temono che il mare possa alzarsi molto. Gli ausiliari temono il freddo. Fin qui sono riusciti a far dormire tutti, di notte, sottocoperta. Anche sottocoperta però, se si va sottozero, diventa dura. Intanto un’altra imbarcazione di una Ong tedesca, la See Eye, ha raccolto altri 17 naufraghi. Anche loro sono stati rifiutati da tutti i porti europei. Qui non c’è posto, hanno detto. Tornate in Libia. Buona Fortuna.

      L’altro giorno la Sea Watch ha ricevuto una richiesta di soccorso di un altro gommone ancora. Lo ha avvistato sempre l’aereo di ricognizione. Dall’aereo hanno detto che a bordo c’erano circa 75 persone. E hanno fornito alla Sea Watch, di nuovo, le coordinate. La Sea Watch però non ha trovato il gommone. Neanche l’aereo lo ha più visto. Spariti. Nella migliore delle ipotesi sono stati catturati dai libici, e portati in un lager sulla costa. Nella peggiore se li è mangiati il mare.

      E’ vero, i confini ora sono ben difesi. E i caduti tra le fila dei nemici aumentano a vista d’occhio. La vittoria è vicina. Vabbè, diciamo che comunque 32, più 17, più una ventina di persone di equipaggio, tra marinai, medici e ausiliari, in tutto fa un po’ meno di settanta persone. Cosa volete che sia se 70 persone passano il Capodanno in mare per decisione delle autorità europee. Con tutto quello che succede nel mondo volete scandalizzarvi per così poco?

      Facevo un po’ di conti. Se non calcoliamo i soccorritori, che comunque poi se ne torneranno a casa loro, si tratta di 48 persone più un neonato di un paio di chili. L’Europa comunitaria, secondo le statistiche ufficiali, ha 503 milioni, 679 mila e 730 abitanti. Voi dite che se ospita anche questi 48, più un neonato, scoppia? O dite che i suoi 15 mila 326 miliardi di Pil annuo potrebbero andare dispersi nel soccorrere questi 49 disperati?

      Eppure è così. Talvolta la politica è esattamente così. Succede che sia la ragion di Stato a prevalere sul senso di umanità. Succede spesso. Stavolta la ragion di stato non c’entra niente. C’entrano solo i calcoli politici dei leader europei. Quanto potranno costare 49 naufraghi? Qualche migliaia di euro, che sono niente per gli Stati. E diverse migliaia, o centinaia di migliaia di voti: che sono molto, molto per i partiti.

      P. S. Inizia così la dichiarazione dei diritti universali dell’uomo, redatta dall’Onu 70 anni fa: «Considerato che il riconoscimento della dignità inerente a tutti i membri della famiglia umana e dei loro diritti, uguali ed inalienabili, costituisce il fondamento della libertà, della giustizia e della pace nel mondo; Considerato che il disconoscimento e il disprezzo dei diritti umani hanno portato ad atti di barbarie che offendono la coscienza dell’umanità…» . Poi c’è l’articolo 13 che dice così: «Ogni individuo ha diritto alla libertà di movimento e di residenza entro i confini di ogni Stato. Ogni individuo ha diritto di lasciare qualsiasi paese, incluso il proprio, e di ritornare nel proprio paese».

      E infine l’articolo 14, che si potrebbe anche imparare a memoria, perché è molto breve: «Ogni individuo ha il diritto di cercare e di godere in altri paesi asilo dalle persecuzioni». Chissà se i governanti di Germania, Olanda, Spagna, Malta e Italia hanno mai letto questi articoli. Si potrebbe proporre agli Stati europei di chiedere a chiunque entri in un governo della Ue di superare un esamino nel quale dimostra di conoscere la dichiarazione dei diritti dell’Uomo…

      http://ildubbio.news/ildubbio/2019/01/02/e-la-nave-va-e-piena-di-naufraghi-nessun-porto-la-vuole

    • Le Sea Watch 3, avec à bord 32 migrants depuis le 22 décembre, a été autorisé par les autorités maltaises à pénétrer dans ses eaux territoriales, pour s’abriter de la très menaçante météo. Mais ni accostage, ni soins ni accueil

      Un bateau de l’alliance #United4Med (Sea Watch et Mediterranea) a rejoint aujourd’hui (4/1/19) SeaWatch3. A bord le témoignage d’Alessandra Sciurba (Mediterranea) :
      https://www.instagram.com/p/BsNom3NCA1X

    • Un nouveau bateau de sauvetage affrété par la société civile basque et andalouse

      Le 14 ou le 15 janvier, partira de Pasaia, port basque, l’ex-chalutier l’#Aita_Mari, pour secourir en Méditerranée les personnes fuyant la Libye.
      Il fera escale le 16 janvier à Bilbao, passera par Barcelone puis par Majorque - avant de rejoindre les eaux au large de la Libye.
      Ce bateau a été acheté, dans cet objectif, par le gouvernement basque et remis en état par la société civile.
      Le projet est soutenu par deux associations, une basque et une andalouse.
      Les rescapés à bord, le bateau tentera d’accoster à Malte ou en Italie, mais aura toujours la possibilité, en cas de refus, de faire route vers un port espagnol, puisqu’il navigue sous pavillon espagnol.
      A son bord, sept bénévoles, 5 secouristes, 2 médecins.
      Il y aussi un mécanicien et un cuisinier.
      Et les deux capitaines, celui du bateau, et celui des secours.
      Une cabine est prévue pour un.e journaliste.
      L’équipe communiquera régulièrement et aura besoin de relai.

      Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • EU nations deadlocked on rescued migrants

      Nearly 50 migrants rescued in the Mediterranean by two ships run by rights groups are still looking for countries to take them in, one of the groups told AFP Saturday.

      “The situation is still the same,” a spokeswoman for one of the groups, Sea Watch, said.

      Their vessel, Sea Watch 3, was sheltering from stormy weather off the coast of Malta, which like Italy, has refused to allow the boat into port.

      It has had 32 migrants on board, three of them children, since rescuing them on December 22.

      A one-year-old baby and two children, aged six and seven, “are vomiting continuously and are at risk of hypothermia and dehydration,” Alessandro Metz of rights group Mediterranean wrote on Twitter Friday.

