Syrian refugees adapt to life under coronavirus lockdown in Jordan camps-UNHCR
While there have been no cases of COVID-19 so far, UNHCR is helping some 120,000 refugees living in region’s largest camps do what they can to mitigate threat
#Covid19#Syrie#UNHCR#camp#migrant#migration#contamination
▻https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/2020/4/5e84a3584/syrian-refugees-adapt-life-under-coronavirus-lockdown-jordan-camps.html
Comment l’Europe contrôle ses frontières en #Tunisie ?
Entre les multiples programmes de coopération, les accords bilatéraux, les #équipements fournis aux #gardes-côtes, les pays européens et l’Union européenne investissent des millions d’euros en Tunisie pour la migration. Sous couvert de coopération mutuelle et de “#promotion_de_la mobilité”, la priorité des programmes migratoires européens est avant tout l’externalisation des frontières. En clair.
À la fois pays de transit et pays de départ, nœud dans la région méditerranéenne, la Tunisie est un partenaire privilégié de l’Europe dans le cadre de ses #politiques_migratoires. L’Union européenne ou les États qui la composent -Allemagne, France, Italie, Belgique, etc.- interviennent de multiples manières en Tunisie pour servir leurs intérêts de protéger leurs frontières et lutter contre l’immigration irrégulière.
Depuis des années, de multiples accords pour réadmettre les Tunisien·nes expulsé·es d’Europe ou encore financer du matériel aux #gardes-côtes_tunisiens sont ainsi signés, notamment avec l’#Italie ou encore avec la #Belgique. En plus de ces #partenariats_bilatéraux, l’#Union_européenne utilise ses fonds dédiés à la migration pour financer de nombreux programmes en Tunisie dans le cadre du “#partenariat_pour_la_mobilité”. Dans les faits, ces programmes servent avant tout à empêcher les gens de partir et les pousser à rester chez eux.
L’ensemble de ces programmes mis en place avec les États européens et l’UE sont nombreux et difficiles à retracer. Dans d’autres pays, notamment au Nigeria, des journalistes ont essayé de compiler l’ensemble de ces flux financiers européens pour la migration. Dans leur article, Ils et elle soulignent la difficulté, voire l’impossibilité de véritablement comprendre tous les fonds, programmes et acteurs de ces financements.
“C’est profondément préoccupant”, écrivent Maite Vermeulen, Ajibola Amzat et Giacomo Zandonini. “Bien que l’Europe maintienne un semblant de transparence, il est pratiquement impossible dans les faits de tenir l’UE et ses États membres responsables de leurs dépenses pour la migration, et encore moins d’évaluer leur efficacité.”
En Tunisie, où les investissements restent moins importants que dans d’autres pays de la région comme en Libye, il a été possible d’obtenir un résumé, fourni par la Délégation de l’Union européenne, des programmes financés par l’UE et liés à la migration. Depuis 2016, cela se traduit par l’investissement de près de 58 millions d’euros à travers trois différents fonds : le #FFU (#Fonds_Fiduciaire_d’Urgence) de la Valette, l’#AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) et l’Instrument européen de voisinage (enveloppe régionale).
Mais il est à noter que ces informations ne prennent pas en compte les autres investissements d’#aide_au_développement ou de soutien à la #lutte_antiterroriste dont les programmes peuvent également concerner la migration. Depuis 2011, au niveau bilatéral, l’Union européenne a ainsi investi 2,5 billions d’euros en Tunisie, toutes thématiques confondues.
L’écrasante majorité de ces financements de l’UE - 54 200 000 euros - proviennent du #Fond_fiduciaire_d'urgence_pour_l'Afrique. Lancé en 2015, lors du #sommet_de_la_Valette, ce FFU a été créé “en faveur de la stabilité et de la lutte contre les #causes_profondes de la migration irrégulière et du phénomène des personnes déplacées en Afrique” à hauteur de 2 milliards d’euros pour toute la région.
Ce financement a été pointé du doigt par des associations de droits humains comme Oxfam qui souligne “qu’une partie considérable de ses fonds est investie dans des mesures de #sécurité et de #gestion_des_frontières.”
“Ces résultats montrent que l’approche des bailleurs de fonds européens vis-à-vis de la gestion des migrations est bien plus axée sur des objectifs de #confinement et de #contrôle. Cette approche est loin de l’engagement qu’ils ont pris (...) de ‘promouvoir des canaux réguliers de migration et de mobilité au départ des pays d’Europe et d’Afrique et entre ceux-ci’ (...) ou de ‘Faciliter la migration et la mobilité de façon ordonnée, sans danger, régulière et responsable’”, détaille plus loin le rapport.
Surveiller les frontières
Parmi la vingtaine de projets financés par l’UE, la sécurité des frontières occupe une place prépondérante. Le “#Programme_de_gestion_des_frontières_au_Maghreb” (#BMP_Maghreb) est, de loin, le plus coûteux. Pour fournir de l’équipement et des formations aux gardes-côtes tunisiens, l’UE investit 20 millions d’euros, près d’un tiers du budget en question.
Le projet BMP Maghreb a un objectif clairement défini : protéger, surveiller et contrôler les #frontières_maritimes dans le but de réduire l’immigration irrégulière. Par exemple, trois chambres d’opération ainsi qu’un système pilote de #surveillance_maritime (#ISmariS) ont été fournis à la garde nationale tunisienne. En collaboration avec le ministère de l’Intérieur et ses différents corps - garde nationale, douane, etc. -, ce programme est géré par l’#ICMPD (#Centre_international_pour_le_développement_des_politiques_migratoires).
“Le BMP Maghreb est mis en place au #Maroc et en Tunisie. C’est essentiellement de l’acquisition de matériel : matériel informatique, de transmission demandé par l’Etat tunisien”, détaille Donya Smida de l’ICMPD. “On a fait d’abord une première analyse des besoins, qui est complétée ensuite par les autorités tunisiennes”.
Cette fourniture de matériel s’ajoute à des #formations dispensées par des #experts_techniques, encore une fois coordonnées par l’ICMPD. Cette organisation internationale se présente comme spécialisée dans le “renforcement de capacités” dans le domaine de la politique migratoire, “loin des débat émotionnels et politisés”.
"Cette posture est symptomatique d’un glissement sémantique plus général. Traiter la migration comme un sujet politique serait dangereux, alors on préfère la “gérer” comme un sujet purement technique. In fine, la ’gestionnaliser’ revient surtout à dépolitiser la question migratoire", commente #Camille_Cassarini, chercheur sur les migrations subsahariennes en Tunisie. “L’ICMPD, ce sont des ‘techniciens’ de la gestion des frontières. Ils dispensent des formations aux États grâce à un réseau d’experts avec un maître-mot : #neutralité politique et idéologique et #soutien_technique."
En plus de ce programme, la Tunisie bénéficie d’autres fonds et reçoit aussi du matériel pour veiller à la sécurité des frontières. Certains s’inscrivent dans d’autres projets financés par l’UE, comme dans le cadre de la #lutte_antiterroriste.
Il faut aussi ajouter à cela les équipements fournis individuellement par les pays européens dans le cadre de leurs #accords_bilatéraux. En ce qui concerne la protection des frontières, on peut citer l’exemple de l’Italie qui a fourni une douzaine de bateaux à la Tunisie en 2011. En 2017, l’Italie a également soutenu la Tunisie à travers un projet de modernisation de bateaux de patrouille fournis à la garde nationale tunisienne pour environ 12 millions d’euros.
L’#Allemagne est aussi un investisseur de plus en plus important, surtout en ce qui concerne les frontières terrestres. Entre 2015 et 2016, elle a contribué à la création d’un centre régional pour la garde nationale et la police des frontières. A la frontière tuniso-libyenne, elle fournit aussi des outils de surveillance électronique tels que des caméras thermiques, des paires de jumelles nocturnes, etc…
L’opacité des #accords_bilatéraux
De nombreux pays européens - Allemagne, Italie, #France, Belgique, #Autriche, etc. - coopèrent ainsi avec la Tunisie en concluant de nombreux accords sur la migration. Une grande partie de cette coopération concerne la #réadmission des expulsé·es tunisien·nes. Avec l’Italie, quatre accords ont ainsi été signés en ce sens entre 1998 et 2011. D’après le FTDES* (Forum tunisien des droits économiques et sociaux), c’est dans le cadre de ce dernier accord que la Tunisie accueillerait deux avions par semaine à l’aéroport d’Enfidha de Tunisien·nes expulsé·es depuis Palerme.
“Ces accords jouent beaucoup sur le caractère réciproque mais dans les faits, il y a un rapport inégal et asymétrique. En termes de réadmission, il est évident que la majorité des #expulsions concernent les Tunisiens en Europe”, commente Jean-Pierre Cassarino, chercheur et spécialiste des systèmes de réadmission.
En pratique, la Tunisie ne montre pas toujours une volonté politique d’appliquer les accords en question. Plusieurs pays européens se plaignent de la lenteur des procédures de réadmissions de l’Etat tunisien avec qui “les intérêts ne sont pas vraiment convergents”.
Malgré cela, du côté tunisien, signer ces accords est un moyen de consolider des #alliances. “C’est un moyen d’apparaître comme un partenaire fiable et stable notamment dans la lutte contre l’extrémisme religieux, l’immigration irrégulière ou encore la protection extérieure des frontières européennes, devenus des thèmes prioritaires depuis environ la moitié des années 2000”, explique Jean-Pierre Cassarino.
Toujours selon les chercheurs, depuis les années 90, ces accords bilatéraux seraient devenus de plus en plus informels pour éviter de longues ratifications au niveau bilatéral les rendant par conséquent, plus opaques.
Le #soft_power : nouvel outil d’externalisation
Tous ces exemples montrent à quel point la question de la protection des frontières et de la #lutte_contre_l’immigration_irrégulière sont au cœur des politiques européennes. Une étude de la direction générale des politiques externes du Parlement européen élaborée en 2016 souligne comment l’UE “a tendance à appuyer ses propres intérêts dans les accords, comme c’est le cas pour les sujets liés à l’immigration.” en Tunisie.
Le rapport pointe du doigt la contradiction entre le discours de l’UE qui, depuis 2011, insiste sur sa volonté de soutenir la Tunisie dans sa #transition_démocratique, notamment dans le domaine migratoire, tandis qu’en pratique, elle reste focalisée sur le volet sécuritaire.
“La coopération en matière de sécurité demeure fortement centrée sur le contrôle des flux de migration et la lutte contre le terrorisme” alors même que “la rhétorique de l’UE en matière de questions de sécurité (...) a évolué en un discours plus large sur l’importance de la consolidation de l’État de droit et de la garantie de la protection des droits et des libertés acquis grâce à la révolution.”, détaille le rapport.
Mais même si ces projets ont moins de poids en termes financiers, l’UE met en place de nombreux programmes visant à “développer des initiatives socio-économiques au niveau local”, “ mobiliser la diaspora” ou encore “sensibiliser sur les risques liés à la migration irrégulière”. La priorité est de dissuader en amont les potentiel·les candidat·es à l’immigration irrégulière, au travers de l’appui institutionnel, des #campagnes de #sensibilisation...
L’#appui_institutionnel, présenté comme une priorité par l’UE, constitue ainsi le deuxième domaine d’investissement avec près de 15% des fonds.
Houda Ben Jeddou, responsable de la coopération internationale en matière de migration à la DGCIM du ministère des Affaires sociales, explique que le projet #ProgreSMigration, créé en 2016 avec un financement à hauteur de 12,8 millions d’euros, permet de mettre en place “ des ateliers de formations”, “des dispositifs d’aides au retour” ou encore “des enquêtes statistiques sur la migration en Tunisie”.
Ce projet est en partenariat avec des acteurs étatiques tunisiens comme le ministère des Affaires Sociales, l’observatoire national des migrations (ONM) ou encore l’Institut national de statistiques (INS). L’un des volets prioritaires est de “soutenir la #Stratégie_nationale_migratoire_tunisienne”. Pour autant, ce type de projet ne constitue pas une priorité pour les autorités tunisiennes et cette stratégie n’a toujours pas vu le jour.
Houda Ben Jeddou explique avoir déposé un projet à la présidence en 2018, attendant qu’elle soit validée. "Il n’y a pas de volonté politique de mettre ce dossier en priorité”, reconnaît-elle.
Pour Camille Cassarini, ce blocage est assez révélateur de l’absence d’une politique cohérente en Tunisie. “Cela en dit long sur les stratégies de contournement que met en place l’État tunisien en refusant de faire avancer le sujet d’un point de vue politique. Malgré les investissements européens pour pousser la Tunisie à avoir une politique migratoire correspondant à ses standards, on voit que les agendas ne sont pas les mêmes à ce niveau”.
Changer la vision des migrations
Pour mettre en place tous ces programmes, en plus des partenariats étatiques avec la Tunisie, l’Europe travaille en étroite collaboration avec les organisations internationales telles que l’#OIM (Organisation internationale pour les migrations), l’ICMPD et le #UNHCR (Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés), les agences de développement européennes implantées sur le territoire - #GiZ, #Expertise_France, #AfD - ainsi que la société civile tunisienne.
Dans ses travaux, Camille Cassarini montre que les acteurs sécuritaires sont progressivement assistés par des acteurs humanitaires qui s’occupent de mener une politique gestionnaire de la migration, cohérente avec les stratégies sécuritaires. “Le rôle de ces organisations internationales, type OIM, ICMPD, etc., c’est principalement d’effectuer un transfert de normes et pratiques qui correspondent à des dispositifs de #contrôle_migratoire que les Etats européens ne peuvent pas mettre directement en oeuvre”, explique-t-il.
Contactée à plusieurs reprises par Inkyfada, la Délégation de l’Union européenne en Tunisie a répondu en fournissant le document détaillant leurs projets dans le cadre de leur partenariat de mobilité avec la Tunisie. Elle n’a pas souhaité donner suite aux demandes d’entretiens.
En finançant ces organisations, les Etats européens ont d’autant plus de poids dans leur orientation politique, affirme encore le chercheur en donnant l’exemple de l’OIM, une des principales organisations actives en Tunisie dans ce domaine. “De par leurs réseaux, ces organisations sont devenues des acteurs incontournables. En Tunisie, elles occupent un espace organisationnel qui n’est pas occupé par l’Etat tunisien. Ça arrange plus ou moins tout le monde : les Etats européens ont des acteurs qui véhiculent leur vision des migrations et l’État tunisien a un acteur qui s’en occupe à sa place”.
“Dans notre langage académique, on les appelle des #acteurs_épistémologiques”, ajoute Jean-Pierre Cassarino. A travers leur langage et l’étendue de leur réseau, ces organisations arrivent à imposer une certaine vision de la gestion des migrations en Tunisie. “Il n’y a qu’à voir le #lexique de la migration publié sur le site de l’Observatoire national [tunisien] des migrations : c’est une copie de celui de l’OIM”, continue-t-il.
Contactée également par Inkyfada, l’OIM n’a pas donné suite à nos demandes d’entretien.
Camille Cassarini donne aussi l’exemple des “#retours_volontaires”. L’OIM ou encore l’Office français de l’immigration (OFII) affirment que ces programmes permettent “la réinsertion sociale et économique des migrants de retour de façon à garantir la #dignité des personnes”. “Dans la réalité, la plupart des retours sont très mal ou pas suivis. On les renvoie au pays sans ressource et on renforce par là leur #précarité_économique et leur #vulnérabilité", affirme-t-il. “Et tous ces mots-clés euphémisent la réalité d’une coopération et de programmes avant tout basé sur le contrôle migratoire”.
Bien que l’OIM existe depuis près de 20 ans en Tunisie, Camille Cassarini explique que ce système s’est surtout mis en place après la Révolution, notamment avec la société civile. “La singularité de la Tunisie, c’est sa transition démocratique : l’UE a dû adapter sa politique migratoire à ce changement politique et cela est passé notamment par la promotion de la société civile”.
Dans leur ouvrage à paraître “Externaliser la gouvernance migratoire à travers la société tunisienne : le cas de la Tunisie” [Externalising Migration Governance through Civil Society : Tunisia as a Case Study], Sabine Didi et Caterina Giusa expliquent comment les programmes européens et les #organisations_internationales ont été implantées à travers la #société_civile.
“Dans le cas des projets liés à la migration, le rôle déterminant de la société civile apparaît au niveau micro, en tant qu’intermédiaire entre les organisations chargées de la mise en œuvre et les différents publics catégorisés et identifiés comme des ‘#migrants_de_retour’, ‘membres de la diaspora’, ou ‘candidats potentiels à la migration irrégulière’", explique Caterina Giusa dans cet ouvrage, “L’intérêt d’inclure et et de travailler avec la société civile est de ‘faire avaler la pilule’ [aux populations locales]”.
“Pour résumer, tous ces projets ont pour but de faire en sorte que les acteurs tunisiens aient une grille de lecture du phénomène migratoire qui correspondent aux intérêts de l’Union européenne. Et concrètement, ce qui se dessine derrière cette vision “gestionnaire”, c’est surtout une #injonction_à_l’immobilité”, termine Camille Cassarini.
►https://inkyfada.com/fr/2020/03/20/financements-ue-tunisie-migration
#externalisation #asile #migrations #frontières #Tunisie #EU #UE #Europe #contrôles_frontaliers #politique_de_voisinage #dissuasion #IOM #HCR #immobilité
Ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation des frontières :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765330
Et celle sur la conditionnalité de l’aide au développement :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/733358#message768701
ping @deka - citations de Camille ! C’est grace à toi aussi, merci pour tout soutien pendant les recherches !
source : ►https://inkyfada.com/fr/2020/03/20/financements-ue-tunisie-migration
Non, malheureusement j’ai pas encore réussi à convaincre Camille de joindre SeenThis...mais j’essaie toujours ;-) @deka c’est un prêtre très intéressé au sujet, AI Interview No 1 dans le mémoire M2, ensemble avec Camille on a beaucoup discuté
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
Vidéo postée sur FB par Eleonora Camilli :
Intanto ad Agadez.
Ricevo direttamente questo video da un ragazzo de Sudan. Da questa mattina i migranti stanno lasciando il centro a 15km da Agadez e marciano verso la città.
“Dopo due anni e dopo essere passati per l’inferno in Libia -mi dice Mustafa- non vediamo prospettive, non sappiamo cosa ne sarà di noi”
▻https://www.facebook.com/eleonora.camilli.77/videos/10221620468684506
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-agadezSelon 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
violent attack from the nigerian authorities to the sudanese refugees sit in front of the UNHCR ,january 4
▻https://twitter.com/AbdullahJalba2/status/1213706424729112576
#vidéo
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)
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.
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.
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.
A Agadez, au Niger, des demandeurs d’asile ont incendié un centre d’accueil avant-hier.
Visite aujourd’hui de la représentante du HCR sur les lieux qui dit à la presse se « sentir trahie », et qui évoque le sentiment « d’une mère qui a cru en ses enfants ».
▻https://twitter.com/LeilaBeratto/status/1214565231684288517
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://i.imgur.com/LurpJL1.png 
https://i.imgur.com/xtHjEM3.png 
https://i.imgur.com/yiU7c7c.png 
https://i.imgur.com/nYofRH0.png 
https://i.imgur.com/mGxteLR.png https://i.imgur.com/mGxteLR.png 
https://i.imgur.com/AxePCx2.png déjà signalé par @odilon ici :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/809783
Je le remets ici avec des mots clé de plus
Sur la Carte, il faut considérer Calais comme un mur et la France devrait donc être en vert.
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
voir aussi :
Asylum Outsourced : McKinsey’s Secret Role in Europe’s Refugee Crisis
►https://seenthis.net/messages/862826
#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
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
The big wall
An ActionAid investigation into how Italy tried to stop migration from Africa, using EU funds, and how much money it spent
►https://thebigwall.org/en
►https://seenthis.net/messages/905345
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
#Border_Profiteers. Corporations profiting from borders, detentions and deportations - Berlin edition
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
#DHS to store tens of thousands of refugee biometric records from #UNHCR
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) began sharing records including fingerprints, iris scans, and facial biometrics of refugees it is recommending for resettlement consideration in the U.S. with the country’s Citizenship and Immigration Service (#USCIS), Nextgov reports.
The UNHCR sends tens of thousands of profiles to federal agencies each year, according to the report, and the #Department_of_Homeland_Services (DHS) is retaining the data for all of them, including those who do not actually come to the U.S. The biometric data will be stored in the #IDENT_system, and #HART once it goes live.
“Biometric verification guards against substitution of individuals or identity fraud in the resettlement process,” the USCIS privacy impact assessment for the program states. “Many refugees live for long periods in asylum countries, and the use of biometrics ensures that there is [an] unbroken continuity of identity over time and between different locations.”
Nextgov notes that UNHCR stats show the USCIS reviewed close to 85,000 cases in 2018, and approved less than a quarter for admission to the U.S.
“A centralized database of biometric data belonging to refugees, without appropriate controls, could really lead to surveillance of those refugees as well as potentially coercive forms of scrutiny,” Human Rights Watch Artificial Intelligence Researcher Amos Toh told Nextgov. “I think there needs to be a lot more clarity on … how this data is being shared and is being used.”
Toh also referred to issues around consent for personal data-sharing in humanitarian contexts.
▻https://www.biometricupdate.com/201908/dhs-to-store-tens-of-thousands-of-refugee-biometric-records-from-un
#surveillance #données_biométriques #base_de_données #database #HCR #réfugiés #asile #migrations #biométrie #empreintes_digitales #biométrie_faciale #USA #Etats-Unis #réinstallation #humanitaire
ping @etraces
Inside the HART of the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management
#OBIM says its efforts to protect biometric data privacy and security are robust and open.
The Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) operated by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) was designed in 1994 and implemented in 1995. It was originally meant to perform a South-West border recidivist study, but has grown into the second largest biometric system in the world, next to Aadhaar, with 230 million unique identity records, plus access to millions more held by the FBI and Department of Defense, and 350,000 transactions on an average weekday.
As the number of programs using IDENT has grown, the system’s roll and size have increased. As the importance of IDENT has grown, so have the warnings and criticism of the program. It is still not widely understood how it works, however, Patrick Nemeth, Director of OBIM’s Identity Operations Division told Biometric Update in an exclusive interview.
“We don’t own the data, we’re the data stewards, and it was collected by somebody else who ultimately has the authority to change it or delete it,” Nemeth explains. While many government biometric databases around the world are not operated in this way, the arrangement is only the beginning of the complexity the system has evolved to accommodate.
OBIM performs three basic functions, Nemeth says, with pretty much everything else done in service of them. It operates the automated matching system, which is IDENT, but will soon be the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology (HART), performs manual examination and verification, and coordinates sharing with the owners of the data, which means setting rules for sharing data with agencies. Most government biometric data is centralized with OBIM to minimize duplication under the department’s privacy rule, and also to apply the maximum security and protection to sensitive information.
As operators of the centralized biometric repository, OBIM takes on the responsibility of dealing with the security, privacy, and civil liberties implications of storing sensitive personally identifiable information (PII). It does so, in part, by applying Fair Information Practice principles to govern procedures for elements including transparency, accounting and auditing, and purpose specification.
Other than specific databases run by law enforcement and the DoD, which it also coordinates sharing for, OBIM holds all of the U.S. government’s biometric data. It primarily serves DHS agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Border Patrol, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Citizenship and Immigration Services, as well as agencies like the Coast Guard for border entries. It performs a range of functions, including both verification and identification, and during periods when the system is less busy, such as overnight, it performs deduplication and checks latent prints found on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or in investigations of serious crimes by the FBI, according to Nemeth.
This enormous expansion of both the system’s scale and mandate is why OBIM is now moving forward with the development of the new HART system. IDENT is becoming obsolete.
“It’s been stretched and band-aided and added-to in every way that people can think of, but it just can’t go any further,” Nemeth says.
HART will add a range of capabilities, including to use a fusion of fingerprint, iris, and facial recognition modalities to improve its matching accuracy. It will also expand the scale of the system, which is desperately needed.
“At one point about five years ago they did a couple external studies and they told me that if we ever reached 300,000 transactions a day that we would see system slowness and if we ever reached 400,000 per day, we would see the blue screen of death,” Nemeth admits.
IDENT currently process more than 400,000 transactions in a day on occasion, after remedial action was taken by OBIM to increase its capacity. It typically serves about 350,000 requests per weekday, and a little less on the weekend, returning yes or no answers for about 99.5 percent. Nemeth says he uses more than one thousand servers and other pieces of hardware to keep the system running with brute force. That is not an efficient way to operate, however, and the demand keeps increasing with each new biometric border trial, and any other program involving a use of government biometrics.
Increasing capacity to meet the rapid growth in demand is the main motivation for the move to HART, which will be able to serve 720,000 daily fingerprint transactions when it goes live, and can be quickly scaled. It is being launched on AWS’ Government Cloud, but is designed to be cloud-agnostic. OBIM’s database is growing by about 20 million people per year, which is also accelerating, and as additional modalities become more valuable with the addition of fusion verification, its 3 million pairs of irises may also increase. The current database is twice as large as it was seven years ago, and Nemeth says the current projections are that it will double again in the next seven.
Some future uses of HART are likely yet to be determined, but an example of the scale that may be needed can be understood by considering the possibility that all 3 million travelers per day who pass through U.S. airports may one day need to be biometrically verified.
Tech systems from the nineties are also inherently not able to keep up with modern technology. The programming languages and architecture of IDENT are antiquated, and require an inefficient and frustrating process not just to add capabilities, but every time a statistic is requested for analytical purposes.
“We have to figure out what our question is, send it to our contractors, they write the script, they run it, they send it back to us, and sometimes when we look at it, that wasn’t really the question, and you have to repeat the process,” Nemeth says.
As the number of agencies and use cases for IDENT has grown, the number of questions from system users, like everything else, has increased. Switching to HART will increase the analytical capabilities and overall flexibility of the system, which is particularly important when considering some of the privacy and security issues related to operating the world’s second largest biometric matching system. IDENT currently uses a multi-layered filtering system to return only the specific information the requesting customer is entitled to.
“What’s unique about IDENT is because of the wide breadth of Homeland Security missions — law enforcement, information, credentialing, national security – it has kind of a complicated filtering process that we call Data Access and Security Controls,” Nemeth says. “You only get to see what your agency is permitted by law to see, and what the owner of the data has said that you can see. It’s a rather complex dance we do to make sure that we respect the privacy, the reason the information was collected, the legal protections for certain protected classes, all of those things. When we provide you the information, if you’re not allowed to see it, you don’t even know that information exists.”
Three layers of filters screen what accounts can see data for a subject, what information they are allowed to see and what should be redacted (such as criminal history, in some cases), and an activity filter, which is attached to information by the agency that submitted it. OBIM also addresses the rights of data subjects with an extensive process of consultations and privacy impact assessments for new operations.
“Every time somebody comes up with a new mission area, or a new application of biometrics, before we can implement that, our own privacy people need to go through it and write a privacy threat assessment,” Nemeth says. “Then, potentially, if its significant enough, they have to amend the privacy impact. Then it goes to our higher headquarters at the National Protection and Programs Directorate where they have to agree, and then finally it goes to the Department’s Privacy Office, where they have to agree that its within the scope of what we’re allowed to do.”