      The German NGO Sea-Eye also has a ship stranded in the Mediterranean with 17 migrants on board.


      https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-nations-deadlocked-on-rescued-migrants-1.809725

    • Ecco la diffida al governo per accogliere i 49 migranti bloccati in mare

      Azione di cittadinanza attiva in almeno 90 Province italiane: «Abbiamo consegnato in Prefettura un documento che obbliga le autorità ad adempiere alle leggi di soccorso di mare», spiega Antonio Nigro del movimento Move to resist, che ha mutuato il testo diffuso da Possibile

      http://www.vita.it/it/article/2019/01/07/ecco-la-diffida-al-governo-per-accogliere-i-49-migranti-bloccati-in-ma/150262

    • “La Chiesa accoglierà i migranti della Sea Watch”

      L’annuncio di Nosiglia durante la festa dei Popoli: un gesto simbolico ma concreto.
      «Voglio dichiarare la disponibilità della Chiesa torinese ad accogliere alcune delle famiglie che si trovano a bordo delle navi Sea Watch 3 e Sea Eye». Lo ha annunciato l’arcivescovo di Torino, monsignor Cesare Nosiglia, oggi alla chiesa del Santo Volto, durante l’omelia nella Festa dei Popoli. «La nostra Chiesa, come si ricorderà - ha aggiunto Nosiglia - aveva già offerto questa disponibilità per i profughi della nave Diciotti, nel settembre scorso».


      https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/06/cronaca/la-chiesa-accoglier-i-migranti-della-sea-watch-8uxIAoytx33U6r7hjA65UN/pagina.html

    • #Diaconia_Valdese e #FCEI pronti all’accompagnamento dei profughi della Sea-Watch
      Chiese evangeliche. “Il nostro sostegno alle ONG perché il soccorso in mare e l’accoglienza a terra sono un dovere umanitario. Per noi è anche la testimonianza dell’amore di Cristo”. FCEI e Diaconia valdese pronti all’accompagnamento e all’accoglienza dei 49 profughi della Sea-Watch e della Sea eye.

      “Confermiamo il nostro sostegno alle ONG che svolgono azioni di soccorso in mare e ci rendiamo disponibili a sostenere il trasferimento e l’accoglienza dei migranti salvati dalla Sea-Watch e dalla Sea eye”. Lo affermano congiuntamente il Presidente della Federazione delle chiese evangeliche in Italia, past. Luca M. Negro, e il Presidente della Diaconia Valdese, Giovanni Comba. “Come FCEI siamo impegnati in un partenariato con Open Arms, la ONG che nei giorni scorsi ha salvato oltre trecento persone in mare – aggiunge Negro – e oggi sentiamo nostro dovere esprimere il sostegno attivo alla altre navi impegnate in azioni di soccorso che da giorni aspettano un porto sicuro in cui attraccare”. E infatti la vicepresidente della FCEI, Christiane Groeben, oggi 4 gennaio parteciperà alla delegazione di politici, esponenti della società civile e del volontariato che saliranno a bordo della Sea-Watch per chiedere con forza una rapida soluzione a quella che rischia di diventare una drammatica violazione del diritto alla protezione internazionale. “Stiamo lavorando con i nostri partner per costruire un corridoio europeo e la città di Heidelberg e le sue chiese hanno già manifestato la loro disponibilità all’accoglienza. Siamo pronti a farci carico del trasporto dei migranti nella loro destinazione finale e a collaborare per la loro accoglienza" aggiunge il presidente Comba.

      https://www.diaconiavaldese.org/csd/news/diaconia-valdese-e-fcei-pronti-all-accompagnamento-e-all-accoglienz

    • #Malte profite de l’urgence pour se délester de 220 migrants

      Le Premier ministre maltais a annoncé un accord pour le débarquement des 49 migrants bloqués sur deux navires d’ONG allemandes et leur répartition dans huit pays européens. Il se débarrasse en passant de 220 migrants déjà accueillis à Malte.

      Les 49 migrants coincés depuis parfois plus de deux semaines en mer avaient été secourus dans les eaux internationales au large de la Libye, le 22 décembre par l’ONG Sea-Watch pour 32 d’entre eux, et le 29 décembre par l’ONG Sea-Eye pour les 17 autres.

      Les pays européens se sont finalement mis d’accord pour les secourir. Ils doivent être transférés « dès que possible » sur des vedettes de la marine maltaise, qui les conduiront à La Valette. Ensuite, Malte a prié les navires des deux ONG de s’éloigner « immédiatement ».

      Les deux navires avaient été autorisés il y a une semaine à s’abriter du mauvais temps dans les eaux maltaises, mais l’accord en vue d’un débarquement des migrants a pris du temps parce que Malte exigeait d’y inclure 249 autres migrants que ce petit pays méditerranéen avait secourus et accueillis ces derniers jours.

      « Un accord ad hoc a été trouvé. Sur les 249 (migrants) présents à Malte et les 49 à bord (des navires de) Sea-Watch and Sea-Eye, 220 personnes seront redistribuées dans d’autres pays membres ou rentreront dans leur pays d’origine », a déclaré Joseph Muscat au cours d’une conférence de presse à Malte.

      Les migrants seront répartis entre l’Allemagne, la France, le Portugal, l’Irlande, la Roumanie, le Luxembourg, les Pays-Bas et l’Italie, a précisé Joseph Muscat.

      Parallèlement, 44 Bangladais du groupe des migrants déjà présents à Malte seront renvoyés dans leur pays, La Valette estimant qu’ils n’ont pas de raison d’y demander l’asile. Au final, 78 des migrants du premier groupe resteront à Malte, le plus petit pays de l’UE avec 450 000 habitants.

      « Malte n’a jamais fermé ses ports et reste un port sûr. Nous voulons simplement que tous respectent les règles internationales que nous n’avons pas créées, nous », a assuré le Premier ministre, malgré l’interdiction jusqu’ici exprimée.

      « Un signe de faiblesse »

      « Nous voulions faire passer un message politique fort, à savoir que le fardeau devait être partagé car il s’agit d’un problème européen. Il ne s’agit pas d’un discours contre les ONG, nous voulons simplement que tous suivent les règles », a insisté le Maltais.

      « Chaque heure passée sans règlement n’était pas une heure dont j’étais fier », a-t-il ajouté, en regrettant que la solution n’implique que quelques pays et non l’ensemble de l’UE.

      Redoutant de voir les arrivées dans ses eaux se multiplier à l’avenir maintenant que les navires de secours plus au sud se sont raréfiés, Malte avait plaidé pour une solution « complète et globale ».

      « Malte est un très petit pays et il est dans notre nature d’aider les personnes en détresse, mais en tant que Premier ministre, je ne peux pas me soustraire à la responsabilité de préserver notre sécurité et nos intérêts nationaux », a expliqué Joseph Muscat, répétant que le présent accord ne constituait pas « un précédent ».

      Le commissaire européen chargé des migrations, Dimitris Avramopoulos, s’est réjoui qu’une solution ait été trouvée pour permettre aux migrants de débarquer et a salué le geste de solidarité de Malte et des États membres.

      En Italie, la question faisait encore débat : le ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini s’oppose farouchement à tout débarquement, mais le chef du gouvernement Giuseppe Conte s’est dit prêt à aller chercher les migrants « en avion ».

      « À Bruxelles, ils font semblant de ne rien comprendre et facilitent le travail des passeurs et des ONG. Je suis et je resterai absolument opposé à de nouvelles arrivées en Italie », a réagi Matteo Salvini, également patron de la Ligue (extrême droite), dans un communiqué.

      « Céder aux pressions et aux menaces de l’Europe et des ONG est un signe de faiblesse que les Italiens ne mérite pas », a ajouté le ministre, qui a lancé mardi soir sur Twitter le mot d’ordre #SalviniNonMollare (« Salvini tiens bon »), parmi les plus partagés depuis en Italie.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/malte-profite-de-lurgence-pour-se-delester-de-220-migrants

    • Migranti, anche in Spagna stretta sulle Ong: Open Arms bloccata a Barcellona

      Dopo aver fatto sbarcare ad #Algeciras 311 migranti il 28 dicembre scorso, la nave sarebbe dovuta ripartire l’8 gennaio per una nuova missione. Ma le autorità hanno negato l’autorizzazione: così nel Mediterraneo centrale non ci sono più imbarcazioni delle organizzazioni per il salvataggio

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/01/14/news/migranti_open_arms_bloccata_in_spagna-216523058

    • "Je ne pourrai bientôt plus parler, je gèle" : faute de secours, 100 migrants ont passé plus de 12 heures en mer

      Pendant plus de 12h, la plateforme téléphonique Alarm Phone a alerté dimanche les autorités italiennes, maltaises et libyennes sur une embarcation en détresse au large de la Libye. Rome et La Valette ont, toute la journée, renvoyé la responsabilité à Tripoli qui a finalement coordonné le secours de ce canot en envoyant un navire marchand, plus de 12h après la première alerte.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/14641/je-ne-pourrai-bientot-plus-parler-je-gele-faute-de-secours-100-migrant

    • Navire Sea-Watch bloqué en Méditerranée : « La mer est agitée et certains migrants sont malades »

      Après avoir été bloqué deux semaines début janvier en Méditerranée dans l’attente d’être accepté par un port européen, le navire humanitaire Sea-Watch erre une nouvelle fois en mer depuis son dernier sauvetage. Cinq jours se sont déjà écoulés, avec 47 migrants rescapés à bord dont huit enfants, et aucun signe encourageant de la part des pays européens.

      L’histoire se répète. L’ONG allemande Sea Watch, dont le navire humanitaire a secouru le 19 janvier dernier 47 personnes qui se trouvaient à bord d’un bateau pneumatique, attend depuis maintenant cinq jours l’autorisation d’accoster en Europe. Lors d’une précédente opération de sauvetage, le même navire avait erré deux semaines en mer avant d’être autorisé à débarquer ses rescapés à Malte le 9 janvier dernier. Un épisode qualifié de “record de la honte” par plusieurs ONG.

      L’équipage et les passagers actuellement à bord sont “assez stressés”, confie une porte-parole de Sea Watch contactée par InfoMigrants. “La nuit a été difficile. La mer est agitée et certains sont malades”, poursuit-elle, précisant que le groupe compte huit mineurs non-accompagnés et neuf nationalités différentes : Guinée, Sénégal, Guinée-Bissau, Mali, Sierra Leone, Centrafrique, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambie et Soudan.

      "Une fois de plus, nous sommes à la merci des autorités"

      “Aucun État n’a encore répondu à nos requêtes pour un port sûr”, déplore l’ONG sur Twitter, estimant que “l’Union européenne empêche le dernier navire humanitaire de travailler, alors que des centaines de personnes meurent en Méditerranée”.

      Les 47 migrants actuellement à bord du Sea-Watch ont été pris en charge après qu’Alarm Phone et l’avion de repérage Moonbird ont donné l’alerte. “Juste après le sauvetage, nous avons informé le MRCC de Rome puisque le port sûr le plus proche de notre position était celui de Lampedusa. Ils nous ont renvoyés vers les garde-côtes libyens. Nous avons essayé de les joindre, en vain. Nous ne savons même pas s’ils lisent nos emails”, explique la porte-parole de l’ONG jointe par InfoMigrants.

      Dans l’impasse, l’équipage du Sea-Watch s’est donc tourné vers le MRCC de Malte puis celui de Den Helder, au Pays-Bas puisque le navire humanitaire bat pavillon néerlandais. “Tous les deux ont décliné toute responsabilité. Nous avons demandé un port sûr à plusieurs reprises à tous ces interlocuteurs, mais nous sommes une fois de plus à la merci des autorités, dans l’attente d’un ordre de leur part”, affirme-t-elle.

      "La détresse des migrants comme outil de chantage politique"

      Dix jours avant ce nouveau sauvetage, le Sea-Watch et un autre navire humanitaire, le Sea-Eye, avaient finalement pu débarquer 49 migrants à Malte après plus de deux semaines d’errance en Méditerranée. Une période particulièrement difficile, les installations à bord des navires humanitaires ne permettant pas d’héberger durablement autant de personnes et les conditions météorologiques rendant la vie à bord très pénible.

      Malgré les demandes répétées des ONG, pendant 19 jours, le gouvernement maltais avait refusé de laisser débarquer dans son port ces 49 migrants : 32 secourus au large de la Libye le 22 décembre par le Sea-Watch et 17 autres sauvés le 29 décembre par le Sea-Eye.

      Redoutant de voir les arrivées dans ses eaux se multiplier et de devenir la principale porte d’entrée des migrants en Europe – l’Italie ayant fermé ses ports aux navires humanitaires – Malte a finalement négocié avec plusieurs pays européens un accord de répartition des 49 migrants ainsi que 249 autres recueillis quelques jours plus tôt par les autorités maltaises.

      "Nous voulions faire passer un message politique fort, à savoir que le fardeau devait être partagé car il s’agit d’un problème européen. Il ne s’agit pas d’un discours contre les ONG, nous voulons simplement que tous suivent les règles", avait déclaré le Premier ministre maltais Joseph Muscat au moment où l’accord a été trouvé.

      Mais Sea Watch ne l’entend pas de la sorte. “Nous ne pouvons pas nous retrouver encore dans cette impasse, c’était trop difficile la dernière fois pour notre équipage comme pour les rescapés. Il est inacceptable que les gouvernements européens utilisent des personnes en détresse comme outils de chantage dans leurs luttes de pouvoir”, conclut la porte-parole.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/14700/navire-sea-watch-bloque-en-mediterranee-la-mer-est-agitee-et-certains-

    • Dutch refuse Italian request to accept 47 migrants on rescue ship: government

      The Netherlands refused on Monday an Italian request to take in 47 migrants on a humanitarian ship that is being blocked from Italian ports, saying there was a need to distinguish between genuine refugees and economic migrants.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-italy-netherlands/dutch-refuse-italian-request-to-accept-47-migrants-on-rescue-ship-governmen
      #Pays-Bas #tri #catégorisation

      Dans l’article on parle de:
      #genuine_refugees and #economic_migrants
      #terminologie #mots #vocabulaire

      v. aussi le tweet de Sea Watch:
      Le comunicazioni intercorse tra #SeaWatch e l’Olanda per la richiesta di porto rifugio (POR).
      https://twitter.com/SeaWatchItaly/status/1089815346113069057

    • Caso Sea Watch. Il Garante, Mauro Palma: “E’ illecita detenzione”

      Inviata informativa alla Procura di Siracusa e richiesto al Ministro dei trasporti Toninelli di consentire urgentemente lo sbarco: «Le persone sono la nostra giurisdizione, anche se con bandiera straniera». Intanto 50 organizzazioni scrivono al premier Conte: «Sbarco Immediato». E il Cnca si dice disponibile ad accogliere i migranti nelle sue strutture

      http://www.agenzia.redattoresociale.it/Notiziario/Articolo/617603/Caso-Sea-Watch-Il-Garante-Mauro-Palma-E-illecita-detenzione

    • Les migrants du Sea-Watch 3 vont pouvoir débarquer grâce à un accord entre sept pays européens

      L’Italie a annoncé un accord avec six autres pays européens pour répartir les 47 migrants bloqués depuis 12 jours en mer sur le Sea-Watch. Le navire est attendu dans la nuit au port de Catane, dans l’est de la Sicile.