Some alternately goes through inter-agency Data Access Request Committee for approval, but every new capability desired by a client agency is put in place only after it has gone through many steps and assessments, providing answers about why it is needed and how it should be delivered.
“There are a lot of constraints on us, which is good, because lots of energetic people come up with lots of ideas and sometimes we just need to slow down a little bit and make sure that we’re properly using that information and protecting it.”
Not only are OBIM’s efforts to protect biometric data privacy and security robust, according to Nemeth, they are also open. HART will increase the privacy protection the department can provide, he says, for instance by increasing the number and functionality of filtering layers OBIM can apply to data. The combination of privacy protections which are concerted and improving along with willingness to talk about those protections makes Nemeth frustrated with allegations among some media and public advocacy groups that HART represents a surveillance overreach on the part of the government.
“We’re not going to tell you how to break into our system, but we’ll tell you quite a bit about it,” Nemeth says. “The privacy impact assessments and the privacy threshold analysis are available on the DHS privacy web page, along with our system of record.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns that HART will include data collected from innocent people and questionable sources, and argues that it will provide the means for suppression of American’s rights and freedoms. Nemeth says he sympathizes with concerns over the possible erosion of privacy in digital society, and the desire to protect it. He contends that the EFF is not considering the years and painstaking processes that OBIM puts into balancing the rights of individuals to not have their data shared unnecessarily with the mandates of client agencies. He points to the Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Council as an example of the intensive oversight and review that checks the potential for misuse of biometric data.
“The arguments that the EFF is making they’ve made several times during the fifteen-year history of IDENT, whenever there’s a new issue of the authorizing SORN and PIA, so it’s not new,” Nemeth counters. “They’ve added the facial piece to it. Essentially, they are arguing that we will violate the law.”
The scrutiny will likely intensify, with public awareness of biometric entry/exit growing as the program rolls out. In the meantime, the number of transactions served by HART will be increasing, and OBIM will be evaluating new procedures using its new biometric capabilities. The privacy impact assessments and other checks will continue, and OBIM will continue the work of helping U.S. government agencies identify people. Nemeth stresses that that work is critically important, even as it requires the kind of extensive evaluation and scrutiny it invites.
“We don’t retain our highly talented staff because we pay them well,” he confesses. “We retain them because they love what they’re doing and they’re making a difference for the security of the country.”
▻https://www.biometricupdate.com/201809/inside-the-hart-of-the-dhs-office-of-biometric-identity-management
#identité_biométrique
Rwanda to receive over 500 migrants from Libya
Rwanda and Libya are currently working out an evacuation plan for some hundreds of migrants being held in detention centres in the North African country, officials confirmed.
Diyana Gitera, the Director General for Africa at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation told The New Times that Rwanda was working on a proposal with partners to evacuate refugees from Libya.
She said that initially, Rwanda will receive 500 refugees as part of the commitment by President Paul Kagame in late 2017.
President Kagame made this commitment after revelations that tens of thousands of different African nationalities were stranded in Libya having failed to make it across the Mediterranean Sea to European countries.
“We are talking at this time of up to 500 refugees from Libya,” Gitera said, without revealing more details.
She however added that the exact timing of when these would be brought will be confirmed later.
It had earlier been said that Rwanda was ready to receive up to 30,000 immigrants under this arrangement.
Rwanda’s intervention came amid harrowing revelations that the migrants, most of them from West Africa, are being sold openly in modern-day slave markets in Libya.
The immigrants are expected to be received under an emergency plan being discussed with international humanitarian agencies and other partners.
Gitera highlighted that the process was being specifically supported by the African Union (AU) with funding from European Union (EU) and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
The proposal comes as conflict in war-torn North African country deepens.
The United Nations estimates almost 5,000 migrants are in detention centres in Libya, about 70 per cent of them refugees and asylum seekers, most of whom have been subjected to different forms of abuse.
This is however against the backdrop of accusations against the EU over the plight of migrants.
Already, thousands of the migrants have died over the past few years while trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea to European countries where they hope for better lives.
Human rights groups have documented multiple cases of rape, torture and other crimes at the facilities, some of which are run by militias.
Rwanda hopes to step in to rescue some of these struggling migrants in its capacity.
The Government of Rwanda has been generously hosting refugees for over two decades and coordinates the refugee response with UNHCR, as well as providing land to establish refugee camps and ensuring camp management and security.
Generally, Rwanda offers a favourable protection environment for refugees.
They have the right to education, employment, cross borders, and access to durable solutions (resettlement, local integration and return) is unhindered.
Camps like Gihembe, Kigeme, Kiziba, Mugombwa and Nyabiheke host thousands of refugees, especially from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi where political instabilities have forced people to leave their countries.
▻https://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/rwanda-receive-over-500-migrants-libya
#Libye #évacuation #Rwanda #asile #migrations #réfugiés #union_africaine #plan_d'urgence #UE #EU #externalisation #Union_européenne #HCR #UNHCR
via @pascaline
En 2017 ils avaient apparemment dit non...
Rwanda says no to migrant deportation
►https://seenthis.net/messages/649717
Et ajouté à cette métaliste sur l’externalisation :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765324
Europe Keeps Asylum Seekers at a Distance, This Time in Rwanda
For three years, the European Union has been paying other countries to keep asylum seekers away from a Europe replete with populist and anti-migrant parties.
It has paid Turkey billions to keep refugees from crossing to Greece. It has funded the Libyan Coast Guard to catch and return migrant boats to North Africa. It has set up centers in distant Niger to process asylum seekers, if they ever make it that far. Most don’t.
Even as that arm’s-length network comes under criticism on humanitarian grounds, it is so overwhelmed that the European Union is seeking to expand it, as the bloc aims to buttress an approach that has drastically cut the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean.
It is now preparing to finish a deal, this time in Rwanda, to create yet another node that it hopes will help alleviate some of the mounting strains on its outsourcing network.
Sign up for The Interpreter
Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.
Critics say the Rwanda deal will deepen a morally perilous policy, even as it underscores how precarious the European Union’s teetering system for handling the migrant crisis has become.
Tens of thousands of migrants and asylum seekers remain trapped in Libya, where a patchwork of militias control detention centers and migrants are sold as slaves or into prostitution, and kept in places so packed that there is not even enough floor space to sleep on.
A bombing of a migrant detention center in July left 40 dead, and it has continued to operate in the months since, despite part of it having been reduced to rubble.
Even as the system falters, few in the West seem to be paying much attention, and critics say that is also part of the aim — to keep a problem that has roiled European politics on the other side of Mediterranean waters, out of sight and out of mind.
Screening asylum seekers in safe, remote locations — where they can qualify as refugees without undertaking perilous journeys to Europe — has long been promoted in Brussels as a way to dismantle smuggler networks while giving vulnerable people a fair chance at a new life. But the application by the European Union has highlighted its fundamental flaws: The offshore centers are too small and the pledges of refugee resettlement too few.
European populists continue to flog the narrative that migrants are invading, even though the European Union’s migration policy has starkly reduced the number of new arrivals. In 2016, 181,376 people crossed the Mediterranean from North Africa to reach Italian shores. Last year, the number plummeted to 23,485.
But the bloc’s approach has been sharply criticized by humanitarian and refugee-rights groups, not only for the often deplorable conditions of the detention centers, but also because few consigned to them have any real chance of gaining asylum.
“It starts to smell as offshore processing and a backdoor way for European countries to keep people away from Europe, in a way that’s only vaguely different to how Australia manages it,” said Judith Sunderland, an expert with Human Rights Watch, referring to that country’s policy of detaining asylum seekers on distant Pacific islands.
Such criticism first surfaced in Europe in 2016, when the European Union agreed to pay Turkey roughly $6 billion to keep asylum seekers from crossing to Greece, and to take back some of those who reached Greece.
On the Africa front, in particular in the central Mediterranean, the agreements have come at a lower financial cost, but arguably at a higher moral one.
Image
A migrant detention center in Tripoli, Libya, in 2015.
Brussels’ funding of the Libyan Coast Guard to intercept migrant boats before they reach international waters has been extremely effective, but has left apprehended migrants vulnerable to abuses in a North African country with scant central governance and at the mercy of an anarchic, at-war state of militia rule.
A handful are resettled directly out of Libya, and a few thousand more are transferred by the United Nations refugee agency and its partner, the International Organization for Migration, to a processing center in Niger. Only some of those have a realistic shot at being granted asylum in Europe.
With many European Union member states refusing to accept any asylum seekers, Brussels and, increasingly, President Emmanuel Macron of France have appealed to those willing to take in a few who are deemed especially vulnerable.
As Italy has continued to reject migrant rescue vessels from docking at its ports, and threatened to impose fines of up to 1 million euros, about $1.1 million, on those who defy it, Mr. Macron has spearheaded an initiative among European Union members to help resettle migrants rescued in the Mediterranean. Eight nations have joined.
But ultimately, it’s a drop in the bucket.
An estimated half a million migrants live in Libya, and just 51,000 are registered with the United Nations refugee agency. Five thousand are held in squalid and unsafe detention centers.
“European countries face a dilemma,” said Camille Le Coz, an expert with the Migration Policy Institute in Brussels. “They do not want to welcome more migrants from Libya and worry about creating pull factors, but at the same time they can’t leave people trapped in detention centers.”
Editors’ Picks
25 Years Later, It Turns Out Phoebe Was the Best Friend
Following the Lead of the Diving Girl
The Perfect Divorce
The United Nations refugee agency and the International Organization for Migration, mostly using European Union funding, have evacuated about 4,000 people to the transit center in Niger over the past two years.
Niger, a country that has long served as a key node in the migratory route from Africa to Europe, is home to some of the world’s most effective people-smugglers.
The capacity of the center in Agadez, where smugglers also base their operations, is about 1,000. But it has at times held up to three times as many, as resettlement to Europe and North America has been slack.
Fourteen countries — 10 from the European Union, along with Canada, Norway, Switzerland and the United States — have pledged to resettle about 6,600 people either directly from Libya or from the Niger facility, according to the United Nations refugee agency.
It has taken two years to fulfill about half of those pledges, with some resettlements taking up to 12 months to process, a spokesman for the agency said.
Some countries that made pledges, such as Belgium and Finland, have taken only a few dozen people; others, like the Netherlands, fewer than 10; Luxembourg has taken none, a review of the refugee agency’s data shows.
Under the agreement with Rwanda, which is expected to be signed in the coming weeks, the east African country will take in about 500 migrants evacuated from Libya and host them until they are resettled to new homes or sent back to their countries of origin.
It will offer a way out for a lucky few, but ultimately the Rwandan center is likely to run into the same delays and problems as the one in Agadez.
“The Niger program has suffered from a lot of setbacks, hesitation, very slow processing by European and other countries, very low numbers of actual resettlements,” said Ms. Sunderland of Human Rights Watch. “There’s not much hope then that the exact same process in Rwanda would lead to dramatically different outcomes.”
▻https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/europe/migrants-africa-rwanda.html
Commentaire de Vincent Cochetel sur twitter à propos de l’article du NYT :
Many inaccuracies in this @nytimes article! This is not an agreement with the EU, not about outsourcing, not about migrants, no similar center in Agadez, numbers wrong, inaccurate...
Vu des États-Unis.L’UE choisit le Rwanda pour relocaliser les demandeurs d’asile
L’Union européenne va conclure un accord avec le Rwanda pour tenir les demandeurs d’asile à l’écart de ses frontières. Déchirée sur la question des migrants, l’Europe poursuit une politique déjà expérimentée et critiquée, analyse The New York Times.
►https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/vu-des-etats-unis-lue-choisit-le-rwanda-pour-relocaliser-les-
Le Rwanda, un nouveau #hotspot pour les migrants qui fuient l’enfer libyen
Comme au Niger, le Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés de l’ONU va ouvrir un centre de transit pour accueillir 500 migrants détenus en Libye. D’autres contingents d’évacués pourront prendre le relais au fur et à mesure que les 500 premiers migrants auront une solution d’installation ou de rapatriement.
Quelque 500 migrants actuellement enfermés en centres de détention en Libye vont être évacués vers le Rwanda dans les prochaines semaines, en vertu d’un accord signé mardi 10 septembre par le gouvernement rwandais, le Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés de l’ONU (HCR), et l’Union africaine (UA).
Il s’agira principalement de personnes originaires de la corne de l’Afrique, toutes volontaires pour être évacuées vers le Rwanda. Leur prise en charge à la descente de l’avion sera effectuée par le HCR qui les orientera vers un centre d’accueil temporaire dédié.
Situé à 60 km de Kigali, la capitale rwandaise, le centre de transit de Gashora a été établi en 2015 “pour faire face, à l’époque, à un afflux de migrants burundais” fuyant des violences dans leur pays, explique à InfoMigrants Elise Villechalane, représentante du HCR au Rwanda. D’une capacité de 338 places, l’édifice implanté sur un terrain de 26 hectares a déjà accueilli, au fil des années, un total de 30 000 Burundais. “Des travaux sont en cours pour augmenter la capacité et arriver à 500 personnes”, précise Elise Villechalane.
Les premiers vols d’évacués devraient arriver dans les prochaines semaines et s’étaler sur plusieurs mois. Le HCR estime que le centre tournera à pleine capacité d’ici la fin de l’année. À l’avenir, d’autres contingents d’évacués pourront prendre le relais au fur et à mesure que les 500 premiers migrants quitteront les lieux.
Certains réfugiés "pourraient recevoir l’autorisation de rester au Rwanda"
“Une fois [les migrants] arrivés sur place, nous procéderons à leur évaluation [administrative] afin de trouver une solution au cas par cas”, poursuit Elise Villechalane. “En fonction de leur parcours et de leur vulnérabilité, il pourra leur être proposé une réinstallation dans un pays tiers, ou dans un pays où ils ont déjà obtenu l’asile avant de se rendre en Libye, mais aussi un retour volontaire dans leur pays d’origine quand les conditions pour un rapatriement dans la sécurité et la dignité sont réunies.”
Dans des cas plus rares, et si aucune solution n’est trouvée, certains réfugiés "pourraient recevoir l’autorisation de rester au Rwanda", a indiqué Germaine Kamayirese, la ministre chargée des mesures d’Urgence, lors d’une déclaration à la presse à Kigali.
Le Rwanda a décidé d’accueillir des évacués de Libye à la suite d’un discours du chef de l’État rwandais Paul Kagame le 23 novembre 2017, peu après la diffusion d’un document choc de CNN sur des migrants africains réduits en esclavage en Libye. “Le président a offert généreusement d’accueillir des migrants, ce qui a, depuis, été élargi pour inclure les réfugiés, les demandeurs d’asile et toutes les autres personnes spécifiées dans le mémorandum d’accord”, affirme Olivier Kayumba, secrétaire du ministère chargé de la Gestion des situations d’urgence, contacté par InfoMigrants.
Le pays reconnaît, en outre, qu’il existe actuellement en Libye “une situation de plus en plus complexe et exceptionnelle conduisant à la détention et aux mauvais traitements de ressortissants de pays tiers”, continue Olivier Kayumba qui rappelle qu’en tant que signataire de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés, son pays s’est senti le devoir d’agir.
Le Rwanda prêt à accueillir jusqu’à 30 000 africains évacués
Plus de 149 000 réfugiés, principalement burundais et congolais, vivent actuellement au Rwanda qui compte une population de 12 millions d’habitants. “Les Rwandais sont habitués à vivre en harmonie avec les réfugiés”, ajoute Olivier Kayumba. “Grâce à la mise en place d’une stratégie d’inclusion, les enfants de réfugiés vont à l’école avec les locaux, les communautés d’accueil incluent aussi les réfugiés dans le système d’assurance maladie et d’accès à l’emploi.”
Le gouvernement rwandais se dit prêt à accueillir jusqu’à 30 000 Africains évacués de Libye dans son centre de transit, mais uniquement par groupes de 500, afin d’éviter un engorgement du système d’accueil.
"C’est un moment historique, parce que des Africains tendent la main à d’autres Africains", s’est réjouie Amira Elfadil, commissaire de l’Union africaine (UA) aux Affaires sociales, lors d’une conférence de presse. "Je suis convaincue que cela fait partie des solutions durables".
L’UA espère désormais que d’autres pays africains rejoindront le Rwanda en proposant un soutien similaire aux évacués de Libye.
▻https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/19455/le-rwanda-un-nouveau-hotspot-pour-les-migrants-qui-fuient-l-enfer-liby
Signing of MoU between the AU, Government of Rwanda and UNHCR
Signing of the MoU between the @_AfricanUnion, the Government of #Rwanda and the United Nations High Commissioner for @Refugees (UNHCR) to establish an Emergency Transit Mechanism #ETM in Rwanda for refugees and asylum-seekers stranded in #Libya
▻https://twitter.com/_AfricanUnion/status/1171307373945937920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E11
Lien vers la vidéo:
▻https://livestream.com/AfricanUnion/events/8813789/videos/196081645
#Memorandum_of_understanding #signature #vidéo #MoU #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism #Union_africaine #UA
Le HCR, le Gouvernement rwandais et l’Union africaine signent un accord pour l’évacuation de réfugiés hors de la Libye
Le Gouvernement rwandais, le HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, et l’Union africaine ont signé aujourd’hui un mémorandum d’accord qui prévoit de mettre en œuvre un dispositif pour évacuer des réfugiés hors de la Libye.
Selon cet accord, le Gouvernement rwandais recevra et assurera la protection de réfugiés qui sont actuellement séquestrés dans des centres de détention en Libye. Ils seront transférés en lieu sûr au Rwanda sur une base volontaire.
Un premier groupe de 500 personnes, majoritairement originaires de pays de la corne de l’Afrique, sera évacué. Ce groupe comprend notamment des enfants et des jeunes dont la vie est menacée. Après leur arrivée, le HCR continuera de rechercher des solutions pour les personnes évacuées.
Si certains peuvent bénéficier d’une réinstallation dans des pays tiers, d’autres seront aidés à retourner dans les pays qui leur avait précédemment accordé l’asile ou à regagner leur pays d’origine, s’ils peuvent le faire en toute sécurité. Certains pourront être autorisés à rester au Rwanda sous réserve de l’accord des autorités compétentes.
Les vols d’évacuation devraient commencer dans les prochaines semaines et seront menés en coopération avec les autorités rwandaises et libyennes. L’Union africaine apportera son aide pour les évacuations, fournira un soutien politique stratégique en collaborant avec la formation et la coordination et aidera à mobiliser des ressources. Le HCR assurera des prestations de protection internationale et fournira l’aide humanitaire nécessaire, y compris des vivres, de l’eau, des abris ainsi que des services d’éducation et de santé.
Le HCR exhorte la communauté internationale à contribuer des ressources pour la mise en œuvre de cet accord.
Depuis 2017, le HCR a évacué plus de 4400 personnes relevant de sa compétence depuis la Libye vers d’autres pays, dont 2900 par le biais du mécanisme de transit d’urgence au Niger et 425 vers des pays européens via le centre de transit d’urgence en Roumanie.
Néanmoins, quelque 4700 personnes seraient toujours détenues dans des conditions effroyables à l’intérieur de centres de détention en Libye. Il est urgent de les transférer vers des lieux sûrs, de leur assurer la protection internationale, de leur fournir une aide vitale d’urgence et de leur rechercher des solutions durables.
‘Life-saving’: hundreds of refugees to be evacuated from Libya to Rwanda
First group expected to leave dire detention centres in days, as UN denies reports that plan is part of EU strategy to keep refugees from Europe
Hundreds of African refugees and asylum seekers trapped in Libyan detention centres will be evacuated to Rwanda under a “life-saving” agreement reached with Kigali and the African Union, the UN refugee agency said on Tuesday.
The first group of 500 people, including children and young people from Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan, are expected to arrive in Rwanda over the coming days, out of 4,700 now estimated to be in custody in Libya, where conflict is raging. The measure is part of an “emergency transit mechanism”, to evacuate people at risk of harm in detention centres inside the county.
Babar Baloch, UNHCR spokesman in Geneva, said the agreement was “a life-line” mechanism to allow those in danger to get to a place of safety.
“This is an expansion of the humanitarian evacuation to save lives,” said Baloch. “The focus is on those trapped inside Libya. We’ve seen how horrible the conditions are and we want to get them out of harm’s way.”
More than 50,000 people fleeing war and poverty in Africa remain in Libya, where a network of militias run overcrowded detention centres, and where there are reports that people have been sold as slaves or into prostitution.
The UN denied reports the European Union were behind the agreement, as part of a strategy to keep migrants away from Europe. Vincent Cochetel, the special envoy for the UNHCR for the central Mediterranean, told Reuters the funding would mainly come from the EU, but also from the African Union which has received $20m (£16m) from Qatar to support the reintegration of African migrants. But he later said on Twitter that no funding had yet been received and that he was working on it “with partners” (▻https://twitter.com/cochetel/status/1171400370339373057).
Baloch said: “We are asking for support from all of our donors, including the EU. The arrangement is between UNHCR, the African Union and Rwanda.”
The EU has been criticised for funding the Libyan coastguard, who pick up escaped migrants from boats in the Mediterranean and send them back to centres where they face beatings, sexual violence and forced labour according to rights groups.
In July, the bombing of a migrant detention centre in Tripoli left 44 people dead, leading to international pressure to find a safe haven for refugees.
Fear and despair engulf refugees in Libya’s ’market of human beings’
Read more
Under the agreement, the government of Rwanda will receive and provide protection to refugees and asylum seekers in groups of about 50, who will be put up in a transit facility outside the capital of Kigali. After their arrival, the UNHCR will continue to pursue solutions for them. Some will be resettled to third countries, others helped to return to countries where asylum had previously been granted and others will stay in Rwanda. They will return to their homes if it is safe to do so.
Cochetel said: “The government has said, ‘If you [UNHCR] think the people should stay long-term in Rwanda, no problem. If you think they should be reunited with their family, they should be resettled, no problem. You [UNHCR] decide on the solution.’”
“Rwanda has said, ‘We’ll give them the space, we’ll give them the status, we’ll give them the residence permit. They will be legally residing in Rwanda as refugees.’”
Rwanda, a country of 12 million, is the second African country to provide temporary refuge to migrants in Libya. It already supports around 150,000 refugees from neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi.
UNHCR has evacuated more than 2,900 refugees and asylum seekers out of Libya to Niger through an existing emergency transit mechanism. Almost 2,000 of them have been resettled, to countries in Europe, the US and Canada, the agency said, with the rest remaining in Niger.
▻https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/sep/10/hundreds-refugees-evacuated-libya-to-rwanda?CMP=share_btn_fb
INTERVIEW-African refugees held captive in Libya to go to Rwanda in coming weeks - UNHCR
Hundreds of African refugees trapped in Libyan detention centres will be evacuated to Rwanda within the next few weeks as part of increasingly urgent efforts to relocate people as conflict rages in north African nation, the United Nations said on Tuesday.
Vincent Cochetel, special envoy for the central Mediterranean for the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR), said 500 refugees will be evacuated to Rwanda in a deal signed with the small east African nation and the African Union on Tuesday.
“The agreement with Rwanda says the number can be increased from 500 if they are satisfied with how it works,” Cochetel told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an interview ahead of the official U.N. announcement.
“It really depends on the response of the international community to make it work. But it means we have one more solution to the situation in Libya. It’s not a big fix, but it’s helpful.”
Libya has become the main conduit for Africans fleeing war and poverty trying to reach Europe, since former leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled in a NATO-backed uprising in 2011.
People smugglers have exploited the turmoil to send hundreds of thousands of migrants on dangerous journeys across the central Mediterranean although the number of crossings dropped sharply from 2017 amid an EU-backed push to block arrivals.
Many are picked up at sea by the EU-funded Libyan Coast Guard which sends them back, often to be detained in squalid, overcrowded centres where they face beatings, rape and forced labour, according to aid workers and human rights groups.
According to the UNHCR, there are about 4,700 people from countries such as Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan currently held in Libya’s detention centres, which are nominally under the government but often run by armed groups.
A July air strike by opposition forces, which killed dozens of detainees in a centre in the Libyan capital Tripoli, has increased pressure on the international community to find a safe haven for the refugees and migrants.
▻https://news.yahoo.com/interview-african-refugees-held-captive-100728525.html?guccounter=1&guce
Accueil de migrants évacués de Libye : « Un bon coup politique » pour le Rwanda
Le Rwanda a signé il y a quelques jours à Addis-Abeba un accord avec le Haut-commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR) et l’Union africaine (UA) en vue d’accueillir des migrants bloqués dans l’enfer des centres de détention libyens. Camille Le Coz, analyste au sein du think tank Migration Policy Institute, décrypte cette annonce.
Cinq cent personnes vont être évacuées de Libye vers le Rwanda « dans quelques semaines », a précisé mardi Hope Tumukunde Gasatura, représentante permanente du Rwanda à l’UA, lors d’une conférence de presse à Addis-Abeba où avait lieu la signature de l’accord.
RFI : Le Rwanda accueille déjà près de 150 000 réfugiés venus de RDC et du Burundi. Et ce n’est pas vraiment la porte à côté de la Libye. Sans compter que le régime de Paul Kagame est régulièrement critiqué pour ses violations des droits de l’homme. Alors comment expliquer que cet État se retrouve à prendre en charge des centaines de migrants ?
Camille Le Coz : En fait, tout commence en novembre 2017 après la publication par CNN d’une vidéo révélant l’existence de marchés aux esclaves en Libye. C’est à ce moment-là que Kigali se porte volontaire pour accueillir des migrants bloqués en Libye. Mais c’est finalement vers l’Europe et le Niger, voisin de la Libye, que s’organisent ces évacuations. Ainsi, depuis 2017, près de 4 000 réfugiés ont été évacués de Libye, dont 2 900 au Niger. La plupart d’entre eux ont été réinstallés dans des pays occidentaux ou sont en attente de réinstallation. Mais du fait de la reprise des combats en Libye cet été, ce mécanisme est vite apparu insuffisant. L’option d’organiser des évacuations vers le Rwanda a donc été réactivée et a donné lieu à des discussions avec Kigali, le HCR, l’UA mais aussi l’UE sur les aspects financiers.
Quel bénéfice le Rwanda peut-il tirer de cet accord ?
Pour le Rwanda, faire valoir la solidarité avec les migrants africains en Libye est un bon coup politique, à la fois sur la scène internationale et avec ses partenaires africains. La situation des migrants en Libye est au cœur de l’actualité et les ONG et l’ONU alertent régulièrement sur les conditions effroyables pour les migrants sur place. Donc d’un point de vue politique, c’est très valorisant pour le Rwanda d’accueillir ces personnes.
Que va-t-il se passer pour ces personnes quand elles vont arriver au Rwanda ?
En fait, ce mécanisme soulève deux questions. D’une part, qui sont les migrants qui vont être évacués vers le Rwanda ? D’après ce que l’on sait, ce sont plutôt des gens de la Corne de l’Afrique et plutôt des gens très vulnérables, notamment des enfants. D’autre part, quelles sont les solutions qui vont leur être offertes au Rwanda ? La première option prévue par l’accord, c’est la possibilité pour ces personnes de retourner dans leur pays d’origine. La deuxième option, c’est le retour dans un pays dans lequel ces réfugiés ont reçu l’asile dans le passé. Cela pourrait par exemple s’appliquer à des Érythréens réfugiés en Éthiopie avant de partir vers l’Europe. Ces deux options demanderont néanmoins un suivi sérieux des conditions de retour : comment s’assurer que ces retours seront effectivement volontaires, et comment garantir la réintégration de ces réfugiés ? La troisième option, ce serait la possibilité pour certains de rester au Rwanda mais on ne sait pas encore sous quel statut. Enfin, ce que l’on ne sait pas encore, c’est si des États européens s’engageront à relocaliser certains de ces rescapés.