      Les 47 migrants bloqués depuis près de deux semaines à bord du Sea-Watch 3 au large de la Sicile vont pouvoir débarquer grâce à un accord conclu mercredi 30 janvier entre l’Italie et six autres pays européens pour répartir les migrants.

      Le Sea-Watch 3, qui se trouvait depuis vendredi au large du port sicilien de Syracuse pour s’abriter du mauvais temps, « a reçu l’instruction de se diriger vers le port de Catane », environ 70 km plus au nord, où il est attendu dans la nuit, a annoncé une source ministérielle italienne.

      A la mi-journée, le chef du gouvernement italien, Giuseppe Conte, avait annoncé que les opérations de débarquement allaient débuter « dans les prochaines heures ». Les six pays avec laquelle l’Italie a conclu un accord sont la France, le Portugal, l’Allemagne, Malte, le Luxembourg et la Roumanie. Il n’était pas clair si l’Italie elle-même garderait une partie des migrants. Giuseppe Conte l’a laissé entendre mais son ministre de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, qui s’y est toujours opposé de manière catégorique, ne l’a pas confirmé.

      « Prise d’otages européenne »

      « Nous sommes heureux que cette prise d’otages européenne prenne fin », a déclaré le porte-parole de Sea-Watch, Ruben Neugebauer. « En même temps, c’est un mauvais jour pour l’Europe car les droits humains ont une fois de plus été subordonnés à des négociations au sein de l’UE. Encore un jour amer », a-t-il ajouté.

      Depuis des mois, diplomates européens et humanitaires réclament un mécanisme permanent de répartition des migrants secourus en mer pour leur épargner les interminables discussions au cas par cas.

      Mais les cas pourraient devenir de plus en plus rares avec le blocage progressif des navires humanitaires privés, comme l’Aquarius de SOS Méditerranée et Médecins sans frontières (MSF) ou l’Open Arms de l’ONG espagnole Proactiva Open Arms.

      Le choix d’envoyer à Catane le Sea-Watch 3, affrété par l’ONG allemande Sea-Watch et battant pavillon néerlandais, semble répondre au souhait formulé par M. Salvini de voir la justice enquêter sur les activités de l’équipage.

      Le gouvernement italien lui reproche de ne pas avoir laissé les garde-côtes libyens se charger des migrants, puis de s’être précipité vers l’Italie plutôt que de chercher refuge sur la côte tunisienne, qui était beaucoup plus proche. Mais l’ONG assure n’avoir jamais reçu de réponse de Tripoli ni de Tunis.

      Le procureur de Syracuse, Fabio Scavone, a estimé lundi que le commandant du Sea-Watch n’avait « commis aucun délit » et avait seulement « sauvé les migrants et choisi la route qui semblait la plus sûre sur le moment ».

      Mais à Catane, le procureur Carmelo Zuccaro s’est montré particulièrement incisif contre les ONG depuis deux ans. En mars 2018, il avait obtenu le placement sous séquestre de l’Open Arms dans le cadre d’une enquête pour aide à l’immigration clandestine contre les responsables du bateau qui avaient refusé de remettre des migrants secourus aux garde-côtes libyens.

      La source au ministère de l’Intérieur a expliqué que Catane avait été choisie parce qu’elle compte des centres pour l’accueil des 13 adolescents du groupe. Les migrants majeurs seront conduits dans un centre d’identification et de premier accueil à Messine, également en Sicile.

      « Mission accomplie ! », s’est réjoui M. Salvini mercredi. « Encore une fois (...), l’Europe a été contrainte à intervenir et à prendre ses responsabilités ».

      https://www.france24.com/fr/20190130-migrants-sea-watch-italie-catane-salvini-accord-europeen

    • No more civilian rescue boats off Libyan coast

      The civilian rescue vessel Sea Watch 3, which was detained in Italy on Friday, is the latest of such boats to stop operations in the central Mediterranean. Now, only the Libyan Coast Guard is able to save migrants risking their lives at sea in an attempt to reach Europe from North Africa.

      The main non-government organizations rescuing migrants off the coast of Libya stopped their efforts in mid-2017, mainly because of increased threats from the Libyan Coast Guard. The news agency AFP compiled this update on migrant rescue organizations and their activities:

      The Maltese aid group MOAS, which was the first to carry out migrant rescue operations in 2014 and had deployed two vessels, transferred its activities to helping the Rohingya in Bangladesh in September 2017.

      At about the same time, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) ended its operations with the Vos Prudence, the biggest private boat deployed off Libya with a record 1,500 people rescued at the same time.

      Save the Children ended its search and rescue operations with the Vos Hestia in October 2017.

      In August 2017, Italian authorities impounded the Juventa, operated by small German aid group Jugend Rettet, after it was accused of helping Libyan human traffickers. Jugend Rettet has denied the charge.

      The Lifeline rescue vessel, operated by a German aid group of the same name, was impounded on arrival in Valletta, Malta, in June 2018, for alleged registration issues.

      The aid groups SOS Mediterranee and MSF stopped search and rescue operations with the Aquarius in December 2018 after it was stuck in a French port for two months following the revocation of its registration.

      In January 2019, Spanish authorities refused to allow the Open Arms ship to leave Barcelona harbor. In early 2018 the boat, operated by the Spanish NGO Proactiva Open Arms, was impounded for a month by Italy. It was then forced to take rescued migrants to Spain several times after Malta and Italy refused to allow them to disembark.

      The Sea Eye charity from Germany had several vessels impounded during 2018 but deployed another ship, the Professor Albrecht Penck, in December, rescuing 12 migrants. The boat is currently in Majorca and plans to set sail again in around two weeks, according to AFP.

      SOS Mediterranee has said it is looking for another boat and flag so it can continue search and rescue operations.

      In Italy a collective of associations launched the Mediterranea, flying an Italian flag, mainly to witness the situation for migrants off Libya.