Cet accord est donc une réplique de celui conclu avec le Niger, qui accueille depuis 2017 plusieurs milliers de réfugiés évacués de Tripoli ?
L’approche est la même mais d’après ce que l’on sait pour l’instant, les possibilités offertes aux réfugiés évacués sont différentes : dans le cas du mécanisme avec le Niger, les pays européens mais également les États-Unis, le Canada, la Norvège et la Suisse s’étaient engagés à réinstaller une partie de ces réfugiés. Dans le cas du Rwanda, on n’a pas encore eu de telles promesses.
Cet accord est-il la traduction de l’évolution de la politique migratoire européenne ?
Aujourd’hui, près de 5 000 migrants et réfugiés sont dans des centres de détention en Libye où les conditions sont horribles. Donc la priorité, c’est de les en sortir. Les évacuations vers le Rwanda peuvent participer à la résolution de ce problème. Mais il reste entier puisque les garde-côtes libyens, financés par l’Europe, continuent d’intercepter des migrants qui partent vers l’Italie et de les envoyer vers ces centres de détention. En d’autres termes, cet accord apporte une réponse partielle et de court terme à un problème qui résulte très largement de politiques européennes.
On entend parfois parler d’« externalisation des frontières » de l’Europe. En gros, passer des accords avec des pays comme le Rwanda permettrait aussi d’éloigner le problème des migrants des côtes européennes. Est-ce vraiment la stratégie de l’Union européenne ?
Ces évacuations vers le Rwanda sont plutôt un mécanisme d’urgence pour répondre aux besoins humanitaires pressants de migrants et réfugiés détenus en Libye (lire encadré). Mais il est clair que ces dernières années, la politique européenne a consisté à passer des accords avec des pays voisins afin qu’ils renforcent leurs contrôles frontaliers. C’est le cas par exemple avec la Turquie et la Libye. En échange, l’Union européenne leur fournit une assistance financière et d’autres avantages économiques ou politiques. L’Union européenne a aussi mis une partie de sa politique de développement au service d’objectifs migratoires, avec la création d’un Fond fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique en 2015, qui vise notamment à développer la capacité des États africains à mettre en œuvre leur propre politique migratoire et à améliorer la gestion de leurs frontières. C’est le cas notamment au Niger où l’Union européenne a soutenu les autorités pour combattre les réseaux de passeurs et contrôler les passages vers la Libye.
Justement, pour le Rwanda, y a-t-il une contrepartie financière ?
L’accord est entre le HCR, l’UA et le Rwanda. Mais le soutien financier de l’Union européenne paraît indispensable pour la mise en œuvre de ce plan. Reste à voir comment cela pourrait se matérialiser. Est-ce que ce sera un soutien financier pour ces 500 personnes ? Des offres de relocalisation depuis le Rwanda ? Ou, puisque l’on sait que le Rwanda a signé le Pacte mondial sur les réfugiés, l’Union européenne pourrait-elle appuyer la mise en œuvre des plans d’action de Kigali dans ce domaine ? Ce pourrait être une idée.
La commissaire de l’UA aux affaires sociales Amira El Fadil s’est dite convaincue que ce genre de partenariat pourrait constituer des solutions « durables ». Qu’en pensez-vous ?
C’est un signe positif que des pays africains soient plus impliqués sur ce dossier puisque ces questions migratoires demandent une gestion coordonnée de part et d’autre de la Méditerranée. Maintenant, il reste à voir quelles solutions seront offertes à ces 500 personnes puisque pour l’instant, le plan paraît surtout leur proposer de retourner dans le pays qu’elles ont quitté. Par ailleurs, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que la plupart des réfugiés africains ne sont pas en Libye, mais en Afrique. Les plus gros contingents sont au Soudan, en Ouganda et en Éthiopie et donc, les solutions durables sont d’abord et avant tout à mettre en œuvre sur le continent.
■ Un geste de solidarité de la part du Rwanda, selon le HCR
Avec notre correspondant à Genève, Jérémie Lanche
D’après le porte-parole du HCR Babar Baloch, l’accueil par Kigali d’un premier contingent de réfugiés est une « bouée de sauvetage » pour tous ceux pris au piège en Libye. L’Union européenne, dont les côtes sont de plus en plus inaccessibles pour les candidats à l’exil, pourrait financer une partie de l’opération, même si rien n’est officiel. Mais pour le HCR, l’essentiel est ailleurs. La vie des migrants en Libye est en jeu, dit Babar Baloch :
« Il ne faut pas oublier qu’il y a quelques semaines, un centre de détention [pour migrants] a été bombardé en Libye. Plus de 50 personnes ont été tuées. Mais même sans parler de ça, les conditions dans ces centres sont déplorables. Il faut donc sortir ceux qui s’y trouvent le plus rapidement possible. Et à part le Niger, le Rwanda est le deuxième pays qui s’est manifesté pour nous aider à sauver ces vies. »
Les réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile doivent être logés dans des installations qui ont déjà servi pour accueillir des réfugiés burundais. Ceux qui le souhaitent pourront rester au Rwanda et y travailler selon Kigali. Les autres pourront être relocalisés dans des pays tiers voire dans leur pays d’origine s’ils le souhaitent. Le Rwanda se dit prêt à recevoir en tout dans ses centres de transit jusqu’à 30 000 Africains bloqués en Libye.
"Depuis un demi-siècle, le Rwanda a produit beaucoup de réfugiés. Donc le fait qu’il y ait une telle tragédie, une telle détresse, de la part de nos frères et soeurs africains, cela nous interpelle en tant que Rwandais. Ce dont on parle, c’est un centre de transit d’urgence. Une fois [qu’ils seront] arrivés au Rwanda, le HCR va continuer à trouver une solution pour ces personnes. Certains seront envoyés au pays qui leur ont accordé asile, d’autres seront envoyés aux pays tiers et bien sûr d’autres pourront retourner dans leur pays si la situation sécuritaire le permet. Bien sûr, ceux qui n’auront pas d’endroits où aller pourront rester au Rwanda. Cela devra nécessiter bien sûr l’accord des autorités de notre pays." Olivier Nduhungirehe, secrétaire d’État en charge de la Coopération et de la Communauté est-africaine
▻http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20190912-accord-accueil-migrants-rwanda-libye-politique
‘Maybe they can forget us there’: Refugees in Libya await move to Rwanda
Hundreds in detention centres expected to be transferred under deal partly funded by EU
Hundreds of refugees in Libya are expected to be moved to Rwanda in the coming weeks, under a new deal partly funded by the European Union.
“This is an expansion of the humanitarian evacuation to save lives,” said Babar Baloch, from the United Nations Refugee Agency. “The focus is on those trapped inside Libya. We’ve seen how horrible the conditions are and we want to get them out of harm’s way.”
Many of the refugees and migrants expected to be evacuated have spent years between detention centres run by Libya’s Department for Combatting Illegal Migration, and smugglers known for brutal torture and abuse, after fleeing war or dictatorships in their home countries.
They have also been victims of the European Union’s hardening migration policy, which involves supporting the Libyan coast guard to intercept boats full of people who try to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe, returning those on board to indefinite detention in a Libya at war.
Apprehension
In Libyan capital Tripoli, refugees and migrants who spoke to The Irish Times by phone were apprehensive. They questioned whether they will be allowed to work and move freely in Rwanda, and asked whether resettlement spaces to other countries will be offered, or alternative opportunities to rebuild their lives in the long-term.
“People want to go. We want to go,” said one detainee, with slight desperation, before asking if Rwanda is a good place to be. “Please if you know about Rwanda tell me.”
“We heard about the evacuation plan to Rwanda, but we have a lot of questions,” said another detainee currently in Zintan detention centre, where 22 people died in eight months because of a lack of medical care and abysmal living conditions. “Maybe they can forget us there.”
In a statement, UNHCR said that while some evacuees may benefit from resettlement to other countries or may be allowed to stay in Rwanda in the long term, others would be helped to go back to countries where they had previously been granted asylum, or to their home countries, if safe.
The original group of evacuees is expected to include 500 volunteers.
Rwanda’s government signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations Refugee Agency and the African Union on September 10th to confirm the deal.
In 2017, a year-long investigation by Foreign Policy magazine found that migrants and refugees were being sent to Rwanda or Uganda from detention centres in Israel, and then moved illegally into third countries, where they had no rights or any chance to make an asylum claim.
Officials working on the latest deal say they are trying to make sure this doesn’t happen again.
“We are afraid, especially in terms of time,” said an Eritrean, who witnessed a fellow detainee burn himself to death in Triq al Sikka detention centre last year, after saying he had lost hope in being evacuated.
“How long will we stay in Rwanda? Because we stayed in Libya more than two years, and have been registered by UNHCR for almost two years. Will we take similar time in Rwanda? It is difficult for asylum seekers.”
►https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/maybe-they-can-forget-us-there-refugees-in-libya-await-move-to-rwanda-1.
Le Rwanda accueille des premiers migrants évacués de Libye
Le Rwanda a accueilli ce jeudi soir le premier groupe de réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile en provenance de Libye, dans le cadre d’un accord signé récemment entre ce pays, le Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés et l’Union africaine.
L’avion affrété par le Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés a atterri à Kigali cette nuit. À son bord, 59 hommes et 7 femmes, en grande majorité Erythréens, mais aussi Somaliens et Soudanais. Le plus jeune migrant en provenance des centres de détention libyens est un bébé de 2 mois et le plus âgé un homme de 39 ans.
Ils ont été accueillis en toute discrétion, très loin des journalistes qui n’ont pas eu accès à l’aéroport international de Kigali. « Ce ne sont pas des gens qui reviennent d’une compétition de football avec une coupe et qui rentrent joyeux. Non, ce sont des gens qui rentrent traumatisés et qui ont besoin d’une certaine dignité, de respect. Ils étaient dans une situation très chaotique », justifie Olivier Kayumba, secrétaire permanent du ministère en charge de la gestion des Urgences.
Des bus les ont ensuite acheminés vers le site de transit de Gashora, à quelque 60 km au sud-est de Kigali. Une structure qui peut accueillir pour le moment un millier de personnes, mais dont la capacité peut être portée rapidement à 8 000, selon le responsable rwandais.
Des ONG ont accusé le Rwanda d’avoir monté toute cette opération pour redorer l’image d’un régime qui viole les droits de l’homme. Olivier Kayumba balaie cette accusation. « Nous agissons pour des raisons humanitaires et par panafricanisme », explique-t-il. Selon les termes de l’accord, 500 migrants coincés dans les camps en Libye doivent être accueillis provisoirement au Rwanda, avant de trouver des pays d’accueil.
Évacués au Rwanda, les réfugiés de Libye continuent de rêver d’Europe
Le Rwanda accueille depuis quelques semaines des demandeurs d’asile évacués de Libye, dans le cadre d’un accord avec le Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés et l’Union africaine signé le mois dernier. Un programme d’urgence présenté comme une réponse à la crise des quelque 4 700 réfugiés et migrants bloqués dans ce pays en guerre. Reportage.
Le centre de #Gashora est en pleine effervescence. Situé dans la région du #Bugesera, au sud de Kigali, il accueillait auparavant des réfugiés venus du Burundi. Aujourd’hui, des équipes s’affairent pour rénover et agrandir les structures afin d’héberger les quelque 500 réfugiés évacués de Libye que le Rwanda a promis d’accueillir dans un premier temps.
Les 189 demandeurs d’asile déjà arrivés sont logés dans de petites maisons de briques disséminées dans les bois alentour. Un groupe de jeunes en jogging et baskets se passent la balle sur un terrain de volley. D’autres, le regard fuyant, parfois égaré, sont assis sur des bancs à l’ombre.
« Je n’ai pas encore réalisé mon rêve »
Rodouane Abdallah accepte de parler aux journalistes, arrivés en groupe dans un bus acheminé par le gouvernement rwandais. Originaire du Darfour, ce jeune homme de 18 ans au regard doux a posé le pied en Libye en 2017. Il a tenté sept fois de traverser la Méditerranée. Il a survécu par miracle.
Aujourd’hui, il se souvient encore de toutes les dates avec précision : le nombre de jours et d’heures passées en mer, les mois en détention. Deux ans entre les mains de geôliers ou de passeurs. « Là bas, vous êtes nourris seulement une fois par jour, vous buvez l’eau des toilettes, vous ne pouvez pas vous doucher et vous devez travailler gratuitement sinon vous êtes battus », se souvient-il.
Rodouane est aujourd’hui logé et nourri à Gashora. Il bénéficie également de soins médicaux et psychologiques. Cependant, il voit le Rwanda comme une simple étape : « Je suis heureux d’avoir eu la chance de pouvoir venir ici. C’est mieux qu’en Libye. Mais je ne suis pas arrivé à la fin de mon voyage, car je n’ai pas encore réalisé mon rêve. Je veux aller en Europe et devenir ingénieur en informatique », assure-t-il. Ce rêve, cette idée fixe, tous la martèlent aux journalistes. Pourtant les places en Europe risquent d’être limitées.
« #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism »
Dans le cadre de l’Emergency Transit Mechanism (#ETM), le nom donné à ce programme d’#évacuation d’urgence, les réfugiés de Gashora ont aujourd’hui plusieurs possibilités. Ils peuvent soit faire une demande d’asile dans un pays occidental, soit rentrer chez eux si les conditions sécuritaires sont réunies, soit bénéficier d’un processus de réinstallation dans un pays tiers sur le continent africain. Les mineurs non accompagnés pourraient ainsi rejoindre leur famille et les étudiants s’inscrire dans des universités de la région selon le HCR.
« Ils ont beaucoup souffert pour atteindre l’Europe, c’est donc un objectif qui est encore très cher à leur cœur. Mais maintenant qu’ils sont au Rwanda, nous essayons d’identifier avec eux toute une palette de solutions », explique Élise Villechalane, chargée des relations extérieures du HCR au Rwanda.
Mais la démarche inquiète déjà certains réfugiés : « Les pays européens dépensent beaucoup d’argent pour nous éloigner de la mer Méditerranée. Et si c’est pour cela qu’on a été amenés ici, ce serait honteux. La seule chose que je pourrais faire serait de retourner en Libye et de tenter de traverser la Méditerranée », explique un jeune Érythréen, qui préfère garder l’anonymat.
Une solution viable ?
Le Rwanda n’est pas le premier pays à mettre en place ce type de mécanisme. Le Niger a lui aussi lancé un ETM en 2017. Depuis, environ 2 900 réfugiés y ont été évacués de Libye. Environ 1 700 d’entre eux ont été réinstallés dans des pays occidentaux à ce jour. Aujourd’hui, l’Union africaine et le HCR appellent d’autres pays africains à suivre l’exemple. Mais certaines ONG sont sceptiques quant à la viabilité du système.
Au Niger, le traitement des dossiers est long, ce qui crée des tensions. Le #Mixed_Migration_Center, un centre de recherche indépendant, rapporte que des réfugiés auraient ainsi attaqué un véhicule du HCR en signe de protestation dans le centre de transit d’Hamdallaye en juin dernier.
Plus généralement, Johannes Claes, chef de projet Afrique de l’Ouest au MMC, dénonce une externalisation des obligations des pays occidentaux en matière de droit d’asile : « Avec ce type schéma, l’UE délègue une part de sa responsabilité au continent africain. C’est d’autant plus cynique quand on sait que l’Union européenne finance les garde-côtes libyens qui interceptent les migrants avant de les envoyer en centre de détention », explique-t-il.
Du côté des signataires de l’accord, on présente le projet sous un jour différent : « Ce qui compte aujourd’hui, c’est que ces personnes sont en sécurité le temps que leurs dossiers soient traités. Et je suis fière que le Rwanda se soit porté volontaire », indique Hope Tumukunde, représentante permanente du Rwanda à l’Union africaine.
Début septembre, au moment de la signature de l’accord, Vincent Cochetel, l’envoyé spécial du HCR pour la situation en Méditerranée, assurait à Reuters que la plus grande partie du financement de ce mécanisme d’évacuation d’urgence viendrait de l’Union européenne. Il est depuis revenu sur ces déclarations. Pour le moment, c’est le HCR qui assure la totalité du financement de l’opération.
►http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20191103-rwanda-refugies-libye-hcr-ua
UNHCR in talks to send African migrants to ‘safe’ countries, let others stay
►https://seenthis.net/messages/815262
#Israël
–-> parmi les “safe third countries” il y aurait le Rwanda...
Norway opens its doors to 600 people evacuated from Libya to Rwanda
Refugees and asylum seekers who found respite in Rwanda camp after escaping conflict in Libya will be resettled in Norway.
Hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers evacuated from Libyan detention centres to a transit camp in Rwanda are to be resettled this year in Norway, according to Rwanda’s foreign minister.
Speaking at a news conference in Kigali on Wednesday, Rwanda’s foreign minister Vincent Biruta said the African nation was currently hosting more than 300 refugees and asylum seekers at the Gashora transit centre south of Kigali, most of whom hail from Somalia, Sudan and Eritrea, according to CGTN Africa.
Only Norway and Sweden had so far agreed to resettle people from the camp, Biruta added. Norway agreed to resettle 600 people, while Sweden had so far accepted seven, according to Biruta.
Rwanda signed a deal with the UN and African Union in September aimed at resettling people who had been detained in Libya while trying to reach Europe. More than 4,000 people are believed to still be living in Libyan detention centres, according to the latest figures.
In a statement to Reuters, Norwegian justice minister Jøran Kallmyr said the plan to resettle 600 people proved that “we don’t support cynical people smugglers, and instead bring in people who need protection in an organised manner”.
Kallmyr added: “A transit camp like the one in Rwanda will contribute to that effort.”
Norway’s four-party government coalition agreed last year to accept a total of 3,000 refugees from UN camps in 2020.
The UN in Libya has come under intense criticism for complying with EU migration policy, which entails funding the Libyan coastguard to intercept boats with refugees and migrants destined for Europe. Many people end up detained in militia-run centres and subjected to grave human rights abuses, including sexual abuse, denial of food and water, and forced recruitment into the on-going Libyan conflict.
Elisabeth Haslund, Nordic spokesperson for the UN refugee agency, said that of the 4,000-plus people estimated to still be detained in Libyan centres, roughly 2,500 people are refugees and asylum-seekers.
“As the violence and unrest have been intensifying in Libya and thousands of refugees are still at risk in the country, the evacuations of the most vulnerable refugees are more urgent than ever,” said Haslund.
“UNHCR very much welcomes Norway’s decision to resettle refugees who have been evacuated to Rwanda and also notes the important and valuable financial contributions from Norway to help support the operation of the transit centre in Gashora.”
As the 600 people who are expected to be resettled this year in Norway had not yet been chosen, Haslund added, it was impossible to give details on their age, gender or country of origin.
▻https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jan/10/norway-opens-its-doors-to-600-people-evacuated-from-libya-to-rwanda
ping @reka
Países europeos acogerán a más de 500 refugiados evacuados de Libia a Ruanda
Noruega, Suecia y Francia han prometido acoger a más de medio millar de refugiados y solicitantes de asilo que fueron evacuados de Libia y están alojados de forma temporal en Ruanda, confirmaron hoy a Efe fuentes oficiales ruandesas.
«Actualmente, tenemos a 306 que van a ser reubicados en Noruega, Suecia y Francia», dijo a Efe el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Ruanda, Vincent Biruta.
Después de esa primera tanda, Ruanda enviará al siguiente grupo.
Según Biruta, Noruega ha aceptado alojar a 500, Suecia a siete y Francia también acogerá a algunos (sin especificar la cifra).
La reubicación producirá después de que Ruanda firmara el año pasado un acuerdo con la Agencia de Refugiados de la ONU (Acnur) y la Unión Africana (UA) para alojar temporalmente a refugiados y solicitantes de asilo que estaban atrapados en centros de detención en Libia.
Los evacuados, incluidos bebés, procedían principalmente de la zona occidental de África -de naciones como Somalia, Sudán o Eritrea- y quedaban alojados en Ruanda bajo un Mecanismo de Tránsito de Emergencia.
Ya en Ruanda, los refugiados podrían ser voluntariamente reubicados en terceros países, viajar a aquellos donde el asilo les haya sido concedido o regresar a sus naciones en caso de que se tratase de una alternativa segura.
También se podían quedar a vivir en Ruanda si conseguían el permiso de las autoridades de este país, que acoge a más de 145.000 refugiados y solicitantes de asilo (principalmente de Burundi y de la República Democrática del Congo), según cifras de Acnur.
«Hemos recibido compromisos de Francia, Noruega y Suecia. Siete personas ya se marcharon a Suecia en diciembre», confirmó a Efe Elise Villechalane, portavoz de Acnur en Kigali.
También explicó que no está claro que la oferta de Noruega se refiera específicamente al grupo de rescatados de libia, aunque expresó esperanzas de que la mayor parte de plazas sean destinadas a ellos.
«Lo que hacemos es procesar los casos, hacer entrevistas con ellos y, entonces, los casos son propuestos y enviados a Noruega. Pero, al final, la decisión la toma el Gobierno noruego», detalló.
La prioridad será, según Villechalane, reubicar a 168 menores no acompañados que están bajo el Mecanismo de Tránsito de Emergencia ruandés, siempre que se haya determinado previamente que no hay alternativas mejores, como encontrar a sus padres.
«Aunque algunos países han pedido específicamente a los menores no acompañados, tenemos que averiguar que sea en lo mejor para ellos», precisó la portavoz.
El Mecanismo de Tránsito de Emergencia ruandés se estableció para dar alojamiento temporal a los evacuados de Libia, a la espera de encontrar soluciones duraderas para ellos, tales como la repatriación o la reubicación.
Libia es un Estado fallido, víctima del caos y la guerra civil, desde que hace ocho años la OTAN contribuyera militarmente a la victoria de los heterogéneos grupos rebeldes sobre la dictadura de Muamar el Gadafi.
▻https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20200109/472795695059/paises-europeos-acogeran-a-mas-de-500-refugiados-evacuados-de-libia-a-
#Norvège #Suède #France
Le Rwanda reçoit des réfugiés évacués de Libye, « solution africaine aux problèmes africains »
Depuis septembre 2019, 500 demandeurs d’asile ont atterri dans le petit Etat d’Afrique centrale en attendant que leur dossier soit traité dans un pays occidental.
Autour d’un baby-foot, une dizaine de jeunes Erythréens luttent contre l’ennui, en savourant une liberté retrouvée. Il y a quatre mois encore, ils étaient en détention en Libye, sur la route de l’Europe, et les voilà redescendus 4 000 kilomètres plus au sud, dans un centre de transit du district de Gashora, dans l’est du Rwanda.
Selon un accord signé en septembre 2019 avec le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) et l’Union africaine, ce petit pays d’Afrique centrale s’est engagé à accueillir un premier contingent de 500 réfugiés évacués de Libye, jusqu’à ce que leur demande d’asile soit traitée. Dans le cadre de ce programme appelé « Mécanisme de transit d’urgence » (ETM), ils pourront bénéficier de l’asile dans un pays occidental, être rapatriés dans leur pays d’origine, réinstallés dans un pays de la région ou rester au Rwanda. En 2017, le gouvernement rwandais s’était dit prêt à recevoir jusqu’à 30 000 migrants africains sur son sol, mais uniquement par groupe de 500, afin d’éviter tout débordement.
Protéger des persécutions
Ce système est présenté par le HCR comme une réponse à la crise des réfugiés en Libye : plus de 40 000 sont enregistrés dans le pays et quelque 4 000, parmi eux, sont actuellement bloqués dans des centres de détention, où l’accès des travailleurs humanitaires est restreint. « Notre but est de les protéger des persécutions dont ils sont victimes là-bas et de leur éviter une traversée dangereuse de la Méditerranée tout en leur proposant une palette de solutions », explique Elise Villechalane, porte-parole de l’agence onusienne à Kigali.
Pour le Rwanda, qui accueille déjà 150 000 réfugiés venus principalement de la République démocratique du Congo (RDC) et du Burundi, c’est une manière de soutenir des « solutions africaines aux problèmes africains », l’un des mantras du président Paul Kagame. « C’est une question d’humanité. Nous portons une assistance aux autres Africains qui souffrent en Libye », ajoutait récemment Olivier Kayumba, secrétaire permanent au ministère de la gestion des urgences (Minema), lors d’une visite du centre de Gashora.
Auparavant destiné à l’accueil de réfugiés burundais, le centre, situé dans la région du Bugesera, au sud de Kigali, a donc fait peau neuve. Les petites maisons de briques disséminées dans les bois hébergent 300 demandeurs d’asile, majoritairement originaires d’Erythrée, de Somalie, d’Ethiopie et du Soudan. Ils sont libres de se rendre dans les villages alentour, peuvent suivre des cours de langue et bénéficient d’un suivi psychologique et médical.
Quatre mois après la première évacuation, sept réfugiés ont déjà bénéficié d’un processus de réinstallation vers la Suède, une trentaine d’autres se préparent à les suivre et deux ont fait une demande de retour vers la Somalie, leur pays d’origine. Les autres attendent d’être fixés sur leur sort. Parfois avec inquiétude.
« Ils nous disent que certains vont rester au Rwanda, lâche Robiel, un jeune Erythréen de 24 ans, mais le Rwanda, ce n’est pas ma destination. J’ai trop souffert, perdu trop d’argent et trop de temps pour arriver en Europe. » Assis sur un banc, il écoute ses amis jouer du krar, un instrument à cordes traditionnel de la Corne de l’Afrique. Le regard fuyant, il égrène les innombrables étapes d’une errance de plus de quatre ans qui a coûté 14 000 dollars (12 700 euros) à sa famille. Son départ d’Erythrée en bateau vers Port-Soudan, puis l’Egypte, où il est emprisonné sept mois avant d’être renvoyé en Ethiopie. Un nouveau départ vers le Soudan, puis la Libye et sa tentative de traversée de la Méditerranée. Après vingt-trois heures en mer, son bateau est intercepté par des gardes-côtes libyens et il est envoyé en centre de détention.
« Là-bas, c’est l’enfer sur Terre. Il y a beaucoup de maladies. J’ai vu des gens se faire torturer. Les policiers prennent des drogues la nuit et viennent pour battre les détenus », se souvient-il. Au terme de trois ans de détention, il est finalement sélectionné par le HCR pour être évacué au Rwanda, un pays encore plus éloigné des frontières de l’espace Schengen que son point de départ.
Gérer les frustrations
Le Rwanda n’est pas le premier pays à mettre en place ce type de mécanisme. Depuis le mois de novembre 2017, le Niger en a déjà accueilli environ 3 000 dans le cadre d’un accord similaire avec le HCR. Parmi eux, 2 300 ont bénéficié d’une réinstallation dans un pays occidental. « Cependant, le traitement des dossiers peut prendre beaucoup de temps, ce qui pose la question de la capacité qu’ont ces pays de transit à accueillir les réfugiés sur le long terme et à gérer les frustrations qui vont avec », tempère Johannes Claes, expert sur les migrations en Afrique de l’Ouest.
Le Mixed Migration Centre, un centre de recherche indépendant, rapporte que, lors de la Journée mondiale des réfugiés, le 20 juin 2019, des demandeurs d’asile évacués de Libye en 2017 ont attaqué des véhicules du HCR en signe de protestation contre leur situation, dans le centre de transit d’Hamdallaye, à 40 kilomètres de Niamey. « Avec ce système, les pays occidentaux délèguent leurs responsabilités en termes d’asile à d’autres Etats et c’est une tendance inquiétante », conclut Johannes Claes.
A ce jour, quatre pays ont promis d’accueillir des réfugiés de Gashora : la France (100), la Suède (150), le Canada (200) et la Norvège (450). Le programme a obtenu le soutien de l’Union européenne, qui a promis une participation à hauteur de 10 millions d’euros. La Norvège finance également une partie des frais du centre de transit. Joran Kallmyr, membre du Parti du progrès norvégien, une mouvance populiste et anti-immigration qui vient de quitter le gouvernement, est d’ailleurs venu au centre de Gashora en janvier.
Celui qui était alors ministre norvégien de la justice et de l’immigration a salué l’initiative rwandaise. « C’est très bien que le Rwanda accueille les réfugiés les plus vulnérables afin que leur demande d’asile soit examinée ici, sur le continent africain, plutôt que les migrants viennent en Europe déposer leur demande et que la plupart d’entre eux soient finalement renvoyés en Afrique », a-t-il déclaré, semblant ainsi plaider pour une généralisation du système.
Alors que plus de 1 000 migrants sont morts en 2019 en tentant de traverser la Méditerranée, les signataires de l’accord insistent, quant à eux, sur les vies sauvées. « Ce qui compte, aujourd’hui, c’est que ces personnes sont en sécurité le temps que leur dossier soit traité. Et je suis fière que le Rwanda se soit porté volontaire », avait déclaré Hope Tumukunde, représentante permanente du Rwanda à l’Union africaine, à la suite des premières évacuations à la fin du mois de septembre.
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2020/01/29/le-rwanda-recoit-des-refugies-evacues-de-libye-solution-africaine-aux-proble
Rwanda : la nouvelle vie des réfugiés sortis de l’enfer libyen
Depuis quelques mois, le Rwanda accueille des réfugiés exfiltrés des camps en Libye. Souvent très jeunes, ils réapprennent à vivre, sans oublier leurs traumatismes, en attendant un éventuel départ vers l’Europe. Reportage à Gashora, au sud du pays, qui a lui-même longtemps connu le drame de l’exil forcé.
« Je veux quitter l’Afrique ! Je n’y ai connu que la mort et la violence. En Europe, je pourrais peut-être étudier ? Apprendre la sociologie ? » suggère Mati, 16 ans, la tête couronnée de petites dreadlocks. Voilà déjà plus de trois ans qu’il a quitté son pays natal, le Soudan du Sud dévasté par la guerre, laissant derrière lui la maison familiale calcinée à Bentiu, ville martyre décimée par les combats entre fractions rivales. Sa fuite l’a conduit en Libye, et ce fut un autre enfer. Après avoir échoué à traverser la Méditerranée, suite à une panne de moteur, il finit par se retrouver dans le sinistre camp de détention de Tadjoura. N’échappant que par miracle au bombardement du 2 juillet 2019 qui y a fait plusieurs dizaines de morts. Un carnage dont la responsabilité a été attribuée à « un avion étranger », selon les conclusions de l’enquête de l’ONU rendue publique lundi.
En ce mois de janvier pourtant, Mati sourit enfin : la Libye n’est plus qu’un mauvais souvenir. Il en a été évacué en novembre, non pas vers l’Europe mais au Rwanda. Se retrouver au cœur de l’Afrique des Grands Lacs ? Ce n’est pas exactement ce qu’il avait envisagé. « Mais le Rwanda m’a sauvé la vie. En Libye, on était traités comme des animaux », reconnaît-il.
C’est en 2017, peu après la diffusion d’un reportage de CNN accusant les Libyens de « vendre » les réfugiés sur des marchés aux esclaves, que le président rwandais Paul Kagame s’était engagé à accueillir dans son pays, par vagues successives, jusqu’à 30 000 Africains détenus en Libye. Fin 2019, un accord avec l’Union européenne a permis d’exfiltrer vers le Rwanda quelque 300 réfugiés, tous ressortissants de cinq pays africains : la Somalie, l’Erythrée, l’Ethiopie, le Soudan et le Soudan du Sud.
Rêves d’Europe
Le deal est simple : avec une aide 10 millions d’euros de la part de l’UE, le Rwanda s’engage à héberger des groupes de réfugiés choisis en Libye parmi les plus vulnérables, et qui auront désormais le choix entre rester en Afrique ou postuler pour une demande d’asile dans des pays européens volontaires pour les accueillir. Comme Mati, tous veulent retenter leur chance vers l’Europe. Sept d’entre eux sont déjà partis en Suède. La France s’est engagée à en accueillir 100, le Canada 200 et la Norvège 450. En attendant d’autres propositions. L’accord a suscité quelques critiques : n’est-ce pas encore une façon pour l’Europe de se défausser ? En délocalisant en Afrique la gestion de ces migrations, comme ce fut déjà le cas lors d’un deal équivalent conclu avec le Niger ? Et si l’Europe ne tient pas ses promesses, que deviendront ces réfugiés qui n’ont pas renoncé à leurs rêves ?
Ils sont pour la plupart très jeunes, plus de la moitié sont même encore mineurs. Et dans l’immédiat, leur soulagement est palpable à Gashora, petite localité du sud du Rwanda où ils ont été installés. Une mélodie éthiopienne s’échappe de l’un des bâtiments en briques du camp qui a longtemps servi de centre de transit pour des réfugiés venus du Burundi voisin. Plus loin, un groupe d’ados, agglutinés autour d’un baby-foot, hèlent avec des accents taquins deux jeunes filles en leggings qui minaudent en agitant leurs longs cheveux bouclés. « Ils se comportent enfin comme tous les jeunes gens de leur âge », murmure, en les observant, Elysée Kalyango, le directeur du centre. « Quand ils sont arrivés ici, ils avaient l’air si traumatisés. Maigres, avec des yeux exorbités. Petit à petit, ils ont repris des forces, ils ont tous grossi ! » souligne-t-il.
Hanté par « les images de la vie d’avant »
Les souffrances ne sont pas effacées pour autant. Seul Sud-Soudanais évacué au Rwanda, Mati ne parvient pas à oublier ses compatriotes restés en Libye : « Je pense sans cesse à eux qui continuent à subir les coups et les menaces. Il faut les évacuer eux aussi ! » plaide-t-il. Dalmar, lui, reste hanté par « les images de la vie d’avant ». Ce jeune Somalien de 21 ans, originaire de la ville de Baled Hawa à la frontière avec le Kenya, a vu son père et son frère tués sous ses yeux par les chebabs, ces milices jihadistes qui sèment toujours la terreur dans son pays. Chaque soir, il redoute presque de s’endormir et d’ouvrir ainsi la porte à ses cauchemars. Mais désormais il peut aussi rêver à haute voix de devenir footballeur professionnel.
Lui, comme les autres réfugiés, connaît peu l’histoire du Rwanda, encore marqué par le génocide des Tutsis en 1994. Ils ne savent pas non plus qu’avant même cette tragédie, les massacres récurrents de Tutsis avaient poussé plusieurs générations de Rwandais sur les routes de l’exil. L’actuel président lui-même avait dû fuir son pays à l’âge de 4 ans, et a grandi dans un camp en Ouganda. La crise des réfugiés rwandais des années 60 fut d’ailleurs la première à laquelle le Haut Commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR), créé en 1950, fut confronté en Afrique subsaharienne. Cette mémoire collective explique peut-être aussi la main tendue à ceux qui subissent désormais le même sort, alors que ce petit pays, l’un des plus densément peuplés du continent (463 habitants au km2) accueille déjà près de 150 000 réfugiés burundais et congolais.
A Gashora, les jeunes venus de Libye découvrent peu à peu leur nouvel environnement, libres de se balader dans le village de Gashora. Mais ils ignorent certainement ce que signifie le nom de la localité la plus proche, Nyabagendwa, en kinyarwanda, la langue nationale du Rwanda : « Soyez les bienvenus. »
▻https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2020/01/30/rwanda-la-nouvelle-vie-des-refugies-sortis-de-l-enfer-libyen_1776007
Europe’s Harsh Border Policies Are Pushing Refugees All the Way to Rwanda
EU funds for Libyan militias forced thousands of migrants into dangerous Libyan detention centers. Now, after being evacuated, some of them are stuck as far away as Rwanda—with no idea if they will ever be resettled.
GASHORA, Rwanda—Until the day before he left Libya in October 2019, Alex was enslaved by a militia aligned with the United Nations-backed, Tripoli-based Government of National Accord. For months, the young Eritrean had been moving weapons and ammunition, cleaning, and even building a shelter for horses owned by Mohammed al-Khoja, the deputy head of the Government of National Accord’s Department for Combating Illegal Migration.
He worried about airstrikes and drones: The buzzing sound made him run for cover. He also stressed about potentially brutal punishments from men commanded by Khoja, who was also known as a vicious militia leader, making Alex frightened to disobey them. Alex, whose name has been changed for his safety, knew his proximity to fighters made him both a human shield and a target in Tripoli’s ongoing war.
Alex’s story is an illustration of the impacts of hardening European Union border policy, which forces refugees back to a dangerous country where they live at the mercy of Libyan militias. It demonstrates the traumas an asylum-seeker can go through before getting the chance to make a legal claim for protection, and how even the small number of people eventually chosen for evacuation from Libya suffer from long-term consequences and ongoing instability.
Like huge numbers of his countryfolk, Alex fled indefinite national service in Eritrea’s dictatorship and traveled to Libya in the hope of reaching Europe and finding “freedom.” A U.N. commission of inquiry has previously accused the leadership of Eritrea of carrying out crimes against humanity, while describing the national service system as “slavery-like.”
After paying $16,000 in smugglers’ fees borrowed from family and friends, Alex tried to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe, but the rubber boat he was on was intercepted by the EU-backed Libyan coast guard.
For more than a year after that, Alex was held in Triq al-Sikka detention center, the de facto headquarters of the Department for Combating Illegal Migration, which ostensibly oversees many of Libya’s migrant detention centers. (The department did not respond to a request for comment.)
After war broke out in April 2019, militiamen brought Alex across the road to work in an area they were using as a base, located in the outer perimeter of a center set up by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to house refugees before they were legally evacuated (Alex’s story was collaborated by the accounts of other refugees. Aid officials who visit Triq al-Sikka told Foreign Policy they have noticed certain detainees are often missing. UNHCR said it had heard allegations of detainees being used as forced labor in the Gathering and Departure Facility, but it could not verify them.)
In the months afterward, Alex returned to detention only for his meetings with UNHCR staff. He was interviewed and fingerprinted, and finally given good news: He would be evacuated to Rwanda.
https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/rwanda-libya-refugees-sally-hayden-BK9B5428.jpg A boda boda driver drives down the main road in Gashora, Rwanda, where hundreds of refugees are now being sheltered after they were evacuated from Libya, on Nov. 28, 2019. Sally Hayden for Foreign Policy
Over the past three years, the EU has allocated nearly 100 million euros, around $100 million, to spend on the Libyan coast guard, with the aim of intercepting and stopping boats of migrants and refugees who are trying to reach Europe. Tens of thousands of people who could have their asylum claims assessed if they managed to reach European soil have instead been returned to Libya to spend months or years in for-profit detention centers where sexual violence, labor exploitation, torture, and trafficking have been repeatedly documented. They wait, in the unlikely hope of being selected for a legal route to safety.
When questioned about the ramifications of their policy, EU spokespeople regularly say they are funding the U.N. to improve conditions for refugees and migrants. UNHCR, in turn, has said it cannot provide safety for refugees in Libya, meaning their only real hope is evacuation.
EU spokespeople regularly say they are funding the U.N. to improve conditions for refugees and migrants. UNHCR, in turn, has said it cannot provide safety for refugees in Libya, meaning their only real hope is evacuation.
Those numbers are low, though: 2,427 people last year got the option to go with UNHCR either directly to European countries or to a transit country where their cases can be considered for resettlement to Europe or North America. In contrast, nearly 1,000 refugees and migrants were returned to Libya in the first two weeks of 2020 alone.
Both Niger and Romania have previously been used as transit countries, though the number of people going to Niger have slowed because of problems processing cases. This past September, Rwanda announced it will also begin to take evacuees, following negotiations and a deal signed with the African Union and UNHCR. “Africa itself is also a source of solutions,” said Rwandan President Paul Kagame, speaking about the agreement at the U.N. General Assembly last year.
The Rwandan government did not respond to multiple requests for interviews and a list of emailed questions, while African Union spokespeople did not respond to an interview request.
UNHCR is still appealing for funding, saying it hopes to evacuate 1,500 people to Rwanda by the end of 2020, with the program expected to cost nearly $27 million by then. So far, according to numbers provided by UNHCR, the EU has pledged 10 million euros, Norway just over 5 million euros, and Malta 50,000.
From the Rwandan capital of Kigali, it takes two buses and a motorbike drive to reach Gashora, 40 miles southeast of the capital city, where hundreds of evacuees from Libya are now staying. There is no fence around the refugee camp, and it seems like it would be easy just to walk in, avoiding a gate where guards stand watch. “It’s an invisible wall,” one Eritrean said, laughing.
I wasn’t allowed inside. Though a relatively secure country with much-lauded economic development, Rwanda is also a dictatorship and police state with a tightly controlled media.
Though a relatively secure country with much-lauded economic development, Rwanda is also a dictatorship and police state with a tightly controlled media.
After several ignored emails over two months, as well as five days of waiting at the Ministry of Emergency Management when I visited in November 2019, a communications official told me journalists can’t visit alone. I would be invited back on a future group trip instead, he said, as I already had media accreditation.
“They gave you accreditation, because we believe you will write good stories about us,” the Rwandan official told me in a candid moment. “We deny some people accreditation, I think you know that.” The invitation to join the group trip never came.
Instead, in a small, bare room in a bar outside the camp that same month, a group of refugees gathered to tell me their stories. For more than a year, they had been sending me evidence of human rights abuses from a network of Libyan detention centers, using a series of phones they kept hidden throughout.
Now they say they are grateful to be in Rwanda, but they also resent the time they spent locked up. They’re worried about their own futures and about everyone they have left behind.
Evacuees came from Libyan detention centers including Zintan, Ain Zara, Abu Salim, Triq al-Sikka, and Sabaa, where they experienced an array of horrors. They witnessed deaths from medical negligence and suffered through deliberate food deprivation, torture, and forced recruitment.
Alex—who was present in Triq al-Sikka when a hopeless Somali detainee set himself on fire in 2018—showed me how his nail was still cracked from being forced to lift heavy weapons. Some of the migrants had contracted tuberculosis, while others were battling trauma. “Most of our minds are completely spoilt. We’re afraid of motorbikes, of helicopters,” one Eritrean told me.
The trauma could last a long time. Speaking about the “precarious living conditions” and “grave human rights violations” refugees in Libya’s detention system have gone through, Sonal Marwah, a humanitarian affairs manager with Doctors Without Borders, said survivors suffer from emotional and psychological problems, such as anxiety and depression.
Now, the refugees in Rwanda are struggling with their new reality. A young woman said she has gone on a diet and is only eating one meal a day so she can “regain” her “figure,” after spending so long in detention without being able to move around. Some minors are battling addictions or have begun patronizing the influx of Rwandan prostitutes they say arrived in Gashora shortly after them. Two refugees who stayed out late drinking were robbed. “It’s like a baby who walks when he’s not old enough. It’s like a new planet for us,” said an Eritrean man.
They feel they can’t trust anyone anymore, convinced everyone around them has tried to profit from them: whether Libyan authorities, smugglers, the U.N., or the Rwandan government.
All 15 refugees I interviewed in Rwanda say they believed they would be resettled onward, to countries in Europe or North America. Some said that it was only when they signed documents on the night before they left Libya that UNHCR staff informed them they might have to stay in Rwanda for longer. There were consequences for backing out at that stage, too. UNHCR confirmed a “very small number” of refugees in Libya refused to go to Rwanda, meaning the agency will not consider them for resettlement or evacuation again.
While I was in Rwanda, there was tension in Gashora camp after refugees kicked over chairs at a meeting with authorities, protesting changes to food distribution they believed were designed to keep them there long-term. Afterward, they said, the camp’s guards told them they were no longer allowed gather in big groups. “They think they can teach us how to survive—we should be teaching them,” Alex said about the dispute.
In November, evacuees got another shock when UNHCR’s special envoy for the Mediterranean, Vincent Cochetel, tweeted that refugees in Rwanda have “wrong” expectations. “We have no obligation to resettle all refugees in/from Libya,” he wrote. “They can locally integrate in Rwanda if they want, [while] learning and mentally accepting that there is not just a ‘Europe option.’”
Those who spoke to me said they felt this was just another disregard for what they have been through, with some saying they would rather have paid smugglers to try to cross the Mediterranean Sea again rather than being moved somewhere they see no future, and are willing to go back to Libya and try again. Others accused UNHCR of using their evacuations as a public relations coup to show the agency is doing something, while promoting the Rwandan government’s charity, instead of prioritizing evacuees’ welfare.
Some evacuees accused UNHCR of using their evacuations as a public relations coup to show the agency is doing something, while promoting the Rwandan government’s charity, instead of prioritizing their welfare.
“From the outside, the evacuations to Rwanda seem as a great solution to those detained in Libya, but if you dig deeper you’ll find many unanswered questions, like who gets to be evacuated out of the total 40,000+ registered asylum-seekers and refugees in Libya,” Amera Markous, a Libyan migration researcher wrote in a text message.
“What is the level of understanding of these terms before they evacuate them, and how ‘voluntary’ are they, if they are explained inside detention centers, where refugees can’t even have a private place for such interviews that determine their future?” she asked. “If I went through tragic journeys and finally left a place like Libya, I’d be expecting UNHCR or any responsible entity to provide a durable solution which fits my aspirations, not just getting me out of Libya to repeat it all again.”
Matteo de Bellis, a migration researcher at Amnesty International, said while any effort to bring refugees to safety should be welcomed, “only a reduced number of people have been able to benefit from this opportunity, as most countries—including EU countries that have cooperated with Libya to contain refugees and migrants there—are offering very few places for resettlement.”
The evacuation program “risks exacerbating a situation where the vast majority of refugees continue to be hosted in developing countries, while richer ones spend their resources on keeping people out at any cost,” he said. This means refugees’ welfare can stay tied to ever-shifting donor funding, and they can struggle to find stability.
In January, Cochetel seemingly backtracked, telling an audience in Berlin the “vast majority” of evacuees will be resettled, but it will take about a year.
In response to questions from Foreign Policy, UNHCR spokeswoman Elise Villechalane said everyone evacuated to Rwanda was informed that resettlement is not guaranteed. “While for the first Rwanda flights the counselling was in some instances provided closer to the time of departure, it is usually provided about two weeks before,” she said. “Refugees are asked to sign a document … stating they understand the implications of the process.”
UNHCR said it has received 1,150 resettlement pledges from other countries for refugees in Rwanda, with Norway alone pledging to take in 600 refugees (not all of them from Libya). Some Libya evacuees have already been accepted to go to Sweden. The number of available places is still “far outstripped by the needs,” Villechalane said.
This all raises the question: At what point does the EU become responsible for refugees it has forced from its borders through externalization policies? How much suffering can they go through before European officials recognize some obligation? More than 2,500 miles south of Europe’s borders, Rwanda’s new arrivals are wondering just that, while waiting to find out their futures. At some moments, Alex said, he feels suicidal, while at others he feels a glimmer of hope. He’s haunted by the memories of others who died in Libya. “We are really tired,” he said in a message in January. “We are nothing to them, nothing at all, they could leave us here. There is nothing we could do.”
At what point does the EU become responsible for refugees it has forced from its borders through externalization policies?
“Africa is Africa,” he has repeated throughout months of contact from both Libya and Rwanda, saying he’s worried about corruption, repression, exploitation, a lack of freedom, and a lack of opportunity in his birth continent. In Europe, Alex believes, refugees “can start a new life, it’s like we [will be] born again. All the suffering and all the torture, this only makes us stronger.”
His experience over the past few years has convinced him he won’t feel secure until he has the same rights as a European and the same freedom to travel if something goes wrong, wherever he may end up.
“Still no one really feels or understands what we’ve been through. We resisted all the suffering and torture … only to get our goal” of reaching safety, he said. “We trusted UNHCR, we trusted the European countries, and we came here. They owe us.”
▻https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/20/europes-harsh-border-policies-are-pushing-refugees-all-the-way-to-rwa
I migranti della #Open_Arms chiedono asilo dalla nave
L’8 agosto per la prima volta nella storia dei soccorsi in mare, 89 migranti dei 121 soccorsi in due diverse operazioni dalla nave spagnola Open Arms nelle acque internazionali al largo della Libia hanno espresso la volontà di fare richiesta di asilo in Europa, mentre sono ancora a bordo della nave umanitaria. L’organizzazione non governativa spagnola Proactiva Open Arms ha consegnato queste richieste all’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (Unhcr) e alla Centrale operativa della guardia costiera di Roma, in una mossa senza precedenti che potrebbe portare per vie legali al superamento del divieto di sbarco imposto dalle autorità italiane, dopo la conversione in legge del cosiddetto decreto sicurezza bis, che criminalizza il soccorso in mare e impedisce alle navi umanitarie di ricevere un porto di sbarco.
I profughi – che provengono da Eritrea, Etiopia, Somalia e Costa d’Avorio – sono bloccati da otto giorni al largo di Lampedusa e non hanno ricevuto l’autorizzazione a sbarcare né in Italia né a Malta, nonostante i numerosi appelli della capomissione Anabel Montes Mier che ha denunciato una situazione critica a bordo. Il 9 agosto sono stati portati rifornimenti e a bordo è salito anche l’attore Richard Gere.
Nel frattempo la nave norvegese Ocean Viking delle ong Medici senza frontiere e di Sos Méditerranée ha soccorso 85 persone, tra cui quattro bambini, a sessanta miglia dalle coste libiche. “Alcune donne hanno raccontato storie di violenza e di stupri, avevano sul corpo i segni di queste inenarrabili violenze”, ha raccontato Valentina Brinis, responsabile dei progetti di Proactiva Open Arms.
“A bordo si è creato un clima tale per cui le persone si sono aperte e hanno raccontato le loro storie, ci siamo resi conto così che si trattava di persone che avevano bisogno di protezione in base alle leggi internazionali come la Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951”, continua Brinis. Per questo gli operatori legali e gli avvocati dell’organizzazione hanno raccolto le richieste di asilo da parte dei migranti e le hanno presentate all’Unhcr e all’Mrcc di Roma.
Per la prima volta su una nave umanitaria i migranti hanno sottoscritto un documento in cui chiedono di poter fare domanda di asilo: questo procedimento apre una serie di questioni di diritto internazionale. “Di solito queste persone erano considerate soltanto naufraghi, invece sono in realtà dei richiedenti asilo. Questo significa che se fossero riportati indietro in Libia si tratterebbe di una violazione del principio di non respingimento sancito dalla Convenzione di Ginevra, ma anche dalla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo”, afferma l’operatrice, che insieme all’avvocato Arturo Salerni ha presentato le richieste. L’ong sottolinea che la richiesta dovrebbe sollecitare l’assegnazione di un porto sicuro di sbarco per persone che ne hanno diritto e che sono particolarmente vulnerabili.
Ma il ministero dell’interno italiano ha risposto con una nota dicendo “che la Open Arms è spagnola” e in base alle convenzioni internazionali “è dovere dello stato di bandiera prendersi cura di coloro che si trovano a bordo, dopo essere stati raccolti o trasportati in acque internazionali: gli esperti del ministero dell’Interno stanno valutando la possibilità di richiamare pertanto la Spagna - anche in ambito giurisdizionale - al rispetto degli obblighi internazionali facendosi carico delle 89 persone”.
L’organizzazione ribadisce di non essere interessata ad arrivare per forza in Italia, ma di voler chiedere con insistenza un porto sicuro di sbarco per i richiedenti asilo a bordo, tra loro 32 minori. “L’organizzazione aveva depositato un ricorso al tribunale di Palermo, competente su questa materia”, spiega l’ong. Anche il garante per i diritti delle persone private della libertà personale Mauro Palma ha sollecitato un intervento delle autorità italiane. Secondo Palma “la situazione in atto può e deve essere vista come ambito di competenza giurisdizionale del nostro paese, nonostante la sua presenza in acque internazionali”, in virtù del divieto d’ingresso nelle acque nazionali notificato dalle autorità italiane il primo agosto, per effetto del decreto sicurezza bis.
“L’interdizione all’ingresso costituisce esercizio della sovranità e implica che ai migranti soccorsi e a bordo della nave debbano essere riconosciuti tutti i diritti e le garanzie (divieto di non respingimento, diritti dei minori stranieri non accompagnati, diritto di protezione internazionale) che spettano alle persone nei confronti delle quali l’Italia esercita la propria giurisdizione”, ha scritto Palma in una nota.
A partire da queste premesse il garante ha denunciato “il duplice rischio di violazione del principio di non respingimento e del divieto di espulsioni collettive” da parte dell’Italia. E inoltre ha sottolineato che il divieto di ingresso può essere visto “come azione di respingimento collettivo delle persone soccorse, se esercitato senza un preventivo esame delle condizioni individuali delle stesse”.
Je vais commencer, avec cet article, une nouvelle liste autour de la question des sauvetages en Méditerranée. La métaliste ici :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/706177#message767790
Mer Méditerranée : quels sont les navires humanitaires qui font face à la justice ?
De nombreuses ONG d’aide aux migrants s’offusquent des pressions politiques qu’ils disent subir lors de leur mission de sauvetage en mer Méditerranée. Plusieurs d’entre elles ont vu leurs bateaux saisis, parfois pendant des années, et leurs capitaines envoyés sur le banc des accusés. InfoMigrants fait le point sur les bateaux humanitaires dans le collimateur de la justice.
▻https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/19397/mer-mediterranee-quels-sont-les-navires-humanitaires-qui-font-face-a-l
Carne da cannone. In Libia i profughi dei campi sono arruolati a forza e mandati a combattere
Arruolati di forza, vestiti con vecchie divise, armati con fucili di scarto e spediti a combattere le milizie del generale #Haftar che stanno assediando Tripoli. I profughi di Libia, dopo essere stati trasformati in “merce” preziosa dai trafficanti, con la complicità e il supporto del’Italia e dall’Europa, sono diventati anche carne da cannone.
Secondo fonti ufficiali dell’Unhcr e di Al Jazeera, il centro di detenzione di Qaser Ben Gashir, è stato trasformato in una caserma di arruolamento. “Ci viene riferito – ha affermato l’inviato dell’agenzia Onu per i rifugiati, Vincent Cochetel – che ad alcuni migranti sono state fornite divise militari e gli è stati promesso la libertà in cambio dell’arruolamento”. Nel solo centro di Qaser Ben Gashir, secondo una stima dell’Unhcr, sono detenuti, per o più arbitrariamente, perlomeno 6 mila profughi tra uomini e donne, tra i quali almeno 600 bambini.