      There are also two light aircraft which overfly the Mediterranean trying to identify and locate boats in trouble: the Colibri operated by French aid group Pilotes Volontaires, and the Moonbird operated by Sea Watch.


      http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/14966/no-more-civilian-rescue-boats-off-libyan-coast
      #the_end

    • Sea Watch 3 still held in Catania, despite rescue vessel vacuum in the Mediterranean

      The crew of the migrant rescue vessel Sea Watch 3 are ready to continue life saving operations in the central Mediterranean but the vessel remains without permission to leave from Catania harbour, the NGO said yesterday.

      With NGO vessels being barred from leaving ports and coast guard and navy ships withdrawn from the area, it is not known how many attempted crossings there have been over the past week.

      The Sea-Watch 3 vessel remains unable to leave Catania under orders of the port authority and is barred from performing essential search and rescue activities in the Central Mediterranean Sea.

      The vessel was recently caught up in another migrant stand-off between Malta and Sicily and was eventually allowed to disembark the migrants it had rescued in Catania.

      However, the vessel has not been allowed to leave, in what is reminiscent of the time it spent impounded in Malta during the summer of 2018.

      Earlier this year, the vessel, along with another ship operated by the Sea-Eye NGO, was left stranded off the coast of Malta for over two weeks.

      The rescued migrants were eventually disembarked in Malta after an agreement was reached between several member states. The vessels were then ordered to leave Maltese waters, with permission for a crew change reportedly denied.

      Maltese national Danny Mainwaring is among the crew members currently stuck on the Sea Watch in the port of Catania.

      In comments to The Malta Independent, Sea Watch said: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Catania stated that Sea-Watch and the crew of its last mission have committed no criminal offence and that all their actions in the rescue of 19 January were justified, as the vessel and her crew saved the lives of 47 people whose boat was bound to sink.

      “That mission culminated in a stand-off that saw vulnerable people stranded at sea on the coast of Syracuse as European leaders failed to provide a port of safety in a timely manner. Despite the public acknowledgement that Sea-Watch conducted itself within the law, the vessel remains barred from departing on technical grounds and awaits a visit from the Dutch flag state requested by the Italian Coast Guard.

      “The Sea-Watch 3 passed a flag state inspection in the summer of 2018, which also confirmed its correct registration. We find ourselves in a scenario reminiscent to that which unfolded in Malta that same summer, when the vessel was kept from leaving port for over four months while a record number of people drowned at sea.

      “EU governments have unanimously adopted a policy of attempting to criminalize sea rescue NGOs and instead finance, train and provide logistical support to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard.

      “Despite the fact that Libya remains in a state of civil war and migrants and refugees face well documented human rights abuses in its detention facilities, the EU is outsourcing a policy of forced return to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

      “This principle, enshrined in international law, prohibits governments from returning asylum seekers to a country in which they face a well-founded fear of persecution, and inhumane and degrading treatment.

      “With many national coast guard and navy assets withdrawn from the Central Mediterranean and no NGO vessels currently at sea, it is not known how many attempted crossings there have been over the past week. With absolute numbers of crossings declining but the death rate rising, one can only conclude that Europe has strayed from the spirit of cooperation and respect for human rights that it was founded on; the same spirit that breathed life into Operation Sophia when mass drownings alarmed the continent and the world in May 2015.

      “The Sea-Watch 3 and her crew are ready to sail and perform the essential life saving duties for which the organisation has been lauded across the world.

      “European governments must meet their responsibilities towards those in distress both at sea and on land. Rather than criminalize rescue NGOs, who are upholding this responsibility in Europe’s stead, governments must seek sustainable solutions while cooperating with NGOs and opening their ports to people rescued at sea.”


      http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2019-02-11/local-news/Sea-Watch-3-still-held-in-Catania-despite-rescue-vessel-vacuum-in-th

    • When commercial ships tell migrants rescued at sea they are going to bring them to Europe

      Some commercial ships that have rescued people in danger have lied about their destination, according to a telephone hotline that helps migrants lost at sea. Alarm Phone says the crews of several ships led migrants to believe they would be dropped off in Europe, but instead returned them to Libya.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15194/when-commercial-ships-tell-migrants-rescued-at-sea-they-are-going-to-b

    • When rescue is capture: kidnapping and dividing migrants in the Mediterranean

      EU member states are holding migrants hostage while playing pass the parcel with their fates. It’s a strategy that is as cruel as it is deliberate.

      The Italian minister of the interior, Matteo Salvini, is currently under investigation for abuse of power and the kidnapping of 177 migrants. These migrants were, on Salvini’s orders, confined to the coast guard vessel Diciotti for more than one week in late August last year. While this case received international media attention, it was not an isolated event. Over the last several years Italian ministers and politicians have repeatedly violated international and domestic law as they have sought to prevent individuals from migrating over the Mediterranean Sea. The disembarkation of rescued migrants has been denied or delayed many times. On a few occasions, Italy has arbitrarily closed its ports entirely.

      While the closure of ports and the kidnapping of migrants triggered a strong reaction from some citizens and municipalities, many seemingly do not care. They do not care about the kidnapping of people by the state, nor about an interior minister who violates the law. They just do not want the migrants to land in Italy. Yet, far from being an exclusive Italian affair, the above mentioned legal and political controversies are part of a European battle, in which member states compete to not take care of a few dozen people on a boat seeking asylum. In fact, the recurrent strategy of taking migrants hostage is a sign of how deep Europe’s crisis has become.

      Kidnapping migrants is a strategy designed to deter and exhaust migrants while putting pressure on other member states.
      Migrants as hostages of European politics

      31 January 2019: after being held on a ship of the NGO Sea Watch for 13 days by the Italian authorities, the 47 migrants who were rescued in central Mediterranean were finally authorised to disembark in Sicily, or to put it better they had been liberated. During the period of their captivity the Italian government had argued that the Netherlands should receive them, due to the Dutch flag on the Sea Watch vessel. The Dutch authorities refused to do so. The standoff resulted in a meeting at the European Commission in Brussels to discuss how to deal with the 47 migrants nobody wanted to take. After days of negotiations, the Vatican offered to host the minors while eight member states (France, Germany, Romania, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg and Italy) agreed to take a few migrants each. Meanwhile, the NGO Sea Watch was defending itself against a cynical smear campaign in which the Italian government accused it of “putting migrants’ lives at risk”.

      This case is only the latest in a series of episodes that took place in central Mediterranean. The kidnapping of migrants has been repeatedly enacted by the Italian government and by Malta over the last year. It’s a strategy designed to deter and exhaust migrants, on the one hand, and to put pressure on the EU and on other member states, on the other. It is worth highlighting the continuity of this tactic. Among other episodes, in July 2018 the coast guard vessel Diciotti was prevented from disembarking rescued migrants in the port of Catania until the Italian president at the time successfully intervened. One month later, the Diciotti was again blocked for more than one week, this time with 177 migrants on board. In both these cases the rescue vessel was Italian. In more recent episodes the vessels have belonged to NGOs registered to other member states. In the closing days of 2018, 49 migrants had to wait 19 days after being rescued by the Sea Eye and Sea Watch vessels. They were finally disembarked in Malta on 9 January, and then relocated to other EU countries.