Sempre secondo l’Unhcr, tale pratica di arruolamento pressoché forzato – è facile intuire che non si può dire facilmente no al proprio carceriere! – sarebbe stata messa in pratica perlomeno in altri tre centri di detenzione del Paese. L’avanzata delle truppe del generale Haftar ha fatto perdere la testa alle milizie fedeli al Governo di accordo nazionale guidato da Fayez al Serraj, che hanno deciso di giocarsi la carta della disperazione, mandando i migranti – che non possono certo definirsi militari sufficientemente addestrati – incontro ad una morte certa in battaglia. Carne da cannone, appunto.
I messaggi WhatsUp che arrivano dai centri di detenzione sono terrificanti e testimoniano una situazione di panico totale che ha investito tanto i carcerieri quanto gli stessi profughi. “Ci danno armi di cui non conosciamo neppure come si chiamano e come si usano – si legge su un messaggio riportato dall’Irish Time – e ci ordinano di andare a combattere”. “Ci volevano caricare in una camionetta piena di armi. Gli abbiamo detto di no, che preferivamo essere riportato in cella ma non loro non hanno voluto”.
La situazione sta precipitando verso una strage annunciata. Nella maggioranza dei centri l’elettricità è già stata tolta da giorni. Acque e cibo non ne arrivano più. Cure mediche non ne avevano neppure prima. I richiedenti asilo sono alla disperazione. Al Jazeera porta la notizia che ad Qaser Ben Gashir, qualche giorno fa, un bambino è morto per semplice denutrizione. Quello che succede nei campi più lontani dalla capitale, lo possiamo solo immaginare. E con l’avanzare del conflitto, si riduce anche la possibilità di intervento e di denuncia dell’Unhcr o delle associazioni umanitarie che ancora resistono nel Paese come Medici Senza Frontiere.
Proprio Craig Kenzie, il coordinatore per la Libia di Medici Senza Frontiere, lancia un appello perché i detenuti vengano immediatamente evacuati dalle zone di guerra e che le persone che fuggono e che vengono intercettate in mare non vengano riportate in quell’Inferno. Ma per il nostro Governo, quelle sponde continuano ad essere considerate “sicure”.
▻https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/carne-da-cannone-in-libia-i-profughi-dei-campi-sono-a
#Libye #asile #migrations #réfugiés #armées #enrôlement_militaire #enrôlement #conflit #soldats #milices #Tripoli
Gen Khalifa Haftar’s forces close in on Tripoli
UN’s Guterres ‘deeply concerned’ after meeting with Libyan National Army leader.
Dozens of migrants and refugees in a Tripoli detention centre were dressed in old military uniforms and ordered to begin packing weapons this week, as rival forces began to march on the Libyan capital.
▻https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/gen-khalifa-haftar-s-forces-close-in-on-tripoli-1.3851141
Libia, #Qasr_Bin_Ghashir: necessaria l’urgente evacuazione! 10 aprile
Il centro di detenzione di Qasr Bin Ghashir, Tripoli, Libia, al quinto giorno senza acqua e senza cibo.
500 persone prese sulla linea del fronte, abbandonate all’interno dalle milizie in fuga.
’We are in a fire’: Libya’s detained refugees trapped by conflict
Detainees at detention centre on the outskirts of Tripoli live in fear amid intense clashes for control of the capital.
Refugees and migrants trapped on the front line of fierce fighting in Libya’s capital, Tripoli, are pleading to be rescued from the war-torn country while being “surrounded by heavy weapons and militants”.
Hit by food and water shortages, detainees at the #Qasr_bin_Ghashir detention centre on the southern outskirts of Tripoli, told Al Jazeera they were “abandoned” on Saturday by fleeing guards, who allegedly told the estimated 728 people being held at the facility to fend for themselves.
The refugees and migrants used hidden phones to communicate and requested that their names not be published.
“[There are] no words to describe the fear of the women and children,” an Eritrean male detainee said on Saturday.
“We are afraid of [the] noise... fired from the air and the weapons. I feel that we are abandoned to our fate.”
Fighting rages on Tripoli outskirts
Tripoli’s southern outskirts have been engulfed by fighting since renegade General Khalifa Haftar’s eastern forces launched an assault on the capital earlier this month in a bid to wrestle control of the city from Libya’s internationally recognised Government of National Accord (GNA).
The showdown threatens to further destabilise war-wracked Libya, which splintered into a patchwork of rival power bases following the overthrow of former leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
At least 121 people have been killed and 561 wounded since Haftar’s self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA) started its offensive on April 4, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Both sides have repeatedly carried out air raids and accuse each other of targeting civilians.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), for its part, estimates more than 15,000 people have been displaced so far, with a “significant number” of others stuck in live conflict zones.
Amid the fighting, refugees and migrants locked up in detention centres throughout the capital, many of whom fled war and persecution in countries including Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan, are warning that their lives are at risk.
“We find ourselves in a fire,” a 15-year-old detainee at Qasr bin Ghashir told Al Jazeera.
Electricity outage, water shortages
Others held at the centre described the abject conditions they were subject to, including a week-long stint without electricity and working water pumps.
One detainee in her 30s, who alleged the centre’s manager assaulted her, also said they had gone more than a week until Saturday with “no food, [and] no water”, adding the situation “was not good” and saying women are particularly vulnerable now.
This is the third time since August that detainees in Qasr bin Ghashir have been in the middle of clashes, she said.
Elsewhere in the capital, refugees and migrants held at the #Abu_Salim detention centre also said they could “hear the noise of weapons” and needed protection.
“At this time, we want quick evacuation,” said one detainee at Abu Salim, which sits about 20km north of Qasr bin Ghashir.
“We’ve stayed years with much torture and suffering, we don’t have any resistance for anything. We are (under) deep pressure and stressed … People are very angry and afraid.”
’Take us from Libya, please’
Tripoli’s detention centres are formally under the control of the GNA’s Department for Combatting Illegal Migration (DCIM), though many are actually run by militias.
The majority of the approximately 6,000 people held in the facilities were intercepted on the Mediterranean Sea and brought back to the North African country after trying to reach Europe as part of a two-year agreement under which which the European Union supports the Libyan coastguard with funds, ships and training, in return for carrying out interceptions and rescues.
In a statement to Al Jazeera, an EU spokesperson said the bloc’s authorities were “closely monitoring the situation in Libya” from a “political, security and humanitarian point of view” though they could not comment on Qasr bin Ghashir specifically.
DCIM, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment.
The UN, however, continues to reiterate that Libya is not a safe country for refugees and migrants to return.
Amid the ongoing conflict, the organisation’s human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, warned last week of the need to “ensure protection of extremely vulnerable civilians”, including refugees and migrants who may be living “under significant peril”.
Bachelet also called for authorities to ensure that prisons and detention centres are not abandoned, and for all parties to guarantee that the treatment of detainees is in line with international law.
In an apparent move to safeguard the refugees and migrants being held near the capital, Libyan authorities attempted last week to move detainees at Qasr bin Ghashir to another detention centre in #Zintan, nearly 170km southwest of Tripoli.
But those being held in Qasr bin Ghashir refused to leave, arguing the solution is not a move elsewhere in Libya but rather a rescue from the country altogether.
“All Libya [is a] war zone,” an Eritrean detainee told Al Jazeera.
“Take us from Libya, please. Where is humanity and where is human rights,” the detainee asked.
▻https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/fire-libya-detained-refugees-trapped-conflict-190414150247858.html
700+ refugees & migrants - including more than 150 women & children - are trapped in a detention centre on the front lines, amid renewed clashes in Tripoli. The below photos, taken today, show where a jet was downed right beside them.
ESCLUSIVO TPI: “Senza cibo né acqua, pestati a sangue dai soldati”: la guerra in Libia vista dai migranti rinchiusi nei centri di detenzione
“I rifugiati detenuti in Libia stanno subendo le più drammatiche conseguenze della guerra civile esplosa nel paese”.
È la denuncia a TPI di Giulia Tranchina, avvocato che, a Londra, si occupa di rifugiati per lo studio legale Wilson Solicitor.
Tranchina è in contatto con i migranti rinchiusi nei centri di detenzione libici e, da tempo, denuncia abusi e torture perpetrate ai loro danni.
L’esplosione della guerra ha reso le condizioni di vita delle migliaia di rifugiati presenti nei centri governativi ancora più disumane.
La gestione dei centri è stata bocciata anche dagli organismi internazionali in diversi rapporti, ignorati dai governi europei e anche da quello italiano, rapporti dove si evidenzia la violazione sistematica delle convenzioni internazionali, le condizioni sanitarie agghiaccianti e continue torture.
▻https://www.tpi.it/2019/04/13/guerra-libia-migranti-centri-di-detenzione
#guerre_civile
The humanitarian fallout from Libya’s newest war
The Libyan capital of Tripoli is shuddering under an offensive by forces loyal to strongman Khalifa Haftar, with the city’s already precarious basic services in danger of breaking down completely and aid agencies struggling to cope with a growing emergency.
In the worst and most sustained fighting the country has seen since the 2011 uprising that ousted Muammar Gaddafi, the Haftar-led Libyan National Army, or LNA, surged into the city – controlled by the UN-backed Government of National Accord, or GNA – on 4 April.
Fighting continues across a string of southern suburbs, with airstrikes and rocket and artillery fire from both sides hammering front lines and civilians alike.
“It is terrible; they use big guns at night, the children can’t sleep,” said one resident of the capital, who declined to give her name for publication. “The shots land everywhere.”
The violence has displaced thousands of people and trapped hundreds of migrants and refugees in detention centres. Some analysts also think it has wrecked years of diplomacy, including attempts by the UN to try to build political consensus in Libya, where various militias support the two major rivals for power: the Tripoli-based GNA and the Haftar-backed House of Representatives, based in the eastern city of Tobruk.
“Detained migrants and refugees, including women and children, are particularly vulnerable.”
“Pandora’s box has been opened,” said Jalel Harchaoui, a research fellow at Clingendael Institute think tank in The Hague. “The military operation [to capture Tripoli] has inflicted irreversible damage upon a modus vivendi and a large set of political dialogues that has required four years of diplomatic work.”
Civilians in the line of fire
Media reports and eyewitnesses in the city said residents face agonising decisions about when to go out, and risk the indiscriminate fire, in search of food and other essentials from the few shops that are open.
One resident said those in Tripoli face the dilemma of whether to stay in their homes or leave, with no clear idea of what part of the city will be targeted next.
The fighting is reportedly most intense in the southern suburbs, which until two weeks ago included some of the most tranquil and luxurious homes in the city. Now these districts are a rubble-strewn battleground, made worse by the ever-changing positions of LNA forces and militias that support the GNA.
This battle comes to a city already struggling with chaos and militia violence, with residents having known little peace since the NATO-backed revolt eight years ago.
“Since 2011, Libyans have faced one issue after another: shortages of cooking gas, electricity, water, lack of medicines, infrastructure in ruin and neglect,” said one woman who lives in an eastern suburb of Tripoli. “Little is seen at community level, where money disappears into pockets [of officials]. Hospitals are unsanitary and barely function. Education is a shambles of poor schools and stressed teachers.”
Aid agencies scrambling
Only a handful of aid agencies have a presence in Tripoli, where local services are now badly stretched.
The World Health Organisation reported on 14 April that the death toll was 147 and 614 people had been wounded, cautioning that the latter figure may be higher as some overworked hospitals have stopped counting the numbers treated.
“We are still working on keeping the medical supplies going,” a WHO spokesperson said. “We are sending out additional surgical staff to support hospitals coping with large caseloads of wounded, for example anaesthetists.”
The UN’s emergency coordination body, OCHA, said that 16,000 people had been forced to flee by the fighting, 2,000 on 13 April alone when fighting intensified across the front line with a series of eight airstrikes. OCHA says the past few years of conflict have left at least 823,000 people, including 248,000 children, “in dire need of humanitarian assistance”.
UNICEF appealed for $4.7 million to provide emergency assistance to the half a million children and their families it estimates live in and around Tripoli.
Migrants and refugees
Some of the worst off are more than 1,500 migrants trapped in a string of detention centres in the capital and nearby. The UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, said over the weekend it was trying to organise the evacuation of refugees from a migrant camp close to the front lines. “We are in contact with refugees in Qaser Ben Gashir and so far they remain safe from information received,” the agency said in a tweet.
At least one media report said migrants and refugees at the centre felt they had been abandoned and feared for their lives.
UNHCR estimates there are some 670,000 migrants and refugees in Libya, including more than 6,000 in detention centres.
In its appeal, UNICEF said it was alarmed by reports that some migrant detention centres have been all but abandoned, with the migrants unable to get food and water. “The breakdown in the food supply line has resulted in a deterioration of the food security in detention centres,” the agency said. “Detained migrants and refugees, including women and children, are particularly vulnerable, especially those in detention centres located in the vicinity of the fighting.”
Many migrants continue to hope to find a boat to Europe, but that task has been made harder by the EU’s March decision to scale down the rescue part of Operation Sophia, its Mediterranean anti-smuggling mission.
“The breakdown in the food supply line has resulted in a deterioration of the food security in detention centres.”
Search-and-rescue missions run by nongovernmental organisations have had to slow down and sometimes shutter their operations as European governments refuse them permission to dock. On Monday, Malta said it would not allow the crew of a ship that had been carrying 64 people rescued off the coast of Libya to disembark on its shores. The ship was stranded for two weeks as European governments argued over what to do with the migrants, who will now be split between four countries.
Eugenio Cusumano, an international security expert specialising in migration research at Lieden University in the Netherlands, said a new surge of migrants and refugees may now be heading across the sea in a desperate attempt to escape the fighting. He said they will find few rescue craft, adding: “If the situation in Libya deteriorates there will be a need for offshore patrol assets.”
Failed diplomacy
Haftar’s LNA says its objective is to liberate the city from militia control, while the GNA has accused its rival of war crimes and called for prosecutions.
International diplomatic efforts to end the fighting appear to have floundered. Haftar launched his offensive on the day that UN Secretary-General António Guterres was visiting Tripoli – a visit designed to bolster long-delayed, UN-chaired talks with the various parties in the country, which were due to be held this week.
The UN had hoped the discussions, known as the National Conference, might pave the way for elections later this year, but they ended up being cancelled due to the upsurge in fighting.
Guterres tried to de-escalate the situation by holding emergency talks with the GNA in Tripoli and flying east to see Haftar in Benghazi. But as foreign powers reportedly line up behind different sides, his calls for a ceasefire – along with condemnation from the UN Security Council and the EU – have so far been rebuffed.
“They (tell) migrants that if you know how to shoot a gun we will make you stay with us.”
Detained refugees in Libya moved to safety in second UNHCR relocation
UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, today relocated another 150 refugees who were detained in the #Abu_Selim detention centre in south Tripoli to UNHCR’s #Gathering_and_Departure_Facility (#GDF) in the centre of Libya’s capital, safe from hostilities.
The Abu Selim detention centre is one of several in Libya that has been impacted by hostilities since clashes erupted in the capital almost a fortnight ago.
Refugees at the centre told UNHCR that they were petrified and traumatised by the fighting, fearing for their lives.
UNHCR staff who were present and organizing the relocation today reported that clashes were around 10 kilometres away from the centre and were clearly audible.
While UNHCR intended to relocate more refugees, due to a rapid escalation of fighting in the area this was not possible. UNHCR hopes to resume this life-saving effort as soon as conditions on the ground allow.
“It is a race against time to move people out of harm’s way. Conflict and deteriorating security conditions hamper how much we can do,” said UNHCR’s Assistant Chief of Mission in Libya, Lucie Gagne.
“We urgently need solutions for people trapped in Libya, including humanitarian evacuations to transfer those most vulnerable out of the country.”
Refugees who were relocated today were among those most vulnerable and in need and included women and children. The relocation was conducted with the support of UNHCR’s partner, International Medical Corps and the Libyan Ministry of Interior.
This relocation is the second UNHCR-organized transfer since the recent escalation of the conflict in Libya.
Last week UNHCR relocated more than 150 refugees from the Ain Zara detention centre also in south Tripoli to the GDF, bringing the total number of refugees currently hosted at the GDF to more than 400.
After today’s relocation, there remain more than 2,700 refugees and migrants detained and trapped in areas where clashes are ongoing. In addition to those remaining at Abu Selim, other detention centres impacted and in proximity to hostilities include the Qasr Bin Ghasheer, Al Sabaa and Tajoura centres.
Current conditions in the country continue to underscore the fact that Libya is a dangerous place for refugees and migrants, and that those rescued and intercepted at sea should not be returned there. UNHCR has repeatedly called for an end to detention for refugees and migrants.
▻https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/4/5cb60a984/detained-refugees-libya-moved-safety-second-unhcr-relocation.html
Libya’s migrants under threat as battle for Tripoli sets in
Migrants locked in detention camps in Tripoli face increasing danger as the prospect of a drawn-out siege looms. Inconsistent responses from Europe to the crisis have left them little hope.
▻https://www.dw.com/en/libyas-migrants-under-threat-as-battle-for-tripoli-sets-in/a-48351094
Libye : l’ONU a évacué 150 réfugiés supplémentaires d’un camp de détention
L’ONU a annoncé mardi avoir évacué 150 réfugiés supplémentaires d’une centre de détention à Tripoli touché par des combats, ajoutant ne pas avoir été en mesure d’en déplacer d’autres en raison de l’intensification des affrontements.
La Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) a précisé avoir évacué ces réfugiés, parmi lesquels des femmes et des enfants, du centre de détention Abou Sélim, dans le sud de la capitale libyenne, vers son Centre de rassemblement et de départ dans le centre-ville.
Cette opération a été effectuée au milieu de violents combats entre les forces du maréchal Khalifa Haftar et celles du Gouvernement d’union nationale (GNA) libyen.
« C’est une course contre la montre pour mettre les gens à l’abri », a déclaré la cheffe adjointe de la mission du HCR en Libye, Lucie Gagne, dans un communiqué. « Le conflit et la détérioration des conditions de sécurité entravent nos capacités », a-t-elle regretté.
Au moins 174 personnes ont été tuées et 758 autres blessés dans la bataille pour le contrôle de Tripoli, a annoncé mardi l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS).
Abu Sélim est l’un des centres de détention qui ont été touchés par les combats. Le HCR, qui avait déjà évacué la semaine dernière plus de 150 migrants de centre de détention d’Ain Zara, a indiqué qu’il voulait en évacuer d’autres mardi mais qu’il ne n’avait pu le faire en raison d’une aggravation rapide des combats dans cette zone.
Les réfugiés évacués mardi étaient « traumatisés » par les combats, a rapporté le HCR, ajoutant que des combats avaient lieu à seulement une dizaine de km.
« Il nous faut d’urgence des solutions pour les gens piégés en Libye, y compris des évacuations humanitaires pour transférer les plus vulnérables hors du pays », a déclaré Mme Gagne.
Selon le HCR, plus de 400 personnes se trouvent désormais dans son centre de rassemblement et de départ, mais plus de 2.700 réfugiés sont encore détenus et bloqués dans des zones de combats.
La Libye « est un endroit dangereux pour les réfugiés et les migrants », a souligné le HCR. « Ceux qui sont secourus et interceptés en mer ne devraient pas être renvoyés là-bas ».
▻https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1166761/libye-lonu-a-evacue-150-refugies-supplementaires-dun-camp-de-detentio
Libya: Detained refugees shot as clashes near Tripoli continue
Refugees and migrants request immediate medical assistance as several people are reportedly wounded by gunfire.
Footage shows refugees hiding as Libyan militia attack detention centre
At least two people reportedly killed in shooting at Qasr bin Ghashir facility near Tripoli.
Young refugees held in a detention centre in Libya have described being shot at indiscriminately by militias advancing on Tripoli, in an attack that reportedly left at least two people dead and up to 20 injured.
Phone footage smuggled out of the camp and passed to the Guardian highlights the deepening humanitarian crisis in the centres set up to prevent refugees and migrants from making the sea crossing from the north African coast to Europe.
The footage shows people cowering in terror in the corners of a hangar while gunshots can be heard and others who appear to have been wounded lying on makeshift stretchers.
The shooting on Tuesday at the Qasr bin Ghashir detention centre, 12 miles (20km) south of Tripoli, is thought to be the first time a militia has raided such a building and opened fire.
Witnesses said men, women and children were praying together when soldiers they believe to be part of the forces of the military strongman Khalifa Haftar, which are advancing on the Libyan capital to try to bring down the UN-backed government, stormed into the detention centre and demanded people hand over their phones.
When the occupants refused, the soldiers began shooting, according to the accounts. Phones are the only link to the outside world for many in the detention centres.
Amnesty International has called for a war crimes investigation into the incident. “This incident demonstrates the urgent need for all refugees and migrants to be immediately released from these horrific detention centres,” said the organisation’s spokeswoman, Magdalena Mughrabi.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said a review of the video evidence by its medical doctors had concluded the injuries were consistent with gunshot wounds. “These observations are further supported by numerous accounts from refugees and migrants who witnessed the event and reported being brutally and indiscriminately attacked with the use of firearms,” a statement said.
The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, said it evacuated 325 people from the detention centre after the incident. A statement suggested guns were fired into air and 12 people “endured physical attacks” that required hospital treatment, but none sustained bullet wounds.
“The dangers for refugees and migrants in Tripoli have never been greater than they are at present,” said Matthew Brook, the refugee agency’s deputy mission chief in Libya. “It is vital that refugees in danger can be released and evacuated to safety.”
The Guardian has previously revealed there is a network of 26 Libyan detention centres where an estimated 6,000 refugees are held. Children have described being starved, beaten and abused by Libyan police and camp guards. The UK contributes funding to humanitarian assistance provided in the centres by NGOs and the International Organization for Migration.
Qasr bin Ghashir is on the frontline of the escalating battle in Libya between rival military forces. Child refugees in the camp started sending SOS messages earlier this month, saying: “The war is started. We are in a bad situation.”
In WhatsApp messages sent to the Guardian on Tuesday, some of the child refugees said: “Until now, no anyone came here to help us. Not any organisations. Please, please, please, a lot of blood going out from people. Please, we are in dangerous conditions, please world, please, we are in danger.”
Many of the children and young people in the detention centres have fled persecution in Eritrea and cannot return. Many have also tried to cross the Mediterranean to reach Italy, but have been pushed back by the Libyan coastguard, which receives EU funding.
Giulia Tranchina, an immigration solicitor in London, has been raising the alarm for months about the plight of refugees in the centres. “I have been in touch with seven refugees in Qasr Bin Gashir since last September,. Many are sick and starving,” she said.
“All of them tried to escape across the Mediterranean to Italy, but were pushed back to the detention centre by the Libyan coastguard. Some were previously imprisoned by traffickers in Libya for one to two years. Many have been recognised by UNHCR as genuine refugees.”
Tranchina took a statement from a man who escaped from the centre after the militia started shooting. “We were praying in the hangar. The women joined us for prayer. The guards came in and told us to hand over our phones,” he said.
“When we refused, they started shooting. I saw gunshot wounds to the head and neck, I think that without immediate medical treatment, those people would die.
“I’m now in a corrugated iron shack in Tripoli with a few others who escaped, including three women with young children. Many were left behind and we have heard that they have been locked in.”
A UK government spokesperson said: “We are deeply concerned by reports of violence at the Qasr Ben Ghashir detention centre, and call on all parties to allow civilians, including refugees and migrants, to be evacuated to safety.”
• Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières and other NGOs are suing the French government to stop the donation of six boats to Libya’s navy, saying they will be used to send migrants back to detention centres. EU support to the Libyan coastguard, which is part of the navy, has enabled it to intercept migrants and asylum seekers bound for Europe. The legal action seeks a suspension on the boat donation, saying it violates an EU embargo on the supply of military equipment to Libya.
►https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/libya-detention-centre-attack-footage-refugees-hiding-shooting
From Bad to Worse for Migrants Trapped in Detention in Libya
Footage (►https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/libya-detention-centre-attack-footage-refugees-hiding-shooting) revealed to the Guardian shows the panic of migrants and refugees trapped in the detention facility Qasr bin Ghashir close to Tripoli under indiscriminate fire from advancing militia. According to the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR more than 3,300 people trapped in detention centres close to the escalating fighting are at risk and the agency is working to evacuate migrants from the “immediate danger”.
Fighting is intensifying between Libyan National Army (LNA) loyal to Khalifa Haftar and the UN-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) around the capital Tripoli. There have been reports on deaths and forced enlistment among migrants and refugees trapped in detention centres, which are overseen by the Libyan Department for Combating Illegal Migration but often run by militias.
Amid the intense fighting the EU-backed Libyan coastguard continues to intercept and return people trying to cross the Mediteranean. According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) 113 people were returned to the Western part of the country this week. In a Tweet the UN Agency states: “we reiterate that Libya is not a safe port and that arbitrary detention must end.”
Former UNHCR official, Jeff Crisp, calls it: “…extraordinary that the UN has not made a direct appeal to the EU to suspend the support it is giving to the Libyan coastguard”, and further states that: “Europe has the option of doing nothing and that is what it will most likely do.”
UNHCR has evacuated 500 people to the Agencies Gathering and Departure Facility in Tripoli and an additional 163 to the Emergency Transit Mechanism in Niger. However, with both mechanisms “approaching full capacity” the Agency urges direct evacuations out of Libya. On April 29, 146 refugees were evacuated from Libya to Italy in a joint operation between UNHCR and Italian and Libyan authorities.
▻https://www.ecre.org/from-bad-to-worse-for-migrants-trapped-in-detention-in-libya
Libia, la denuncia di Msf: «Tremila migranti bloccati vicino ai combattimenti, devono essere evacuati»
A due mesi dall’inizio dei combattimenti tra i militari del generale Khalifa Haftar e le milizie fedeli al governo di Tripoli di Fayez al-Sarraj, i capimissione di Medici Senza Frontiere per la Libia hanno incontrato la stampa a Roma per fare il punto della situazione. «I combattimenti hanno interessato centomila persone, di queste tremila sono migranti e rifugiati bloccati nei centri di detenzione che sorgono nelle aree del conflitto - ha spiegato Sam Turner -. Per questo chiediamo la loro immediata evacuazione. Solo portandoli via da quelle aree si possono salvare delle vite».
▻https://video.repubblica.it/dossier/migranti-2019/libia-la-denuncia-di-msf-tremila-migranti-bloccati-vicino-ai-combattimenti-devono-essere-evacuati/336337/336934?ref=twhv
Et #travail_forcé dans les centres de détention libyens :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/785516
Libia, attacco aereo al centro migranti. 60 morti. Salvini: «E’ un crimine di Haftar, il mondo deve reagire»
Il bombardamento è stato effettuato dalle forze del generale Khalifa Haftar, sostenute dalla Francia e dagli Emirati. Per l’inviato Onu si tratta di crimine di guerra. Il Consiglio di sicurezza dell’Onu si riunisce domani per una sessione d’urgenza.