      The strategy of migrant kidnapping on the northern shore of the Mediterranean is part of a broader politics of migration containment. Together with the protracted detention of migrants on rescue vessels, the Libyan Coast Guard intercepts and rescues migrants in distress and takes them back to detention centres in Libya as a result of the 2017 Italy-Libya Memorandum of Understanding. International organisations like UNHCR and the IOM are involved in their containment in Libya once they arrive. In both cases – the confinement of migrants on rescue ships and the return of migrants to Libya – rescue at sea turns out to be a mode of capture.

      We might have been pulled out of the sea, the argument goes, but we are no less human and we are not to be bartered and haggled over.
      The European battle over numbers

      The migrants at the centre of these intra-European diplomatic battles are actually very few in number. Meetings, internal political crises, and struggles between states and non-state actors have resulted from a few dozen migrants seeking entry into Europe despite already being within European territory; confined to their rescue ships either in or just off European harbours for no other reason than member states’ refusal to take them. It is noticeable that the dispute among European countries was also predicated on migrants’ vulnerability: some member states have declared that they would welcome women and minors only. In this way, the right to protection and to mobility appear as a sort of “privilege” of those deemed to be the most vulnerable.

      The “fear of the small numbers”, as the anthropologist Ariun Appadurai calls it, has rarely been so evident. With just a few dozen migrants at issue, Salvini is by no means staving off a ‘crisis’ of quantity. Yet that is what makes recent events so troubling. They show that public sentiment does not soften when the counterargument focuses on how small the numbers are, as it has done so far. Both citizens’ active consensus and passive acceptance of migration containment has proved immoveable. The European front against migrants ultimately remains solid.

      At the same time, the anti-migrant front does not monopolise the field. Thousands of citizens mobilised across Europe and in Italy to demand the liberation of the detained migrants. Their solidaric reaction was not primarily driven by the fact that there were only a ‘few’ migrants to host, but by a conviction that those kidnapped – like with any other kidnapping – must be unconditionally released. As such, during the protests that haven taken place we have seen many more banners with the words “let them disembark!” than with more Italy-centric slogans like “not in my name”. In short, it’s not about Italy, it’s about the people on the ship.

      That central point is further enshrined in the “We are not fish” campaign, launched in Rome on 28 January 2019. We might have been pulled out of the sea, the argument goes, but we are no less human and we are not to be bartered and haggled over. The “We are not fish” campaign demands that Italian harbours remain open and that migrants are allowed to disembark. It opposes the fundamental inequality of lives that sustain the politics of migration, which is premised on the suggestion that migrants are not truly humans.

      The widespread citizen reaction against migrants’ seizure at sea and against deaths in the Mediterranean constitutes not only a fundamental ethical response, but also potentially a catalyst for actively refusing the leave-to-die politics playing out in the Mediterranean. Indeed, the ongoing civic mobilisation should be seized as an opportunity for moving beyond the horizon of a politics of rescue and the current debate that pivots around the question, should we rescue or not rescue the migrants?

      Indeed, a left-wing discourse on migration would require fighting the politics of migration containment as a whole, including the most recent bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya that the previous government led by the Democratic Party signed. It would also require challenging the racialisation and inequalities of lives enforced by the global visa regime, which forces many people across the world to become shipwrecked lives to be rescued. Neither the trial of Salvini nor the acceptance of the terms of the current debate centred around leave-to-die politics will liberate migrants from being held hostage to European politics. “We are not fish”. This motto is circulating widely. It posits the existence of a ‘we’, a common ground, between migrants and European citizens that refuses the reproduction of the asymmetries between ‘rescuers’ and ‘rescued’.

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/martina-tazzioli/when-rescue-is-capture-kidnapping-and-dividing-migrants-in-mediterran

    • Un seul navire humanitaire est actuellement présent au large de la Libye

      Près de 17 000 personnes sont mortes en mer Méditerranée ces quatre dernières années. Pour tenter d’enrayer la tragédie, des navires humanitaires se sont relayés dans la zone de détresse, au large des côtes libyennes pour les secourir. Mais actuellement, un seul patrouille dans cette zone.

      Actuellement, seul le bateau Aylan Kurdi (anciennement appelé Professor Albrecht Penck) est actuellement au large de la Libye. Il appartient à l’ONG allemande Sea Eye.

      Où sont les autres bateaux d’ONG ? InfoMigrants fait le point.

      Les navires humanitaires qui sont bloqués dans des ports européens :

      – Le Sea-Watch 3 de l’ONG Sea Watch est en escale dans le port de Marseille pour un problème administratif relatif à son pavillon néerlandais (et effectuer sa maintenance). Il devrait repartir en mer mi-mars.

      – Depuis un débarquement en juin 2018 à Malte, le Lifeline de l’ONG allemande eponyme est bloqué au port de La Valette, à Malte, où les autorités contestent sa situation administrative.

      – Depuis le mois de janvier 2019, l’Open Arms de l’ONG espagnole Proactiva Open Arms est bloqué à Barcelone par les autorités espagnoles. Au printemps 2018, ce navire avait été placé un mois sous séquestre en Italie avant d’être autorisé à repartir.

      – Début août 2017, la justice italienne a saisi le Juventa de l’ONG allemande Jugend Rettet, accusée de complicité avec les passeurs libyens mais qui clame depuis son innocence.

      Les ONG qui résistent :

      –Dans les airs, les petits avions Colibri de l’ONG française Pilotes volontaires et Moonbird de Sea-Watch mènent régulièrement des patrouilles pour tenter de repérer les embarcations en difficulté.

      –L’Astral, le voilier de l’ONG Open Arms, est actuellement à Barcelone.

      –En Italie, un collectif d’associations a lancé le Mare Jonio, un navire battant pavillon italien qui entend avant tout témoigner de la situation en mer. Il est actuellement à Palerme.

      Les navires humanitaires qui ont renoncé :

      Des ONG engagées au large des côtes libyennes ont suspendu leurs activités, face à la chute des départs de Libye et face à une intensification des menaces des garde-côtes libyens, qui considèrent les ONG comme complices des passeurs.

      – Suite aux pressions politiques, privé de pavillon, l’Aquarius de l’ONG SOS Méditerranée – qui a secouru près de 20 000 personnes en deux ans et demi - a mis fin à ses missions en décembre 2018. L’ONG espère toutefois trouver un nouveau bateau pour repartir rapidement en mer au printemps 2019.

      – Médecins sans frontières (MSF) a mis fin au même moment aux activités du Vos Prudence, le plus gros navire humanitaire privé actif au large de la Libye avec un record de de 1 500 personnes secourues en même temps.

      – Save the Children a également mis fin aux activités de sauvetage du navire Vos Hestia.