Decine di migranti sono stati uccisi nel bombardamento che ieri notte un aereo dell’aviazione del generale Khalifa Haftar ha compiuto contro un centro per migranti adiacente alla base militare di #Dhaman, nell’area di #Tajoura. La base di Dhaman è uno dei depositi in cui le milizie di Misurata e quelle fedeli al governo del presidente Fayez al-Serraj hanno concentrato le loro riserve di munizioni e di veicoli utilizzati per la difesa di Tripoli, sotto attacco dal 4 aprile dalle milizie del generale della Cirenaica.
▻https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/07/03/news/libia_bombardato_centro_detenzione_migranti_decine_di_morti-230198952/?ref=RHPPTP-BH-I230202229-C12-P1-S1.12-T1
Le HCR et l’OIM condamnent l’attaque contre Tajoura et demandent une enquête immédiate sur les responsables
Le nombre effroyable de blessés et de victimes, suite à l’attaque aérienne de mardi soir à l’est de Tripoli contre le centre de détention de Tajoura, fait écho aux vives préoccupations exprimées par le HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, et l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), concernant la sécurité des personnes dans les centres de détention. Ce tout dernier épisode de violence rend également compte du danger évoqué par l’OIM et le HCR concernant les retours de migrants et de réfugiés en Libye après leur interception ou leur sauvetage en mer Méditerranée.
Nos deux organisations condamnent fermement cette attaque ainsi que toute attaque contre la vie des civils. Nous demandons également que la détention des migrants et des réfugiés cesse immédiatement. Nous appelons à ce que leur protection soit garantie en Libye.
Cette attaque mérite davantage qu’une simple condamnation. Selon le HCR et l’OIM, une enquête complète et indépendante est nécessaire pour déterminer comment cela s’est produit et qui en est responsable, ainsi que pour traduire les responsables en justice. La localisation de ces centres de détention à Tripoli est bien connue des combattants, qui savent également que les personnes détenues à Tajoura sont des civils.
Au moins 600 réfugiés et migrants, dont des femmes et des enfants, se trouvaient au centre de détention de Tajoura. La frappe aérienne a causé des dizaines de morts et de blessés. Nous nous attendons de ce fait que le nombre final de victimes soit beaucoup plus élevé.
Si l’on inclut les victimes de Tajoura, environ 3300 migrants et réfugiés sont toujours détenus arbitrairement à Tripoli et en périphérie de la ville dans des conditions abjectes et inhumaines. De plus, les migrants et les réfugiés sont confrontés à des risques croissants à mesure que les affrontements s’intensifient à proximité. Ces centres doivent être fermés.
Nous faisons tout notre possible pour leur venir en aide. L’OIM et le HCR ont déployé des équipes médicales. Par ailleurs, une équipe interinstitutions plus large des Nations Unies attend l’autorisation de se rendre sur place. Nous rappelons à toutes les parties à ce conflit que les civils ne doivent pas être pris pour cible et qu’ils doivent être protégés en vertu à la fois du droit international relatif aux réfugiés et du droit international relatif aux droits de l’homme.
Le conflit en cours dans la capitale libyenne a déjà forcé près de 100 000 Libyens à fuir leur foyer. Le HCR et ses partenaires, dont l’OIM, ont transféré plus de 1500 réfugiés depuis des centres de détention proches des zones de combat vers des zones plus sûres. Par ailleurs, des opérations de l’OIM pour le retour volontaire à titre humanitaire ont facilité le départ de plus de 5000 personnes vulnérables vers 30 pays d’origine en Afrique et en Asie.
L’OIM et le HCR exhortent l’ensemble du système des Nations Unies à condamner cette attaque et à faire cesser le recours à la détention en Libye. De plus, nous appelons instamment la communauté internationale à mettre en place des couloirs humanitaires pour les migrants et les réfugiés qui doivent être évacués depuis la Libye. Dans l’intérêt de tous en Libye, nous espérons que les États influents redoubleront d’efforts pour coopérer afin de mettre d’urgence un terme à cet effroyable conflit.
▻https://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/press/2019/7/5d1ca1f06/hcr-loim-condamnent-lattaque-contre-tajoura-demandent-enquete-immediate.html
Affamés, torturés, disparus : l’impitoyable piège refermé sur les migrants bloqués en Libye
Malnutrition, enlèvements, travail forcé, torture : des ONG présentes en Libye dénoncent les conditions de détention des migrants piégés dans ce pays, conséquence selon elles de la politique migratoire des pays européens conclue avec les Libyens.
Le point, minuscule dans l’immensité de la mer, est ballotté avec violence : mi-mai, un migrant qui tentait de quitter la Libye dans une embarcation de fortune a préféré risquer sa vie en plongeant en haute mer en voyant arriver les garde-côtes libyens, pour nager vers un navire commercial, selon une vidéo mise en ligne par l’ONG allemande Sea-Watch et tournée par son avion de recherche. L’image illustre le désespoir criant de migrants, en grande majorité originaires d’Afrique et de pays troublés comme le Soudan, l’Érythrée, la Somalie, prêts à tout pour ne pas être à nouveau enfermés arbitrairement dans un centre de détention dans ce pays livré au conflit et aux milices.
Des vidéos insoutenables filmées notamment dans des prisons clandestines aux mains de trafiquants d’êtres humains, compilées par une journaliste irlandaise et diffusées en février par Channel 4, donnent une idée des sévices de certains tortionnaires perpétrés pour rançonner les familles des migrants. Allongé nu par terre, une arme pointée sur lui, un migrant râle de douleur alors qu’un homme lui brûle les pieds avec un chalumeau. Un autre, le tee-shirt ensanglanté, est suspendu au plafond, un pistolet braqué sur la tête. Un troisième, attaché avec des cordes, une brique de béton lui écrasant dos et bras, est fouetté sur la plante des pieds, selon ces vidéos.
Le mauvais traitement des migrants a atteint un paroxysme dans la nuit de mardi à mercredi quand plus de 40 ont été tués et 70 blessés dans un raid aérien contre un centre pour migrants de Tajoura (près de Tripoli), attribué aux forces de Khalifa Haftar engagées dans une offensive sur la capitale libyenne. Un drame « prévisible » depuis des semaines, déplorent des acteurs humanitaires. Depuis janvier, plus de 2.300 personnes ont été ramenées et placées dans des centres de détention, selon l’ONU.
« Plus d’un millier de personnes ont été ramenées par les gardes-côtes libyens soutenus par l’Union européenne depuis le début du conflit en avril 2019. A terre, ces personnes sont ensuite transférées dans des centres de détention comme celui de Tajoura… », a ce réagi mercredi auprès de l’AFP Julien Raickman, chef de mission de l’ONG Médecins sans frontières (MSF) en Libye. Selon les derniers chiffres de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), au moins 5.200 personnes sont actuellement dans des centres de détention en Libye. Aucun chiffre n’est disponible pour celles détenues dans des centres illégaux aux mains de trafiquants.
L’UE apporte un soutien aux gardes-côtes libyens pour qu’ils freinent les arrivées sur les côtes italiennes. En 2017, elle a validé un accord conclu entre l’Italie et Tripoli pour former et équiper les garde-côtes libyens. Depuis le nombre d’arrivées en Europe via la mer Méditerranée a chuté de manière spectaculaire.
« Les morts s’empilent »
Fin mai, dans une prise de parole publique inédite, dix ONG internationales intervenant en Libye dans des conditions compliquées – dont Danish Refugee Council, International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps, Première Urgence Internationale (PUI) – ont brisé le silence. Elles ont exhorté l’UE et ses Etats membres à « revoir en urgence » leurs politiques migratoires qui nourrissent selon elles un « système de criminalisation », soulignant que les migrants, « y compris les femmes et les enfants, sont sujets à des détentions arbitraires et illimitées » en Libye dans des conditions « abominables ».
« Arrêtez de renvoyer les migrants en Libye ! La situation est instable, elle n’est pas sous contrôle ; ils n’y sont en aucun cas protégés ni par un cadre législatif ni pour les raisons sécuritaires que l’on connaît », a réagi ce mercredi à l’AFP Benjamin Gaudin, chef de mission de l’ONG PUI en Libye. Cette ONG intervient dans six centres de détention dans lesquels elle est une des seules organisations à prodiguer des soins de santé.
La « catastrophe ne se situe pas seulement en Méditerranée mais également sur le sol libyen ; quand ces migrants parviennent jusqu’aux côtes libyennes, ils ont déjà vécu l’enfer », a-t-il témoigné récemment auprès de l’AFP, dans une rare interview à un média. Dans certains de ces centres officiels, « les conditions sont terribles », estime M. Gaudin. « Les migrants vivent parfois entassés les uns sur les autres, dans des conditions sanitaires terribles avec de gros problèmes d’accès à l’eau – parfois il n’y a pas d’eau potable du tout. Ils ne reçoivent pas de nourriture en quantité suffisante ; dans certains centres, il n’y a absolument rien pour les protéger du froid ou de la chaleur. Certains n’ont pas de cours extérieures, les migrants n’y voient jamais la lumière du jour », décrit-il.
Human Rights Watch, qui a eu accès à plusieurs centres de détention en 2018 et à une centaine de migrants, va plus loin dans un rapport de 2019 – qui accumule les témoignages de « traitements cruels et dégradants » : l’organisation accuse la « coopération de l’UE avec la Libye sur les migrations de contribuer à un cycle d’abus extrêmes ».
« Les morts s’empilent dans les centres de détention libyens – emportés par une épidémie de tuberculose à Zintan, victimes d’un bombardement à Tajoura. La présence d’une poignée d’acteurs humanitaires sur place ne saurait assurer des conditions acceptables dans ces centres », a déploré M. Raickman de MSF. « Les personnes qui y sont détenues, majoritairement des réfugiés, continuent de mourir de maladies, de faim, sont victimes de violences en tout genre, de viols, soumises à l’arbitraire des milices. Elles se retrouvent prises au piège des combats en cours », a-t-il dénoncé.
Signe d’une situation considérée comme de plus en plus critique, la Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme du Conseil de l’Europe a exhorté le 18 juin les pays européens à suspendre leur coopération avec les gardes-côtes libyens, estimant que les personnes récupérées « sont systématiquement placées en détention et en conséquence soumises à la torture, à des violences sexuelles, à des extorsions ». L’ONU elle même a dénoncé le 7 juin des conditions « épouvantables » dans ces centres. « Environ 22 personnes sont décédées des suites de la tuberculose et d’autres maladies dans le centre de détention de Zintan depuis septembre », a dénoncé Rupert Colville, un porte-parole du Haut-Commissariat de l’ONU aux droits de l’Homme.
MSF, qui a démarré récemment des activités médicales dans les centres de Zintan et Gharyan, a décrit une « catastrophe sanitaire », soulignant que les personnes enfermées dans ces deux centres « viennent principalement d’Érythrée et de Somalie et ont survécu à des expériences terrifiantes » durant leur exil. Or, selon les ONG et le HCR, la très grande majorité des milliers de personnes détenues dans les centres sont des réfugiés, qui pourraient avoir droit à ce statut et à un accueil dans un pays développé, mais ne peuvent le faire auprès de l’Etat libyen. Ils le font auprès du HCR en Libye, dans des conditions très difficiles.
« Enfermés depuis un an »
« Les évacuations hors de Libye vers des pays tiers ou pays de transit sont aujourd’hui extrêmement limitées, notamment parce qu’il manque des places d’accueil dans des pays sûrs qui pourraient accorder l’asile », relève M. Raickman. « Il y a un fort sentiment de désespoir face à cette impasse ; dans des centres où nous intervenons dans la région de Misrata et Khoms, des gens sont enfermés depuis un an. » Interrogée par l’AFP, la Commission européenne défend son bilan et son « engagement » financier sur cette question, soulignant avoir « mobilisé » depuis 2014 pas moins de 338 millions d’euros dans des programmes liés à la migration en Libye.
« Nous sommes extrêmement préoccupés par la détérioration de la situation sur le terrain », a récemment déclaré à l’AFP une porte-parole de la Commission européenne, Natasha Bertaud. « Des critiques ont été formulées sur notre engagement avec la Libye, nous en sommes conscients et nous échangeons régulièrement avec les ONG sur ce sujet », a-t-elle ajouté. « Mais si nous ne nous étions pas engagés avec l’OIM, le HCR et l’Union africaine, nous n’aurions jamais eu cet impact : ces 16 derniers mois, nous avons pu sortir 38.000 personnes hors de ces terribles centres de détention et hors de Libye, et les raccompagner chez eux avec des programmes de retour volontaire, tout cela financé par l’Union européenne », a-t-elle affirmé. « Parmi les personnes qui ont besoin de protection – originaires d’Érythrée ou du Soudan par exemple – nous avons récemment évacué environ 2.700 personnes de Libye vers le Niger (…) et organisé la réinstallation réussie dans l’UE de 1.400 personnes ayant eu besoin de protection internationale », plaide-t-elle.
La porte-parole rappelle que la Commission a « à maintes reprises ces derniers mois exhorté ses États membres à trouver une solution sur des zones de désembarquement, ce qui mettrait fin à ce qui passe actuellement : à chaque fois qu’un bateau d’ONG secoure des gens et qu’il y a une opposition sur le sujet entre Malte et l’Italie, c’est la Commission qui doit appeler près de 28 capitales européennes pour trouver des lieux pour ces personnes puissent débarquer : ce n’est pas viable ! ».
Pour le porte-parole de la marine libyenne, le général Ayoub Kacem, interrogé par l’AFP, ce sont « les pays européens (qui) sabotent toute solution durable à l’immigration en Méditerranée, parce qu’ils n’acceptent pas d’accueillir une partie des migrants et se sentent non concernés ». Il appelle les Européens à « plus de sérieux » et à unifier leurs positions. « Les États européens ont une scandaleuse responsabilité dans toutes ces morts et ces souffrances », dénonce M. Raickman. « Ce qu’il faut, ce sont des actes : des évacuations d’urgence des réfugiés et migrants coincés dans des conditions extrêmement dangereuses en Libye ».
▻https://www.charentelibre.fr/2019/07/03/affames-tortures-disparus-l-impitoyable-piege-referme-sur-les-migrants
« Mourir en mer ou sous les bombes : seule alternative pour les milliers de personnes migrantes prises au piège de l’enfer libyen ? »
Le soir du 2 juillet, une attaque aérienne a été signalée sur le camp de détention pour migrant·e·s de #Tadjourah dans la banlieue est de la capitale libyenne. Deux jours après, le bilan s’est alourdi et fait état d’au moins 66 personnes tuées et plus de 80 blessées [1]. A une trentaine de kilomètres plus au sud de Tripoli, plusieurs migrant·e·s avaient déjà trouvé la mort fin avril dans l’attaque du camp de Qasr Bin Gashir par des groupes armés.
Alors que les conflits font rage autour de Tripoli entre le Gouvernement d’union nationale (GNA) reconnu par l’ONU et les forces du maréchal Haftar, des milliers de personnes migrantes enfermées dans les geôles libyennes se retrouvent en première ligne : lorsqu’elles ne sont pas abandonnées à leur sort par leurs gardien·ne·s à l’approche des forces ennemies ou forcées de combattre auprès d’un camp ou de l’autre, elles sont régulièrement prises pour cibles par les combattant·e·s.
Dans un pays où les migrant·e·s sont depuis longtemps vu·e·s comme une monnaie d’échange entre milices, et, depuis l’époque de Kadhafi, comme un levier diplomatique notamment dans le cadre de divers marchandages migratoires avec les Etats de l’Union européenne [2], les personnes migrantes constituent de fait l’un des nerfs de la guerre pour les forces en présence, bien au-delà des frontières libyennes.
Au lendemain des bombardements du camp de Tadjourah, pendant que le GNA accusait Haftar et que les forces d’Haftar criaient au complot, les dirigeant·e·s des pays européens ont pris le parti de faire mine d’assister impuissant·e·s à ce spectacle tragique depuis l’autre bord de la Méditerranée, les un·e·s déplorant les victimes et condamnant les attaques, les autres appelant à une enquête internationale pour déterminer les coupables.
Contre ces discours teintés d’hypocrisie, il convient de rappeler l’immense responsabilité de l’Union européenne et de ses États membres dans la situation désastreuse dans laquelle les personnes migrantes se trouvent sur le sol libyen. Lorsqu’à l’occasion de ces attaques, l’Union européenne se félicite de son rôle dans la protection des personnes migrantes en Libye et affirme la nécessité de poursuivre ses efforts [3], ne faut-il pas tout d’abord se demander si celle-ci fait autre chose qu’entériner un système de détention cruel en finançant deux organisations internationales, le HCR et l’OIM, qui accèdent pour partie à ces camps où les pires violations de droits sont commises ?
Au-delà de son soutien implicite à ce système d’enfermement à grande échelle, l’UE n’a cessé de multiplier les stratégies pour que les personnes migrantes, tentant de fuir la Libye et ses centres de détention aux conditions inhumaines, y soient immédiatement et systématiquement renvoyées, entre le renforcement constant des capacités des garde-côtes libyens et l’organisation d’un vide humanitaire en Méditerranée par la criminalisation des ONG de secours en mer [4].
A la date du 20 juin 2019, le HCR comptait plus de 3 000 personnes interceptées par les garde-côtes libyens depuis le début de l’année 2019, pour à peine plus de 2000 personnes arrivées en Italie [5]. Pour ces personnes interceptées et reconduites en Libye, les perspectives sont bien sombres : remises aux mains des milices, seules échapperont à la détention les heureuses élues qui sont évacuées au Niger dans l’attente d’une réinstallation hypothétique par le HCR, ou celles qui, après de fortes pressions et souvent en désespoir de cause, acceptent l’assistance au retour « volontaire » proposée par l’OIM.
L’Union européenne a beau jeu de crier au scandale. La détention massive de migrant·e·s et la violation de leurs droits dans un pays en pleine guerre civile ne relèvent ni de la tragédie ni de la fatalité : ce sont les conséquences directes des politiques d’externalisation et de marchandages migratoires cyniques orchestrées par l’Union et ses États membres depuis de nombreuses années. Il est temps que cesse la guerre aux personnes migrantes et que la liberté de circulation soit assurée pour toutes et tous.
►http://www.migreurop.org/article2931.html
aussi signalé par @vanderling
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/791482
Migrants say militias in Tripoli conscripted them to clean arms
Migrants who survived the deadly airstrike on a detention center in western Libya say they had been conscripted by a local militia to work in an adjacent weapons workshop. The detention centers are under armed groups affiliated with the Fayez al-Sarraj government in Tripoli.
Two migrants told The Associated Press on Thursday that for months they were sent day and night to a workshop inside the Tajoura detention center, which housed hundreds of African migrants.
A young migrant who has been held for nearly two years at Tajoura says “we clean the anti-aircraft guns. I saw a large amount of rockets and missiles too.”
The migrants spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
Libia, bombe sul campo profughi: «Migranti usati come scudi umani»
Quest’estate il campo profughi di #Tajura in Libia è stato bombardato. Gaetano Pecoraro ci racconta cosa volevano colpire veramente quelle bombe
▻https://www.iene.mediaset.it/video/libia-bombe-campo-profughi-migranti_531023.shtml
Statement by the Post-3Tajoura Working Group on the Three-Month Mark of the Tajoura Detention Centre Airstrike
On behalf of the Post-Tajoura Working Group, the European Union Delegation to Libya issues a statement to mark the passing of three months since the airstrike on the Tajoura Detention Centre. Today is the occasion to remind the Libyan government of the urgency of the situation of detained refugees and migrants in and around Tripoli.
▻https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/libya/68248/statement-post-tajoura-working-group-three-month-mark-tajoura-detention-
Statement by the Spokesperson on the situation in the #Tajoura detention centre
Statement by the Spokesperson on the situation in the Tajoura detention centre.
The release of the detainees remaining in the Tajoura detention centre, hit by a deadly attack on 2 July, is a positive step by the Libyan authorities. All refugees and migrants have to be released from detention and provided with all the necessary assistance. In this context, we have supported the creation of the Gathering and Departure Facility (GDF) in Tripoli and other safe places in order to improve the protection of those in need and to provide humane alternatives to the current detention system.
We will continue to work with International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency) in the context of the African Union-European Union-United Nations Task Force to support and protect refugees and migrants in Libya. We call on all parties to accelerate humanitarian evacuation and resettlement from Libya to third countries. In particular, we are supporting UNHCR’s work to resettle the most vulnerable refugees with durable solutions outside Libya, with around 4,000 individuals having been evacuated so far. We are also working closely with the IOM and the African Union and its Member States to continue the Assisted Voluntary Returns, thereby adding to the more than 45,000 migrants returned to their countries of origin so far.
The European Union is strongly committed to fighting traffickers and smugglers and to strengthening the capacity of the Libyan Coast Guard to save lives at sea. Equally, we recall the need to put in place mechanisms that guarantee the safety and dignity of those rescued by the Libyan Coast Guard, notably by ending arbitrary detention and allowing the UN agencies to carry out screening and registration and to provide direct emergency assistance and protection. Through our continuous financial support and our joined political advocacy towards the Libyan authorities, the UNHCR and IOM are now able to better monitor the situation in the disembarkation points and have regular access to most of the official detention centres.
Libya’s current system of detaining migrants has to end and migration needs to be managed in full compliance with international standards, including when it comes to human rights. The European Union stands ready to help the Libyan authorities to develop solutions to create safe and dignified alternatives to detention in full compliance with the international humanitarian standards and in respect of human rights.
▻https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/65266/statement-spokesperson-situation-tajoura-detention-centre_en
05.11.2019
About 45 women, 16 children and some men, for a total of approximately 80 refugees, were taken out of #TariqalSikka detention centre by the Libyan police and taken to the #UNHCR offices in #Gurji, Tripoli, yesterday. UNHCR told them there is nothing they can do to help them so...
they are now homeless in Tripoli, destitute, starving, at risk of being shot, bombed, kidnapped, tortured, raped, sold or detained again in an even worst detention centre. Forcing African refugees out of detention centres and leaving them homeless in Tripoli is not a solution...
It is almost a death sentence in today’s Libya. UNHCR doesn’t have capacity to offer any help or protection to homeless refugees released from detention. These women & children have now lost priority for evacuation after years waiting in detention, suffering rape, torture, hunger...
▻https://twitter.com/GiuliaRastajuly/status/1191777843644174336
#SDF #sans-abri
Libya: Detained refugees ’terrified’ as clashes near #Tripoli rage
Some refugees and migrants say they are left without food and water, while say they were forced to move weapons.
▻https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/libya-detained-refugees-terrified-clashes-tripoli-rage-190407172920412.ht
#centres #détention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Libye
métaliste ici
►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749
Affrontements en Libye : le #HCR relocalise en lieu sûr des réfugiés depuis des #centres_de_détention
Du fait de l’insécurité actuelle dans la capitale libyenne, le HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, a relocalisé aujourd’hui plus de 150 réfugiés depuis le centre de détention d’#Ain_Zara au sud de #Tripoli vers le centre du HCR pour le regroupement et le départ, dans une zone sûre située non loin.
Le centre de détention d’Ain Zara a été affecté par de violents affrontements ces derniers jours. Les réfugiés ont fait part au HCR de leur peur et leur inquiétude pour leur sécurité, car des combats survenaient dans les environs, et il ne leur restait que très peu de vivres.
Le HCR a reçu des informations faisant état de situations similaires dans d’autres centres de détention et examine actuellement ces demandes.
Aujourd’hui, la relocalisation de réfugiés et de migrants détenus est la première effectuée par le HCR depuis l’escalade récente des violences.
Le HCR travaille en étroite collaboration avec les autorités et ses partenaires pour assurer la relocalisation des personnes vulnérables des centres de détention.
« En Libye, de nombreux réfugiés et migrants subissent des abus effroyables. Ils courent désormais également de sérieux risques et ne doivent pas être négligés dans les efforts visant à mettre tous les civils à l’abri du danger et à les relocaliser dans des endroits plus sûrs », a déclaré Matthew Brook, chef-adjoint de la mission du HCR en Libye.
Depuis l’éruption des combats dans la capitale libyenne, plus de 3400 Libyens ont été déplacés par les combats et beaucoup d’autres sont pris au piège dans les tirs croisés. Ils sont dans l’incapacité de fuir en quête de refuge.
Le HCR se joint à la communauté humanitaire pour exhorter au respect des obligations juridiques internationales afin d’assurer la sécurité de tous les civils et la sauvegarde de l’infrastructure civile, ainsi que de permettre un accès humanitaire complet, sûr, sans entrave et durable dans les zones touchées.
Dans le cadre de sa réponse à la crise d’urgence résultant de la violence actuelle, le HCR a également prépositionné du matériel de secours dans des endroits clés à Tripoli et Misrata, a renforcé ses services d’assistance téléphonique et assure la continuité de ses programmes d’assistance aux réfugiés et aux Libyens déplacés en milieu urbain.
Le HCR réitère sa position selon laquelle les conditions en Libye ne sont pas sûres pour les réfugiés et les migrants secourus ou interceptés en mer, et que ces personnes ne doivent pas y être renvoyées.
▻https://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/press/2019/4/5cad93afa/affrontements-libye-hcr-relocalise-lieu-s-r-refugies-centres-detention.html
#évacuation #UNHCR #pays_sûr
v. aussi ce fil twitter du HCR :
▻https://twitter.com/Refugees/status/1115908064270532609
Sur le camps de #Ain_Zara, voir aussi :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/615857
#UNHCR Libya
Try to think for one second about refugees freedom and the infinite search for dignity. Imagine the pain of living in confinement, facing persecution and a feeling of death from the constant sorrow. Those brave citizens, who because of their words, actions or thoughts are forced out of their houses, communities and political identities. While liberty and autonomy lead to hope, hope is lost during the persistent begging for protection. Is lost because of the fear of imminent death. Is lost together with the control over their lives. Look at this image: it was shared by a creative thinker who is slowly dying, suffering because was left on fire with no where to go...
source : Facebook
▻https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10218932430851698&set=a.1092169114377&type=3&theater
#Libye #HCR #dessin #barbelé #piège #protection #asile #migrations #réfugiés
Driven to suicide in Tunisia’s UNHCR refugee shelter
Lack of adequate care and #frustration over absence of resettlement plans prompt attempted suicides, refugees say.
Last Monday night, 16-year-old Nato* slit his wrists and was rushed to the local hospital in Medenine.
He had decided to end his life in a refugee facility run by the UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, in Medenine. After running for two years, escaping Eritrea and near-certain conscription into the country’s army, making it through Sudan, Egypt and Libya, he had reached Tunisia and despair.
A few days later, Nato was transferred to a psychiatric hospital in #Sfax, 210km north of Medenine, where he was kept on lockdown and was frustrated that he was not able to communicate with anyone in the facility.
Nato’s isn’t the only story of despair among refugees in Tunisia. A female refugee was taken to hospital after drinking bleach, while a 16-year-old unaccompanied young girl tried to escape over the borders to Libya, but was stopped at Ben Gardane.
“I’m not surprised by what has happened to Nato,” a 16-year-old at the UNHCR facility told Al Jazeera on the condition of anonymity.
“They just keep us here without providing any support and after we ... witnessed killings of our friends. We feel completely abandoned. We don’t feel secure and protected,” he said.
The 30 to 35 unaccompanied minors living in UNHCR’s reception facility in Medenine share a room, spending their days remembering past images of violence and abuse.
“I cannot get out of my mind the picture of my friend dying after they pointed a gun at his temple. He was sitting next to me. Sometimes at night, I cannot sleep,” the 16-year-old said.
’They’re trying to hide us here’
The UNHCR facility in Medenine struggles to offer essential services to a growing number of arrivals.
According to the information given to Al Jazeera, the asylum seekers and refugees have not received medical screenings or access to psychosocial support, nor were they informed clearly of their rights in Tunisia.
“We feel they are trying to hide us here,” said Amin*. “How can we say we are safe if UNHCR is not protecting our basic rights? If we are here left without options, we will try to cross the sea.”
Amin, 19, has no vision of what his life will be. He would like to continue his education or learn a new language but, since his arrival, he has only promises and hopes, no plans.
The young people here find themselves having to take care of themselves and navigate the questions of what their future will be like, at times without even being able to reach out to their families back home for comfort.
“My parents are in Eritrea and since more than a year, I was able to speak with them only for three minutes,” said Senait*, a 15-year-old boy from Eritrea.
Aaron*, a 16-year-old boy who has been on the road for three years and three months, has not been able to call his relatives at all since his arrival in Tunisia.
“Last time I have contacted them was in 2016 while I was in Sudan. I miss them so much,” he said.
Last week, many of them participated in a peaceful demonstration, demanding medical care, support from the UNHCR and resettlement to third countries.
Refugee lives in suspension
Nato, as well as a number of refugee minors Al Jazeera spoke to, arrived in Tunisia over the Libyan border with the help of smugglers. The same is true for hundreds of refugees escaping Libya.
Tunisia registered more than 1,000 refugees and 350 asylum seekers, mainly from Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia.
But the country has neither the capacity nor the means to host refugees, and because it doesn’t have a coherent asylum system, the refugees find themselves living a largely suspended life.
Officially, refugees are not allowed to work and, therefore, there is no formal system of protection for those that do work.
Awate*, a 24-year-old man from Eritrea, had been working for nine days in a hotel in the seaside city of Zarzis when he was arrested and brought to a police station where he was interrogated for 30 minutes.
“They told me ’why are you going to work without passport?’,” he said, adding that he has not worked since.
The UNHCR in Tunisia is pushing alternatives, which include enhancing refugees’ self-reliance and livelihood opportunities.
A month ago, a group of 32 people moved out of the reception centre with an offer of a monthly payment of 350 Tunisian dinars ($116) and help to find private accommodation. Among them, nine decided to go to the capital, Tunis. The plan is confirmed for three months, with no clarity on what happens next.
Aklilu*, a 36-year-old former child soldier from Eritrea who took up the offer, is now renting a small apartment on the main road to Djerba for 250 Tunisian dinars ($83).
“Why should I be forced to settle in a country that’s not ready to host refugees?” he said. “They are thinking of Tunisia as the final destination but there are no conditions for it. The UNHCR is not making any effort to integrate us. We don’t get any language courses or technical training.”
Tunisia announces closure of #Medenine migrant centre
Tunisia has decided to close the Medenine center for migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers due to overcrowding and inhumane conditions.
Fadhel Mahfoudh, Tunisian minister for relations with constitutional instances, civil society and human rights, announced that the Medenine migrant center will be closed due to overcrowding and deplorable conditions for those being hosted there. “The conditions in this center are inhumane, and it will therefore be closed immediately,” Mahfoudh said during a working visit to Medenine. “We have to find solutions to allow migrants and refugees to live with dignity,” he said.
He said the center’s location, situated in a residential neighborhood between a high school and a foyer for female students, is inappropriate. He said the location creates problems with the neighborhood’s residents, who have already asked local authorities to find another place to host the migrants.
Resident numbers continue to increase
The center is managed by the Tunisian Red Crescent with the support of international organizations, IOM, UNHCR, and the collaboration of the International Red Cross. Local sources said the center currently hosts 20 migrants and 180 asylum seekers, but numbers continue to grow daily due to the increase in migrant flows from Libya. The Tunisian Red Crescent and some local NGOs have long denounced the critical conditions at the Medenine center.
#IOM supports decision
Lorena Lando, the Tunisian director of the International Organization for Migration, said the organization supports the decision to close the center, which she said has surpassed its maximum capacity. She said IOM will do everything it can to provide the necessary support and assistance to the center’s guests and to respond to the authorities’ demands in terms of migrant assistance. “IOM remains available to every migrant who wishes to return to his or her country of origin,” Lando said.
She said IOM ensured the return from Tunisia of 605 migrants to their countries of origin in 2018. UNHCR Tunisia representative Mazen Abu Shanab said the increase in the number of Libyan migrants in Tunisia (about 300 per month) is calling for a doubling of efforts in terms of assistance. Most of the migrants who are staying at the Medenine centre are Eritreans who wish to reach Europe, Shanab said.
▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15890/tunisia-announces-closure-of-medenine-migrant-centre?ref=tw
#fermeture #OIM
La situation des migrants dans le centre du #Croissant_Rouge à #Médenine
▻https://ftdes.net/rapport-de-mission-denquete-la-situation-des-migrants-dans-le-centre-du-crois
Traduction en italien :
►https://www.meltingpot.org/Tunisia-la-vita-dei-migranti-irregolari-nella-regione-di.html
Tunisia: la vita dei migranti irregolari nella regione di Médenine
Il ruolo della Croissant-Rouge e un piano d’azione che garantisce libertà di movimento anche senza documenti
►https://www.meltingpot.org/Tunisia-la-vita-dei-migranti-irregolari-nella-regione-di.html
Greece plans to phase out cash and housing for recognized refugees
The Greek government has announced it will start asking people with refugee status or subsidiary protection to leave camps and UNHCR accommodation, starting with people who got their status before August 2017. Eventually, it will also end their access to cash assistance, Refugee.Info has learned.
Gradually, authorities will ask all people who have had refugee status or subsidiary protection for more than 6 months to leave camps and UNHCR accommodation, and gradually it will stop providing them with cash assistance, the Greek Ministry of Migration Policy said.
Why did the government make this new policy?
The Greek government says it is not creating a new policy, just enforcing an existing policy. Under the policy, people lose access to camps and #UNHCR accommodation and cash 6 months after they get refugee status or subsidiary protection.
That policy was made to meet the requirements of the European Union, which funds both the cash program and the UNHCR accommodation scheme. Under the European Union’s rules, cash and accommodation are meant for asylum-seekers — people who don’t yet have a decision on their asylum application.
Up to now the government hasn’t enforced the 6-months policy strictly, recognizing that for many refugees in Greece, it is very difficult to find a place to stay and a way to support themselves financially.
Why now?
Now, the Greek government says it has to enforce the policy because:
– Greece is still facing high numbers of new arrivals.
– The islands are overcrowded.
– There are not enough places in camps and UNHCR accommodation to meet the needs of asylum-seekers.
The decision came from the Greek Directorate for the Protection of Asylum Seekers, the General Secretariat for Migration Policy and the Ministry of Migration Policy.
▻https://blog.refugee.info/exit-accommodation-cash
#Grèce #réfugiés #asile #migrations #hébergement #logement #HCR #vulnérabilité #demandeurs_d'asile #hotspots #îles
Dutch and other European governments in Kabul alongside #UNHCR, IOM, #Save_the_Children (sic) and other NGOs to promote further #deportation to Afghanistan
What is a difference between a refugee and a migrant?
La réponse du HCR...
La meilleure réponse à cette opposition factice entre "bons réfugiés" et "vilains migrants économiques" a été faite par la présidente de la PSM : C’est comme énoncer, selon elle, que « mourir de faim n’est pas un problème » alors que « mourir de la guerre le serait ».
▻https://twitter.com/MathildeR0BERT/status/1097844267886825472
Et pour rappel, ce texte paru dans @vacarme en juin 2016
Migrants et réfugiés : quand dire, c’est faire la politique migratoire
À partir de la polémique soulevée par Barry Malone sur la chaîne Al Jazeera visant à substituer au terme générique de migrants celui de réfugiés, « plus approprié pour nommer des personnes qui fuient la guerre et arrivent en masse en Europe », Cécile Canut propose une traversée des transformations et reformulations des mots utilisés pour qualifier la migration qui mettent à jour le durcissement des positions et les soubassements des choix politiques à l’œuvre, lesquels barrent toujours plus l’accès à la complexité des subjectivités individuelles, des trajectoires et de leurs causes pour construire des catégories d’êtres humains homogènes déterminées par « le même ». Nommer c’est toujours faire exister rappelle-t-elle, d’où l’importance de cette attention à la bataille des mots et aux questionnements profonds qu’ils ouvrent.
Le 20 août 2015, la chaîne Al Jazeera, par le biais d’un de ses collaborateurs, Barry Malone, lançait une petite bombe médiatico-communicationnelle en publiant sur son blog un article intitulé « Why Al Jazeera will not say Mediterranean “migrants” ? », article mis en mots et en images le lendemain, à travers un débat télévisuel proposé par la même chaîne : « Migrants or refugees ? Thousands fleeing conflict in desperation have been undermined by language used by the media to describe their plight » [1]. Ce texte, tweeté et retweeté, a circulé sur les réseaux sociaux avant de faire une entrée fracassante dans les espaces médiatiques européens les jours qui ont suivi, suscitant de multiples débats jusqu’au début du mois de septembre.
La polémique visait à substituer au terme générique de « migrants » celui de « réfugiés », plus « approprié » pour nommer des personnes qui fuient la guerre et arrivent en masse en Europe. L’accusation portée contre les gouvernements européens, le parti pris affiché pour les réfugiés et la dimension prescriptive impliquée par la décision du directeur des informations d’Al Jazeera de ne plus utiliser le terme « migrants », ont non seulement engagé une querelle nommée « sémantique » mais ont surtout eu un effet performatif immédiat : tous les médias ou presque ont modifié leurs pratiques langagières en privilégiant le terme « réfugiés ». Contrairement à d’autres, cette polémique ne s’est donc pas limitée à une querelle byzantine au sein du microcosme médiatique.
Un soudain souci de « sémantique »
Cet événement de parole est tout d’abord le révélateur d’un questionnement profond sur le processus de catégorisation des êtres humains dans nos sociétés, questionnement qui s’inscrit dans une longue histoire du sens, et dont bien des auteurs ont rendu compte, depuis les penseurs grecs jusqu’aux plus récents philosophes. Le langage n’est pas le filtre transparent d’un réel immédiat, les mots et les énoncés cristallisent bien au contraire un ensemble de connotations, de positionnements subjectifs et d’orientations sociales et politiques dont les locuteurs sont toujours responsables, même lorsque qu’à leur insu ils reprennent les significations et les catégorisations imposées par d’autres, ce que l’on attribue en analyse du discours à l’interdiscours ou encore au dialogisme [2]. Si le coup de force d’Al Jazeera a été de rappeler cette évidence au grand public, sa décision de ne plus employer le terme « migrants » renvoie pourtant à une approche supposée objective du langage : l’argument central de la démonstration de Barry Malone repose en effet sur l’idée que le terme « réfugiés » est mieux en rapport avec le réel ; il est plus juste en ce qu’il rend compte de ce que vivent des millions de personnes fuyant la guerre : des personnes demandant refuge et devant être traitées comme des victimes. En imposant un des sens du terme « réfugiés », ou plus exactement en revenant à une signification oblitérée en Europe, la chaîne vient contrer un autre sens, celui-ci plus récent et plus restrictif, issu de la Convention de Genève (1951), elle-même ratifiée par cent-quarante-cinq états membres des Nations unies, et visant à définir le « réfugié » non seulement en considération de son état de victime de régimes politiques, mais en vertu d’un statut obtenu suite à une « demande d’asile ».
Si la définition est valable dans les deux cas, la condition pour acquérir le statut de réfugié est d’apporter la preuve de ces persécutions ou menaces par le biais d’une demande administrative très souvent longue et laborieuse. Ainsi que le rappelle Karen Akoka [3], le passage d’une approche collective visant la situation politique des États jusqu’aux années 1970, à une mise en cause individuelle de ceux que l’on va alors nommer les « demandeurs d’asile », montre à quel point le lien permanent aux conditions politiques de gestion de la migration, c’est-à-dire à sa mise en œuvre pratique, par l’Ofpra notamment, conduit sans cesse à de nouvelles catégories et de nouvelles définitions de ces mêmes catégories.
Al Jazeera s’engage ainsi de manière frontale dans la lutte des significations, et par conséquent dans la lutte politique des questions migratoires européennes ; par le biais de cette injonction, elle rappelle à l’Europe ses obligations : celles d’accueillir toute personne persécutée sans conditions mises à cette humanité. La fin de l’article de Barry Malone indique que ce choix est bien évidemment lui-même orienté, puisqu’il a pour but de défendre et de parler au nom de ces personnes démunies, notamment dénuées du pouvoir de dire qui elles sont et ce qu’elles font, c’est-à-dire privées d’un vrai pouvoir de parole : At this network, we try hard through our journalism to be the voice of those people in our world who, for whatever reason, find themselves without one. Migrant is a word that strips suffering people of voice. Substituting refugee for it is — in the smallest way — an attempt to give some back [4]. Redonner une voix aux sans-voix, telle est l’ambition affichée.
En cette fin d’été 2015, un léger vent de panique s’est répandu sur les médias français. Quel mot utiliser ? Comment se positionner face à cette décision partout adoptée au prétexte de sa bienveillance vis-à-vis des victimes de la guerre ? Les journalistes français entraînés malgré eux dans le débat se sont tournés immédiatement vers les chercheurs susceptibles, en tant qu’experts supposés, de détenir la clé du problème. Sans délai, les principaux quotidiens de l’Hexagone ont donc pris part aux débats par le biais d’articles donnant largement la parole auxdits spécialistes. Toutefois, les problèmes « sémantiques » étaient loin de se régler, ils se compliquaient même, cette polémique mettant finalement en cause les pratiques des chercheurs. Ainsi, un jeune journaliste du Nouvel Observateur, après une série de questions sur les mots de la migration, en est venu à la question qu’il brûlait de me poser : quel est le mot qu’il faut utiliser ? Autrement dit : quel est le meilleur mot ? Alors que toute utilisation d’un terme dépend de son contexte, des interlocuteurs en présence, de ses conditions de production sociale, politique voire subjective, la réponse à une telle question est bien entendu impossible. Pour autant, le journaliste ne renonçait pas à cet impératif en intitulant son article : « Doit-on les appeler “migrants” ou “réfugiés” ? ». L’injonction à une supposée fidélité à la vérité objective persistait même si, au cours du texte, la fluctuation des significations et l’instrumentalisation politique des catégories étaient évoquées.
Au-delà de cet épisode médiatique, dont on aura pu observer les soubresauts ici ou là au cours de l’année 2015 et encore en ce début 2016, il importe ici de revenir sur la circulation des significations données par les uns et les autres, à différents niveaux d’instances de parole, afin de comprendre comment se reconstruit à un moment donné l’hétérogénéité du sens et de ses interprétations. La question n’est pas seulement de savoir pourquoi le terme « réfugié » s’est imposé dans les discours médiatiques, en parallèle ou au détriment du terme « migrants », mais de comprendre ce que font les locuteurs (quels qu’ils soient : politiques, journalistes, chercheurs ou simples citoyens) quand ils commentent leurs mots et leurs discours pour, notamment, justifier leurs pratiques. Dans le cadre de la politique migratoire européenne en particulier, que font les locuteurs quand ils choisissent de discourir sur les catégories de migrants, réfugiés, exilés, sans-papiers, clandestins, etc. ? Pourquoi cet empressement à choisir un seul terme englobant qui viendrait dire un réel bien complexe ou au contraire en exclure d’autres trop embarrassants ?
Au bout de cette traversée des transformations et reformulations, de la migration, il convient d’observer que l’ensemble de ces débats a finalement entériné une opposition politique déjà à l’œuvre depuis bien longtemps [5], mais qui s’exporte dans les média au début de l’année 2015 entre « migrants économiques » et « réfugiés politiques », les premiers rejetés automatiquement de l’espace Schengen, les autres finalement accueillis en Europe (au moins durant l’année 2015).
Rappelons tout d’abord que le mot « réfugiés » a désigné au départ les protestants chassés de France après la révocation de l’édit de Nantes. Toutefois, le terme de plus en plus controversé au XIXe siècle a pris de l’ampleur au début du XXe siècle alors que les conflits austro-prussiens jetaient des milliers de civils sur les routes, particulièrement les populations juives de l’Est. Poussés par le marasme économique, les pogroms et les discriminations subis ensuite en Russie, 2,5 millions de Juifs s’exilèrent à l’Ouest, jusqu’aux heures sombres d’une Europe voyant Juifs et Tsiganes fuir le nazisme dès les années 1930 non seulement vers l’Europe mais vers le continent américain. La politisation de la question des réfugiés s’est élaborée après la guerre au niveau international, par le biais des Nations unies, avec notamment la Convention de Genève en 1951 qui fixe alors institutionnellement le sens du terme « réfugié ».
Si pendant les années d’après-guerre, la France a accueilli des Espagnols, des Italiens, des Polonais, des Portugais, si elle est même allée chercher des travailleurs dans ses anciennes colonies pour des raisons économiques, la catégorisation visant à dissocier ces derniers des travailleurs français a commencé autour des années 1970. La cristallisation de ce changement politique a pris forme avec l’utilisation d’un terme nouveau : « immigrés ». Faisant référence dans un premier temps au champ du travail (« travailleurs immigrés [6] »), ce terme s’est imposé dans les débats publics, politiques, juridiques et médiatiques afin de dissocier l’ensemble homogénéisé des « immigrés » et celui des « étrangers » puis des « Français de souche », expression importée de l’extrême droite [7] dès la fin des années 1970. La politique migratoire, à partir des années 1980, a opéré une différenciation entre les critères de définition : alors que la notion d’« étranger » est juridique, celle d’« immigré » renvoie à une entité socio-culturelle qui aboutit progressivement à une ethnicisation des étrangers venus du Maghreb et d’Afrique en général. Bien souvent de nationalité française, « l’immigré » fait l’objet de discours et de mesures spécifiques de par son origine questionnant de fait son appartenance réelle à la France. Dès 1986, la modification législative de l’entrée de séjour par le ministère de l’Intérieur a engagé cette nouvelle catégorie dans le champ policier. Suspectés, les « immigrés » ont dès lors constitué une catégorie générique appréhendée comme douteuse pour la nation, ce que les termes « clandestins » ou « illégaux » sont venus renforcer.
Il n’est plus possible d’envisager les individus dans leur devenir, selon leurs trajectoires et leurs subjectivités, et encore moins selon une approche sociale telle qu’elle existait jusqu’alors dans les milieux professionnels.
Parallèlement à ce glissement des critères, les travailleurs concernés ont vu leur demande de régularisation entravée. Dans les années 1972-1973, ils ont commencé à se mobiliser en se nommant eux-mêmes « travailleurs sans-papiers ». Cette expression est apparue lors des premières protestations aux circulaires Marcelin-Fontanet (1972) qui mettaient fin aux régularisations automatiques. Véritable « label militant », cette dénomination s’est opposée à la catégorie « travailleurs immigrés », faisant référence à l’ensemble des étrangers, impliquant même les déboutés du droit d’asile. Du côté des médias, des marqueurs identitaires (couleurs de la peau, origine géographique, religion, culture…) ont de plus en plus déterminé les catégorisations légitimées par les discours politiques du Front national, repris à droite puis à gauche (« clandestins », « immigrés illégaux », « Arabes », « Maghrébins », « Africains », « musulmans ») et ont constitué un facteur de sélection des candidats à l’immigration : les visas d’entrée ont dès lors été distribués de manière variable selon les pays concernés de sorte qu’en France, comme dans l’ensemble de l’Europe, on en vienne à une prise en charge de cette question par les ministères de l’Intérieur et de la Justice au détriment des ministères des Affaires sociales ou de l’Emploi, et que soit attesté un changement de régime discursif et de pratiques politiques. Au-delà de l’essentialisation des étrangers, assignés à leur différence — ce que les expressions « deuxième génération », « troisième génération », etc. font perdurer —, le processus d’homogénéisation par le biais de ces catégories est croissant : il n’est plus possible d’envisager les individus dans leur devenir, selon leurs trajectoires et leurs subjectivités, et encore moins selon une approche sociale telle qu’elle existait jusqu’alors dans les milieux professionnels. Au contraire, il s’agit de lui substituer des catégories de pensée visant à construire des groupes homogènes uniquement déterminés par le même, une origine ethnique et un héritage culturel, pour toute identité. Ce nouvel ordre du discours assure en fait un régime d’existence uniquement fondé sur l’appartenance, valable pour tous (« Français de souche », « Français d’ailleurs », « immigrés », « clandestins », etc.), associé à une série d’euphémisations : « gens venus d’ailleurs », « gens d’origine étrangère », « gens d’autres cultures »… On bascule ainsi d’une appréhension des citoyens, définis en fonction de leur appartenance à un régime de droits, à une stigmatisation fondée sur des critères d’appartenance telle que définie par le pays dit « d’accueil ». Qu’ils soient Français ou non importe peu : ils ne le seront jamais vraiment.
L’année 1996 a vu naître le rapport parlementaire sur « l’immigration clandestine » qui s’est concrétisé en octobre par le projet de loi « Jean-Louis Debré » imposant notamment les certificats d’hébergement. Puis le durcissement des lois a abouti, malgré les protestations, à la loi Chevènement définitivement adoptée en mars 1998. Les années 2000, quant à elles, ont infléchi les oppositions en fonction des nécessités économiques du pays selon une logique ultralibérale : en parallèle à la construction des centres de rétention et à la multiplication des reconduites à la frontière, le gouvernement Sarkozy a engagé de manière explicite une action de tri des populations pour favoriser ce qu’il a cru bon de nommer une « immigration choisie » supposément réparatrice des torts de l’« immigration subie ». Il ne s’est plus agi d’accueillir des personnes désireuses de venir en France mais d’endiguer les « flux migratoires à la source », par le biais d’un ensemble de mesures dissuasives de surveillance aux frontières de l’Europe. Le tout-puissant dispositif géré par Frontex — agence européenne pour la gestion de la coopération opérationnelle aux frontières extérieures des États membres de l’Union européenne — s’est doté d’un nombre considérable de nouvelles expressions (« contrôle de l’immigration illégale », « force de réaction rapide [RABITs] », « directive de retour », « centre de rétention », etc.) et de nouveaux outils de contrôle et de coercition (Eurosur, Eurodac, Système d’Information Schengen [SIS], Visa Information System [VIS], Système d’entrée-sortie, European Initiative on Integrates Return Management [EURINT], etc.).
C’est dans ce contexte socio-discursif rapidement tracé que l’arrivée de Syriens, d’Irakiens et d’Afghans, mais aussi d’Érythréens et de Soudanais en grand nombre constitue pour les gouvernants une « crise migratoire ». Ajoutés à tous ceux qui, bloqués aux frontières, attendent souvent depuis longtemps l’entrée dans la « forteresse Europe », ces derniers font l’objet de violences et de réactions de rejet avant d’être finalement acceptés. Pour Al Jazeera comme pour le HCR (Haut Comité aux Réfugiés), il importe alors de faire une distinction entre ces futurs demandeurs d’asile, fuyant la guerre et les persécutions, et les « immigrés économiques ».
La politique des catégories performatives
La nécessité de questionner les mots pour comprendre les réalités migratoires ne date pas de l’été 2015. La supposée alternative entre « migrants » et « réfugiés » s’est pourtant progressivement constituée comme sujet de débat avec l’arrivée des personnes fuyant la guerre par la « route des Balkans ». Ainsi, France Info s’interrogeait dès le 29 mai 2015 : « Migrants ou réfugiés : où est la frontière ? ». Carine Fouteau, spécialisée dans les questions migratoires à Mediapart, faisait paraître le 12 août 2015 un article intitulé « Réfugiés, intrusion, hotspots : le nouveau lexique des migrations ». En rappelant qu’aucun mot n’est neutre mais toujours investi « de significations singulières liées au contexte actuel », la journaliste mettait en garde quant au poids des médias et des politiques dans le façonnage et les représentations des opinions publiques. Elle faisait état de ce qui devient un enjeu politique majeur, le changement de connotation pris par le terme « migrants », longtemps utilisé par les chercheurs comme un terme « générique », englobant (« tout individu se déplaçant d’un lieu à un autre »), devenu un moyen pour « disqualifier les personnes ne relevant a priori pas de l’asile ». En accentuant cette opposition, les responsables politiques mettent ainsi en compétition les demandeurs d’asile et les « migrants économiques », ces derniers « perçus comme indésirables » étant « destinés à être renvoyés dans leur pays d’origine ». Une constellation de termes négatifs (« intrusion », « effraction », « flux », « vagues », « flots de migration », « traite », « passeurs », « trafiquants », « mafieux ») décrivent les migrants qui deviennent alors l’objet d’une gestion managériale (« points de fixation », « hot spots », « clef de répartition », « quotas », « centres de tri », « centres d’attente »…) performant une logique de sélection. Il s’agit de mettre en œuvre le partage engagé aux frontières tel qu’annoncé dès le 17 juin par le ministre de l’Intérieur, Bernard Cazeneuve, au conseil des ministres.
La polémique lancée par Al Jazeera, si elle prend acte de la charge « péjorative » attribuée au terme « migrants » devenu synonyme de « nuisance », ne dénonce pas cette logique de tri déjà en place aux frontières. Le texte semble même s’en accommoder : Barry Malone cite les nationalités (Afghans, Syriens, Irakiens, Libyens, Érythréens, Somaliens) pour lesquelles il faut utiliser « réfugiés » afin de ne pas les confondre avec des « migrants économiques ». S’il ne dit rien des autres nationalités, les « migrants économiques », il entérine une distinction que personne ne va plus questionner, excepté quelques chercheurs.
L’emballement compassionnel qui s’est emparé de tous les médias et réseaux sociaux au cours de l’été 2015 et plus particulièrement début septembre lors de la diffusion de la photo du petit Alan Kurdi, explique en partie l’adoption du terme « réfugiés » contre celui de « migrants ». Il s’est agi dans un premier temps de s’opposer aux discours « de haine » prononcés en Europe, notamment par le ministre anglais des Affaires étrangères Philip Hammond ou David Cameron lui-même [8], et des pratiques de violence à l’égard des personnes dans les Balkans. C’est contre les « discours infamants » et une politique européenne inhumaine que s’insurgent alors les journalistes d’Al Jazeera ainsi qu’ils le décrivent dans la présentation de l’émission du 21 août 2015.
Au-delà de l’empathie suscitée par cette accusation, le découpage implicite entre les « bons » et les « mauvais » arrivants et la possibilité de chasser les uns (plus noirs, peu qualifiés…) au profit des autres (plus blancs, plus compétitifs…) se sont révélés efficaces pour entériner la politique du tri déjà effective : il suffisait donc de mettre les mots sur les choses, de nommer plus clairement ce qui existait pour le rendre acceptable, et pourquoi pas souhaitable.