      – L’ONG maltaise Moas, la première à s’engager dans les opérations de secours en 2014 et qui a compté jusqu’à deux navires dans la zone, a transféré ses activités auprès des Rohingyas au Bangladesh.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/15426/un-seul-navire-humanitaire-est-actuellement-present-au-large-de-la-lib

    • Sea Watch segreto di Stato. Viminale e Infrastrutture: no accesso agli atti

      Non è possibile sapere da chi e come fu bloccata la nave. Ed è giallo anche sull’omesso sbarco dei minori. Cortocircuito tra Prefettura, Comune e Tribunale di minori

      Nel Paese dei misteri irrisolti anche la sorte dei migranti rischia di diventare un “segreto di Stato”. Non sarà infatti possibile sapere chi, nello scorso gennaio, ha dato l’ordine di bloccare a Siracusa la nave umanitaria Sea Watch, né chi e perché ha impedito lo sbarco immediato dei 15 minorenni, dirottando poi il vascello verso il porto di Catania.

      La conferma dello stato di riservatezza degli atti arriva dal Viminale, che ha respinto la richiesta di divulgazione dei documenti depositati presso il ministero delle Infrastrutture. Intorno al caso, dopo che Avvenire aveva documentato la smentita del ministero che esclude sia mai stato dato l’ordine di «porti chiusi», è stato eretto un muro di gomma. Nei giorni scorsi il Viminale aveva assicurato che da Salvini, contrariamente alle reiterate dichiarazioni pubbliche, non era mai partito alcun ordine di stop alle navi umanitarie né alcun «divieto di sbarco».

      Non restava che interpellare il dicastero guidato da Danilo Toninelli, competente per la Guardia costiera e i porti. Ma la nuova richiesta di accesso ai documenti è stata respinta. Motivo? «La tipologia di atti richiesti non è soggetta a pubblicazione obbligatoria». Così il capo di gabinetto del ministro Salvini ha risposto all’istanza «indirizzata – viene precisato nella risposta – anche al ministero delle Infrastrutture», a cui era stata originariamente rivolta. Nella missiva, che reca la data del 26 febbraio, viene escluso per il caso Sea Watch l’obbligo di divulgazione delle informazioni.

      Secondo la legge richiamata nello scambio di documenti tra l’avvocato Alessandra Ballerini, che aveva chiesto trasparenza per contro di Adif (Associazione Diritti e Frontiere), e il prefetto a capo del gabinetto del ministro, viene invocata la norma che giustifica il rifiuto alla conoscibilità per «la sicurezza pubblica e l’ordine pubblico; la sicurezza nazionale; la difesa e le questioni militari; le relazioni internazionali; la politica e la stabilità finanziaria ed economica dello Stato; la conduzione di indagini sui reati e il loro perseguimento; il regolare svolgimento di attività ispettive». In quale di queste categorie rientri il caso della Sea Watch e dei minorenni bloccati a bordo per 13 giorni non è dato da sapere.

      Indirettamente, però, una cosa il Viminale la conferma. Se nei giorni scorsi era stata negata l’esistenza di deliberazioni riconducibili al ministro Matteo Salvini, adesso viene implicitamente riconosciuto che le decisioni furono prese formalmente dal ministero delle Infrastrutture. Una circostanza che di fatto esenta Salvini, che aveva dato “indicazioni politiche”, da responsabilità che eventualmente ricadrebbero su Toninelli.

      La gestione dei 15 minori non accompagnati e l’omissione dello sbarco immediato (come previsto dalle norme per i minorenni non accompagnati) potrebbe avere seguiti giudiziari. Da uno scambio di comunicazioni tra la prefettura di Siracusa, il Tribunale dei minori di Catania e il Comune di Siracusa risulta, infatti, che la scelta di trasferire la nave al porto di Catania, dopo giorni alla fonda davanti al “Porto rifugio” siracusano, sarebbe stata assunta dal Comando generale delle Capitanerie di porto, che dipende dal ministero delle Infrastrutture. Disposizione necessaria «in ragione della presenza di minori a bordo».

      A scriverlo è proprio la prefettura aretusea in una nota trasmessa il 31 gennaio (giorno dello sbarco) al Tribunale per i minorenni di Catania. Eppure ventiquattr’ore prima lo stesso tribunale aveva inviato i decreti di affido dei 15 minori ai Servizi sociali del Comune di Siracusa, che immediatamente aveva individuato e messo a disposizione 4 strutture del circondario. Invece, nessuno viene fatto sbarcare e in serata la Sea Watch, dopo una settimana di attesa in Sicilia, riceve l’ordine di procedere verso Catania. Una decisione, come sostiene il prefetto Luigi Pizzi in uno dei documenti ottenuti da Avvenire, dovuta alla mancanza di strutture di prima accoglienza idonee. Una carenza che però non risulta, vista la disponibilità certificata dal Comune e che sorprende anche il Tribunale che proprio dall’ente locale aveva ricevuto l’elenco dei centri di accoglienza.

      «Non c’era nessun bisogno che intervenisse il tribunale per far sbarcare i minori. La legge è chiara: andavano fatti sbarcare subito», dice Sandra Zampa, ex parlamentare del Pd e autrice della legge sui minori non accompagnati votata nella precedente legislatura con il sostegno del M5s. L’intervento del tribunale dei minorenni ha confermato l’efficacia delle norme, «interrompendo – spiega Zampa – l’omissione che si stava compiendo».

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-segreto-di-stato

    • Sea Watch, inchieste sugli atti «top secret». Si muovono le procure

      Dopo che il Viminale si è rifiutato di rendere pubblici gli ordini, i pm accendono un faro. Il sindaco di Siracusa: «Anomalie, abbiamo le prove. Fare chiarezza». E accusa: «Ci furono ordini politici»

      Il caso Sea Watch, con lo stallo davanti al porto di Siracusa e poi il trasferimento nello scalo di Catania, avrà seguiti giudiziari. Sono almeno due le procure che stanno esaminando i fatti riguardanti l’omesso sbarco immediato dei 15 minorenni e le modalità con cui le autorità politiche hanno eretto un muro intorno alla catena di comando. Una barriera contro cui è disposta a fare breccia la giunta di Siracusa, che si dichiara pronta ad andare davanti ai magistrati per riferire tutte le anomalie registrate a fine gennaio.
      Le inchieste, a quanto trapela, riguardano non solo Sea Watch, ma anche altri sbarchi con le navi umanitarie costrette al largo per giorni prima di poter mettere al sicuro, sulla terraferma, i naufraghi scampati ai lager libici e alle tempeste. Vari esposti erano da tempo sui tavoli della procura di Roma e di alcune procure siciliane, che hanno acquisito quanto rivelato da «Avvenire» giovedì scorso. A cominciare dalla massima riservatezza apposta dal ministero dell’Interno sugli atti relativi alla Sea Watch, mentre il dicastero guidato da Danilo Toninelli ha lasciato trascorrere i 30 giorni previsti dalle norme per rispondere alle richieste di accesso civico agli atti presentata dall’Associazione Diritti e frontiere. Uniche spiegazioni sono arrivate dal Viminale con due risposte in apparente contraddizione. La prima, firmata dal Dipartimento Immigrazione, escludeva che fosse mai stato dato l’ordine di porti chiusi e divieto di sbarco. La seconda, siglata dal capo di gabinetto del ministro, precisava che «la tipologia di atti richiesti non è soggetta a pubblicazione obbligatoria». Da qualche parte, dunque, ci sono documenti che non si vuole rendere noti. Perché?
      Quanto all’ipotetico cavillo usato per trasferire la Sea Watch copn i suoi 47 naufraghi improvvisamente da Siracusa a Catania, emerge un dettaglio da un documento della prefettura di Siracusa, che come è noto risponde al Viminale. La lettera, visionata da “Avvenire”, è del 31 gennaio 2019, giorno in cui la nave ricevette l’ordine di lasciare le acque antistanti il “Porto Rifugio” di Siracusa per recarsi, scortata da Guardia costiera e Guardia di finanza, verso Catania. La missiva, indirizzata al presidente e al procuratore del Tribunale dei minorenni, rivela che la nave è stata dirottata «proprio in ragione della presenza di minori a bordo che in quella sede saranno immediatamente accolti in idonee strutture. Diversamente da quanto sarebbe avvenuto in questa provincia, ove non si dispone di centri destinati ai minori in argomento». Sarebbe questo, dunque, uno dei grimaldelli adottati per sottrarre la Sea Watch alla procura di Siracusa - che aveva escluso irregolarità commesse in mare dall’equipaggio - consegnando la nave umanitaria alla procura di Catania, mai stata tenera con le Ong. Il procuratore Zuccaro (Catania) ha però dato ragione alle indagini del collega Scavone (Siracusa) non ravvisando comportamenti illeciti dell’equipaggio.

      I fatti emersi in questi giorni hanno provocato la reazione del Comune di Siracusa, accusato di non avere a disposizione luoghi di accoglienza per minori non accompagnati. «Bisognerà far chiarezza su come si sono svolti i fatti», afferma Alessandra Furnari, assessore alle Pari opportunità sociali. Su richiesta del Tribunale dei minorenni erano invece state individuate strutture adeguate presenti nel comprensorio. «Sul trasferimento dei minori a Catania – prosegue l’assessore Furnari - non abbiamo mai avuto notizie ufficiali, ma solo colloqui telefonici con la prefettura». Scambi verbali senza che mai «la prefettura – insiste l’assessore - desse riscontro per iscritto». Una costante durante quei giorni ad alta tensione. «Ciò che ha caratterizzato tutta la vicenda - osserva il sindaco di Siracusa, Francesco Italia – è stata proprio l’assenza di risposte formali». Come se si avesse il timore di lasciare tracce. «In tutti gli sbarchi avvenuti a Siracusa precedentemente – ricorda Italia – i minori sono sempre stati accolti nelle strutture di II livello (le stesse predisposte per la Sea Watch, in linea con l’ordine del tribunale), senza che ciò creasse alcun problema». Per il primo cittadino c’è una sola spiegazione: «Si è trattato di decisioni di tipo politico».
      Ora a Siracusa attendono solo una convocazione da parte dei magistrati inquirenti. «Non abbiamo alcun problema a raccontare quello che è successo», ribadisce l’assessore Alessandra Furnari. E a differenza del muro di gomma eretto nei ministeri, le accuse della giunta possono essere «documentalmente provate, perché molti rapporti con il tribunale e con la prefettura, almeno da parte nostra, sono avvenuti per iscritto».

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-inchiesta-su-atti-top-secret

    • Migrants on hunger strike in Malta after stuck for 2 months

      Many of the 49 people rescued in December by the #Sea_Watch and #Sea_Eye ships are engaged in a hunger strike, the platform Mediterranea Saving Humans reports. The migrants have been in a Malta center for two months and are protesting “against the de facto detention that they are illegally subjected to.”

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15616/migrants-on-hunger-strike-in-malta-after-stuck-for-2-months
      #Malte #grève_de_la_faim #attente #limbe #détention #Marsa

    • Migranti, la nave ong Alan Kurdi diretta a Malta. Esposto di Mediterranea contro il governo

      Dopo il rifiuto delle madri con figli di sbarcare a Lampedusa senza i loro mariti. La Procura di Agrigento dovrà aprire un fascicolo sulla mancata autorizzazione a entrare in acque italiane e la non assegnazione di un porto sicuro. E il capitano De Falco andrà sulla nave che partirà verso la Libia per soccorrere naufraghi

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/04/06/news/migranti-223409223

    • Italy’s prime minister and Matteo Salvini under investigation over detention of migrants

      Far-right politician Matteo Salvini and Italy’s prime minister Giuseppe Conte have been placed under investigation over the detention of 47 migrants.

      Mr Salvini said he was once again under investigation for alleged false imprisonment on Monday after a dispute earlier this year over whether the interior minister and Lega Nord party leader should be tried over the detention of 177 asylum seekers last August.

      The current case concerns the decision to prevent migrants from leaving a Sea-Watch ship, which rescued them off the coast of Libya on 19 January.

      Deputy prime minister Luigi Di Maio and infrastructure minister Danilo Toninelli, also face charges with Mr Salvini and Mr Conte.

      The 47 migrants were forced to wait off the coast of Sicily for more than a week after the ship was denied the right to dock in Palermo, inspiring an emergency appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and criticism from the United Nations.

      The Sea-Watch ship was only allowed to dock after other European countries agreed to accept the migrants.

      In March, senators stopped a criminal case against Mr Salvini for blocking a rescue ship in August 2018 after an Italian court ruled that he should be tried.

      Mr Salvini has repeatedly berated rescue ships and accused charitable organisations of aiding and abetting illegal immigration.

      “I am under investigation again, but as long as I am the interior minister, the government colleagues can say what they want, the Italian ports remain closed,” he said, maintaining his hardline stance on immigration.

      “Another 18 criminal proceedings can be opened, I don’t change my mind."

      Before the senate vote on Mr Salvini’s case in March, Mr Conte and Mr Di Maio, who leads the Five Star Movement (M5S), formally defended the minister.

      “If Salvini is responsible for the seizure [of the boat] then the whole government is responsible,” they said in a statement.

      Giorgia Linardi, a spokesperson for Sea-Watch in Italy, said the organisation had worked within the law and the boat was unjustly detained.

      “The detention on board for propaganda purposes cannot once again be unjustified, because it is protected be politics,” she said.

      “People fleeing Libya must be rescued and protected, not exploited.”

      The court will reportedly have three months to decide whether the four politicians should face trial.

      If the court decides to bring charges, the senate will vote on whether their parliamentary immunity should be removed.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/matteo-salvini-italy-prime-minister-conte-migrants-detention-a8872301