Des journaux comme Le Monde [9], Le Figaro ou Libération, des radios comme France Culture ou Europe 1 se sont focalisés sur les usages linguistiques, certains rappelant la difficulté de diluer le sens juridique de « réfugiés », d’autres insistant sur le sens péjoratif du participe présent « migrant » réduisant les personnes « à une errance ». Sollicités, les spécialistes des questions migratoires ont été parfois bien ennuyés puisqu’ils utilisent, comme les militants, le terme « migrants » depuis longtemps dans leurs travaux [10]. L’injonction à n’utiliser qu’un seul terme a toutefois été remise en cause par Claire Rodier rappelant que le terme « migrants » s’était imposé pour éviter de hiérarchiser les « exilés », afin de ne pas enfermer « les gens dans des cases ». Plus encore, Danièle Lochak a mis en garde : « Nous avons toujours refusé de les distinguer. »
Les nuances apportées par les chercheurs n’y ont rien fait, la préconisation d’Al Jazeera a été relayée par Libération (« Ne plus dire migrants mais réfugiés [11] ») comme par Le Figaro. Ce dernier est même allé plus loin en criminalisant les « migrants » par le biais d’une réorientation du débat : « Réfugiés ou clandestins », éditorial d’Yves Thréard. L’objectif était bien clair : « La générosité envers les réfugiés politiques n’est concevable que si la plus grande fermeté est opposée aux clandestins économiques », énoncé repris par France 24. Chez chacun, la multiplicité des usages des « termes imparfaits » est symptomatique d’une recherche d’objectivité visant à contourner les partis pris idéologiques déterminant les choix. La plupart de ces glossaires s’appuient en fait sur la Charte de Rome, document élaboré par la Fédération internationale des journalistes avec le HCR, dans lequel les définitions sont orientées vers une valorisation des « réfugiés ». Les « migrants » y sont systématiquement appréhendés par la négative : « des personnes qui se déplacent pour des motifs qui ne sont pas inclus dans la définition légale de ce qu’est un réfugié », ou qui « choisissent de s’en aller non pas en raison d’une menace directe de persécution ou de mort, mais surtout afin d’améliorer leur vie en trouvant du travail… » « Point de vue du HCR : “réfugié” ou “migrant” ? Quel est le mot juste ? », l’organisme hiérarchise définitivement l’opposition entre les arrivants, et use de son statut d’organisation internationale pour infléchir les catégories de pensée. Le poids de ce discours dans l’espace politique et médiatique est sans précédent, ce que les chercheurs Jurgen Carling [12] et Judith Vonberg [13] dénoncent avec virulence, tout comme Olivier Adam s’insurge contre le « tri sélectif » qui entraîne une « diabolisation mécanique » des migrants. L’opposition ainsi tracée entre deux catégories qui regroupent grosso modo les Syriens, Irakiens et Afghans d’un côté et les Africains de l’autre, n’est donc pas sans liens avec l’élaboration des politiques migratoires et son imposition dans l’espace social. Ce débat sémantique occulte au fond un partage entre les êtres humains qui ne comptent pour rien, les « sans-part » (Rancière) : ceux qui peuvent encore prétendre à la vie parce qu’ils sont bons à recycler dans les économies du capitalisme tardif, et ceux dont la mort n’importe décidément plus, et que l’on n’hésite pas à abandonner au sort funeste qui est le leur aux portes de l’Europe, selon une logique du tri [14] devenue impitoyable.
Façonner les esprits, diriger les conduites
Tout au long de cette bataille pour les mots, jamais la parole n’est donnée aux exilés/migrants/demandeurs d’asiles eux-mêmes, qui peuvent dans certains cas préférer d’autres termes, comme « exilés », « voyageurs » ou « aventuriers [15] ». Au contraire, le monopole de la nomination est toujours assuré par ceux qui détiennent le monopole de la domination institutionnelle et médiatique et parlent au nom des autres.
La réalité vécue est toujours très complexe, et il n’existe aucune possibilité de différencier les personnes en fonction d’un critère unique : « C’est toujours un ensemble de choses qui poussent les gens à partir sur la route. »
Les rhétoriques affichées comme objectives, et élaborées sur des oppositions binaires, dissimulent habilement des partis pris politiques dont les effets sur les intéressés sont d’une rare efficacité. La définition sur le modèle du dictionnaire supposé neutre est une des formes de dissimulation privilégiée. Toutefois, plus que d’espérer, comme le souhaite Jørgen Carling, que le terme « migrants » puisse encore faire office de terme générique englobant, ce qui supposerait de sortir le langage des relations de pouvoir, il convient plutôt de suivre attentivement les méandres des significations et resignifications des énoncés en fonction des instances énonciatrices afin de comprendre les enjeux politiques qui innervent nos sociétés. Aucun mot ne viendra dire le réel, construit justement par les discours : nommer c’est toujours faire exister, dire c’est toujours faire. En ce sens, la moralisation qui s’instaure actuellement dans l’appréhension des personnes arrivant en Europe est symptomatique d’un changement de conception mais reste tributaire des exigences utilitaristes de l’économie libérale. Comme le rappelle Virginie Guiraudon, « rien ne dit qu’un jour prochain les indésirables soient les réfugiés, et les migrants économiques les étrangers “utiles”. C’est donc bien le débat qui est mal posé, puisque pour le patronat allemand par exemple, « les réfugiés actuels sont une chance pour l’économie allemande [et] pour qui le mot-valise “réfugié économique” signifie force de travail motivée et à forte valeur ajoutée » [16].
La réalité vécue est toujours très complexe, et il n’existe aucune possibilité de différencier les personnes en fonction d’un critère unique : « C’est toujours un ensemble de choses qui poussent les gens à partir sur la route [17]. » À rebours de cette exigence, les médias et les politiques n’envisagent nullement de restituer cette complexité : les catégories visent au contraire à orienter la lecture de ce qui est en train d’arriver, à donner à interpréter selon des grilles, des angles de vue, des perspectives. La bataille n’est pas sémantique au sens où des définitions existeraient en dehors des enjeux politiques et sociaux : c’est une bataille discursive où le discours s’élabore selon un certain « ordre » (Foucault). Faire la généalogie de ces discours est le seul moyen de comprendre comment le sens fait advenir le réel, alors qu’il le construit socialement et politiquement. Il ne s’agit donc ni de langue, ni de linguistique et encore moins de définition de dictionnaire : il s’agit de lieux et de moments de parole qui entrent en lutte les uns avec les autres. C’est ainsi que, concernant cette séquence médiatique, le HCR a clairement imposé son point de vue au détriment par exemple de la définition générique des Nations unies.
Si les personnes qui arrivent en France ne sont ni des réfugiés, ni des migrants, puisque chaque situation est spécifique, les catégories réifiées et binaires ne nous sont d’aucun secours. Choisir les mots pertinents en fonction des situations, des devenirs, des histoires de vie, des trajectoires, des subjectivités relève toutefois de la gageure. L’historicisation de ces phénomènes devient alors primordiale afin de reconstituer les interdiscours. Si, en 1905, l’Angleterre adoptait les Aliens Acts instituant déjà la différence entre « réfugiés politiques » et « migrants économiques », les derniers glossaires institutionnels des mots de la migration sont actuellement en train d’escamoter le terme « intégration ». Ainsi, alors que la mise en catégorie des étrangers est une vieille histoire européenne, il semble aujourd’hui que l’impératif de réciprocité et le souci d’hospitalité, malgré tout présents dans le projet d’intégration, soient même portés à s’effacer de nos pratiques sociales : sombre présage qui ferait d’un étranger un individu ayant vocation à s’identifier, à s’oublier… ou bien à disparaître.
Detainees Evacuated out of Libya but Resettlement Capacity Remains Inadequate
According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (#UNHCR) 262 migrants detained in Libya were evacuated to Niger on November 12- the largest evacuation from Libya carried out to date. In addition to a successful airlift of 135 people in October this year, this brings the total number of people evacuated to more than 2000 since December 2017. However Amnesty International describes the resettlement process from Niger as slow and the number of pledges inadequate.
The evacuations in October and November were the first since June when the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) centre in Niger reached its full capacity of 1,536 people, which according to Amnesty was a result of a large number of people “still waiting for their permanent resettlement to a third country.”
57,483 refugees and asylum seekers are registered by UNHCR in Libya; as of October 2018 14,349 had agreed to Voluntary Humanitarian Return. Currently 3,886 resettlement pledges have been made by 12 states, but only 1,140 have been resettled.
14,595 people have been intercepted by the Libyan coast guard and taken back to Libya, however it has been well documented that their return is being met by detention, abuse, violence and torture. UNHCR recently declared Libya unsafe for returns amid increased violence in the capital, while Amnesty International has said that “thousands of men, women and children are trapped in Libya facing horrific abuses with no way out”.
In this context, refugees and migrants are currently refusing to disembark in Misrata after being rescued by a cargo ship on November 12, reportedly saying “they would rather die than be returned to land”. Reuters cited one Sudanese teenager on board who stated “We agree to go to any place but not Libya.”
UNHCR estimates that 5,413 refugees and migrants remain detained in #Directorate_for_Combatting_Illegal_Migration (#DCIM) centres and the UN Refugee Agency have repetedly called for additional resettlement opportunities for vulnerable persons of concern in Libya.
▻https://www.ecre.org/detainees-evacuated-out-of-libya-but-resettlement-capacity-remains-inadequate
#réinstallation #Niger #Libye #évacuation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #HCR #détention #centres_de_détention #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism (#ETM)
ET DES INFORMATIONS PLUS ANCIENNES DANS LE FIL CI-DESSOUS
Libya: evacuations to Niger resumed – returns from Niger begun
After being temporarily suspended in March as the result of concerns from local authorities on the pace of resettlement out of Niger, UNHCR evacuations of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers from Libya through the Emergency Transit Mechanism has been resumed and 132 vulnerable migrants flown to the country. At the same time the deportation of 132 Sudanese nationals from Niger to Libya has raised international concern.
Niger is the main host for refugees and asylum seekers from Libya evacuated by UNHCR. Since the UN Refugee Agency began evacuations in cooperation with EU and Libyan authorities in November 2017, Niger has received 1,152 of the 1,474 people evacuated in total. While UNHCR has submitted 475 persons for resettlement a modest 108 in total have been resettled in Europe. According to UNHCR the government in Niger has now offered to host an additional 1,500 refugees from Libya through the Emergency Transit Mechanism and upon its revival and the first transfer of 132 refugees to Niger, UNHCR’s Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Situation, Vincent Cochetel stated: “We now urgently need to find resettlement solutions for these refugees in other countries.”
UNHCR has confirmed the forced return by authorities in Niger of at least 132 of a group of 160 Sudanese nationals arrested in the migrant hub of Agadez, the majority after fleeing harsh conditions in Libya. Agadez is known as a major transit hub for refugees and asylum seekers seeking passage to Libya and Europe but the trend is reversed and 1,700 Sudanese nationals have fled from Libya to Niger since December 2017. In a mail to IRIN News, Human Rights Watch’s associate director for Europe and Central Asia, Judith Sunderland states: “It is inhuman and unlawful to send migrants and refugees back to Libya, where they face shocking levels of torture, sexual violence, and forced labour,” with reference to the principle of non-refoulement.
According to a statement released by Amnesty International on May 16: “At least 7,000 migrants and refugees are languishing in Libyan detention centres where abuse is rife and food and water in short supply. This is a sharp increase from March when there were 4,400 detained migrants and refugees, according to Libyan officials.”
▻https://www.ecre.org/libya-evacuations-to-niger-resumed-returns-from-niger-begun
Libya: return operations running but slow resettlement is jeopardizing the evacuation scheme
According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) 15.000 migrants have been returned from Libya to their country of origin and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has assisted in the evacuation of more than 1,300 refugees from Libya thereby fulfilling the targets announced at the AU-EU-UN Taskforce meeting in December 2017. However, a modest 25 of the more than 1000 migrants evacuated to Niger have been resettled to Europe and the slow pace is jeopardizing further evacuations.
More than 1000 of the 1300 migrants evacuated from Libya are hosted by Niger and Karmen Sakhr, who oversees the North Africa unit at the UNHCR states to the EU Observer that the organisation: “were advised that until more people leave Niger, we will no longer be able to evacuate additional cases from Libya.”
During a meeting on Monday 5 March with the Civil Liberties Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs, members of the Delegation for relations with Maghreb countries, Commission and External Action Service representatives on the mistreatment of migrants and refugees in Libya, and arrangements for their resettlement or return, UNHCR confirmed that pledges have been made by France, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Malta as well as unspecified non-EU countries but that security approvals and interviewing process of the cases is lengthy resulting in the modest number of resettlements, while also warning that the EU member states need to put more work into resettlement of refugees, and that resettlement pledges still fall short of the needs. According to UNHCR 430 pledges has been made by European countries.
An estimated 5000 people are in government detention and an unknown number held by private militias under well documented extreme conditions.
▻https://www.ecre.org/libya-return-operations-running-but-slow-resettlement-is-jeopardizing-the-evac
Libya: migrants and refugees out by plane and in by boat
The joint European Union (EU), African Union (AU) and United Nations (UN) Task Force visited Tripoli last week welcoming progress made evacuating and returning migrants and refugees out of Libya. EU has announced three new programmes, for protecting migrants and refugees in Libya and along the Central Mediterranean Route, and their return and reintegration. Bundestag Research Services and NGOs raise concerns over EU and Member State support to Libyan Coast Guard.
Representatives of the Task Force, created in November 2017, met with Libyan authorities last week and visited a detention centres for migrants and a shelter for internally displaced people in Tripoli. Whilst they commended progress on Voluntary Humanitarian Returns, they outlined a number of areas for improvement. These include: comprehensive registration of migrants at disembarkation points and detention centres; improving detention centre conditions- with a view to end the current system of arbitrary detention; decriminalizing irregular migration in Libya.
The three new programmes announced on Monday, will be part of the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. €115 million will go towards evacuating 3,800 refugees from Libya, providing protection and voluntary humanitarian return to 15,000 migrants in Libya and will support the resettlement of 14,000 people in need of international protection from Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. €20 million will be dedicated to improving access to social and protection services for vulnerable migrants in transit countries in the Sahel region and the Lake Chad basin. €15 million will go to supporting sustainable reintegration for Ethiopian citizens.
A recent report by the Bundestag Research Services on SAR operations in the Mediterranean notes the support for the Libyan Coast Guard by EU and Member States in bringing refugees and migrants back to Libya may be violating the principle of non-refoulement as outlined in the Geneva Convention: “This cooperation must be the subject of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, because the people who are being forcibly returned with the assistance of the EU are being inhumanely treated, tortured or killed.” stated Andrej Hunko, European policy spokesman for the German Left Party (die Linke). A joint statement released by SAR NGO’s operating in the Mediterranean calls on the EU institutions and leaders to stop the financing and support of the Libyan Coast Guard and the readmissions to a third country which violates fundamental human rights and international law.
According to UNHCR, there are currently 46,730 registered refugees and asylum seekers in Libya. 843 asylum seekers and refugees have been released from detention so far in 2018. According to IOM 9,379 people have been returned to their countries of origin since November 2017 and 1,211 have been evacuated to Niger since December 2017.
▻https://www.ecre.org/libya-migrants-and-refugees-out-by-plane-and-in-by-boat
Complément de Emmanuel Blanchard (via la mailing-list Migreurop):
Selon le HCR, il y aurait actuellement environ 6000 personnes détenues dans des camps en Libye et qui seraient en attente de retour ou de protection (la distinction n’est pas toujours très claire dans la prose du HCR sur les personnes à « évacuer » vers le HCR...). Ces données statistiques sont très fragiles et a priori très sous-estimées car fondées sur les seuls camps auxquels le HCR a accès.
First group of refugees evacuated from new departure facility in Libya
UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, in coordination with Libyan authorities, evacuated 133 refugees from Libya to Niger today after hosting them at a Gathering and Departure Facility (GDF) in Tripoli which opened on Tuesday.
Most evacuees, including 81 women and children, were previously detained in Libya. After securing their release from five detention centres across Libya, including in Tripoli and areas as far as 180 kilometres from the capital, they were sheltered at the GDF until the arrangements for their evacuation were concluded.
The GDF is the first centre of its kind in Libya and is intended to bring vulnerable refugees to a safe environment while solutions including refugee resettlement, family reunification, evacuation to emergency facilities in other countries, return to a country of previous asylum, and voluntary repatriation are sought for them.
“The opening of this centre, in very difficult circumstances, has the potential to save lives. It offers immediate protection and safety for vulnerable refugees in need of urgent evacuation, and is an alternative to detention for hundreds of refugees currently trapped in Libya,” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi.
The centre is managed by the Libyan Ministry of Interior, UNHCR and UNHCR’s partner LibAid. The initiative is one of a range of measures needed to offer viable alternatives to the dangerous boat journeys undertaken by refugees and migrants along the Central Mediterranean route.
With an estimated 4,900 refugees and migrants held in detention centres across Libya, including 3,600 in need of international protection, the centre is a critical alternative to the detention of those most vulnerable.
The centre, which has been supported by the EU and other donors, has a capacity to shelter up to 1,000 vulnerable refugees identified for solutions out of Libya.
At the facility, UNHCR and partners are providing humanitarian assistance such as accommodation, food, medical care and psychosocial support. Child friendly spaces and dedicated protection staff are also available to ensure that refugees and asylum-seekers are adequately cared for.
►https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2018/12/5c09033a4/first-group-refugees-evacuated-new-departure-facility-libya.html
Migration : à Niamey, des migrants rapatriés de Libye protestent contre leurs conditions de séjour
Les manifestants protestent contre leur détention de vie qu’ils jugent « déplorables » et pour amplifier leurs mouvements, ils ont brandi des pancartes sur lesquelles ils ont écrit leurs doléances. Les migrants manifestant s’indignent également de leur séjour qui ne cesse de se prolonger, sans véritable alternatives ou visibilité sur leur situation. « Ils nous ont ramené de la Libye pour nous laisser à nous-mêmes ici », « on ne veut pas rester ici, laisser nous partir là où on veut », sont entre autres les slogans que les migrants ont scandés au cours de leur sit-in devant les locaux de l’agence onusienne. Plusieurs des protestataires sont venus à la manifestation avec leurs bagages et d’autres avec leurs différents papiers, qui attestent de leur situation de réfugiés ou demandeurs d’asiles.
La situation, quoique déplorable, n’a pas manqué de susciter divers commentaires. Il faut dire que depuis le début de l’opération de rapatriement des migrants en détresse de Libye, ils sont des centaines à vivre dans la capitale mais aussi à Agadez où des centres d’accueil sont mis à leurs dispositions par les agences onusiennes (UNHCR, OIM), avec la collaboration des autorités nigériennes. Un certain temps, leur présence de plus en plus massive dans divers quartiers de la capitale où des villas sont mises à leur disposition, a commencé à inquiéter les habitants sur d’éventuels risques sécuritaires.
Le gouvernement a signé plusieurs accords et adopté des lois pour lutter contre l’immigration clandestine. Il a aussi signé des engagements avec certains pays européens notamment la France et l’Italie, pour l’accueil temporaire des réfugiés en provenance de la Libye et en transit en attendant leur réinstallation dans leur pays ou en Europe pour ceux qui arrivent à obtenir le sésame pour l’entrée. Un geste de solidarité décrié par certaines ONG et que les autorités regrettent presque à demi-mot, du fait du non-respect des contreparties financières promises par les bailleurs et partenaires européens. Le pays fait face lui-même à un afflux de réfugiés nigérians et maliens sur son territoire, ainsi que des déplacés internes dans plusieurs régions, ce qui complique davantage la tâche dans cette affaire de difficile gestion de la problématique migratoire.
Le Niger accueille plusieurs centres d’accueil pour les réfugiés et demandeurs d’asiles rapatriés de Libye. Le 10 décembre dernier, l’OFPRA français a par exemple annoncé avoir achevé une nouvelle mission au Niger avec l’UNHCR, et qui a concerné 200 personnes parmi lesquelles une centaine évacuée de Libye. En novembre dernier, le HCR a également annoncé avoir repris les évacuations de migrants depuis la Libye, avec un contingent de 132 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asiles vers le Niger.
Depuis novembre 2017, le HCR a assuré avoir effectué vingt-trois (23) opérations d’évacuation au départ de la Libye et ce, « malgré d’importants problèmes de sécurité et les restrictions aux déplacements qui ont été imposées ». En tout, ce sont 2.476 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile vulnérables qui ont pu être libérés et acheminés de la Libye vers le Niger (2.069), l’Italie (312) et la Roumanie (95).
https://www.actuniger.com/images/stories/articles/societe/migrants_devant_siege_UNHCR_BIS.jpg 
https://www.actuniger.com/images/stories/articles/societe/migrants_devant_siege_UNHCR.jpg Je découvre ici que les évacuations se sont faites aussi vers l’#Italie et... la #Roumanie !
Destination Europe: Evacuation. The EU has started resettling refugees from Libya, but only 174 have made it to Europe in seven months
As the EU sets new policies and makes deals with African nations to deter hundreds of thousands of migrants from seeking new lives on the continent, what does it mean for those following dreams northwards and the countries they transit through? From returnees in Sierra Leone and refugees resettled in France to smugglers in Niger and migrants in detention centres in Libya, IRIN explores their choices and challenges in this multi-part special report, Destination Europe.
Four years of uncontrolled migration starting in 2014 saw more than 600,000 people cross from Libya to Italy, contributing to a populist backlash that is threatening the foundations of the EU. Stopping clandestine migration has become one of Europe’s main foreign policy goals, and last July the number of refugees and migrants crossing the central Mediterranean dropped dramatically. The EU celebrated the reduced numbers as “good progress”.
But, as critics pointed out, that was only half the story: the decline, resulting from a series of moves by the EU and Italy, meant that tens of thousands of people were stuck in Libya with no way out. They faced horrific abuse, and NGOs and human rights organisations accused the EU of complicity in the violations taking place.
Abdu is one who got stuck. A tall, lanky teenager, he spent nearly two years in smugglers’ warehouses and official Libyan detention centres. But he’s also one of the lucky ones. In February, he boarded a flight to Niger run (with EU support) by the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, to help some of those stranded in Libya reach Europe. Nearly 1,600 people have been evacuated on similiar flights, but, seven months on, only 174 have been resettled to Europe.
The evacuation programme is part of a €500-million ($620-million) effort to resettle 50,000 refugees over the next two years to the EU, which has a population of more than 500 million people. The target is an increase from previous European resettlement goals, but still only represents a tiny fraction of the need – those chosen can be Syrians in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon as well as refugees in Libya, Egypt, Niger, Chad, Sudan, and Ethiopia – countries that combined host more than 6.5 million refugees.
The EU is now teetering on the edge of a fresh political crisis, with boats carrying people rescued from the sea being denied ports of disembarkation, no consensus on how to share responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees within the continent, and increasing talk of further outsourcing the management of migration to African countries.
Against this backdrop, the evacuation and resettlement programme from Libya is perhaps the best face of European policy in the Mediterranean. But, unless EU countries offer more spots for refugees, it is a pathway to safety for no more than a small handful who get the luck of the draw. As the first evacuees adjust to their new lives in Europe, the overwhelming majority are left behind.
Four months after arriving in Niger, Abdu is still waiting to find out if and when he will be resettled to Europe. He’s still in the same state of limbo he was in at the end of March when IRIN met him in Niamey, the capital of Niger. At the time, he’d been out of the detention centre in Libya for less than a month and his arms were skeletally thin.
“I thought to go to Europe [and] failed. Now, I came to Niger…. What am I doing here? What will happen from here? I don’t know,” he said, sitting in the shade of a canopy in the courtyard of a UNHCR facility. “I don’t know what I will be planning for the future because everything collapsed; everything finished.”
Abdu’s story
Born in Eritrea – one of the most repressive countries in the world – Abdu’s mother sent him to live in neighbouring Sudan when he was only seven. She wanted him to grow up away from the political persecution and shadow of indefinite military service that stifled normal life in his homeland.
But Sudan, where he was raised by his uncle, wasn’t much better. As an Eritrean refugee, he faced discrimination and lived in a precarious legal limbo. Abdu saw no future there. “So I decided to go,” he said.
Like so many other young Africans fleeing conflict, political repression, and economic hardship in recent years, he wanted to try to make it to Europe. But first he had to pass through Libya.
After crossing the border from Sudan in July 2016, Abdu, then 16 years old, was taken captive and held for 18 months. The smugglers asked for a ransom of $5,500, tortured him while his relatives were forced to listen on the phone, and rented him out for work like a piece of equipment.
Abdu tried to escape, but only found himself under the control of another smuggler who did the same thing. He was kept in overflowing warehouses, sequestered from the sunlight with around 250 other people. The food was not enough and often spoiled; disease was rampant; people died from malaria and hunger; one woman died after giving birth; the guards drank, carried guns, and smoked hashish, and, at the smallest provocation, spun into a sadistic fury. Abdu’s skin started crawling with scabies, his cheeks sank in, and his long limbs withered to skin and bones.
One day, the smuggler told him that, if he didn’t find a way to pay, it looked like he would soon die. As a courtesy – or to try to squeeze some money out of him instead of having to deal with a corpse – the smuggler reduced the ransom to $1,500.
Finally, Abdu’s relatives were able to purchase his freedom and passage to Europe. It was December 2017. As he finally stood on the seashore before dawn in the freezing cold, Abdu remembered thinking: “We are going to arrive in Europe [and] get protection [and] get rights.”
But he never made it. After nearly 24 hours at sea, the rubber dinghy he was on with around 150 other people was intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard, which, since October 2016, has been trained and equipped by the EU and Italy.
Abdu was brought back to the country he had just escaped and put in another detention centre.
This one was official – run by the Libyan Directorate for Combating Irregular Migration. But it wasn’t much different from the smuggler-controlled warehouses he’d been in before. Again, it was overcrowded and dirty. People were falling sick. There was no torture or extortion, but the guards could be just as brutal. If someone tried to talk to them about the poor conditions “[they are] going to beat you until you are streaming blood,” Abdu said.
Still, he wasn’t about to try his luck on his own again in Libya. The detention centre wasn’t suitable for human inhabitants, Abdu recalled thinking, but it was safer than anywhere he’d been in over a year. That’s where UNHCR found him and secured his release.
The lucky few
The small village of Thal-Marmoutier in France seems like it belongs to a different world than the teeming detention centres of Libya.
The road to the village runs between gently rolling hills covered in grapevines and winds through small towns of half-timbered houses. About 40 minutes north of Strasbourg, the largest city in the region of Alsace, bordering Germany, it reaches a valley of hamlets that disrupt the green countryside with their red, high-peaked roofs. It’s an unassuming setting, but it’s the type of place Abdu might end up if and when he is finally resettled.
In mid-March, when IRIN visited, the town of 800 people was hosting the first group of refugees evacuated from Libya.
It was unseasonably cold, and the 55 people housed in a repurposed section of a Franciscan convent were bundled in winter jackets, scarves, and hats. Thirty of them had arrived from Chad, where they had been long-time residents of refugee camps after fleeing Boko Haram violence or conflict in the Sudanese region of Darfur. The remaining 25 – from Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan – were the first evacuees from Libya. Before reaching France, they, like Abdu, had been flown to Niamey.
The extra stop is necessary because most countries require refugees to be interviewed in person before offering them a resettlement spot. The process is facilitated by embassies and consulates, but, because of security concerns, only one European country (Italy) has a diplomatic presence in Libya.
To resettle refugees stuck in detention centres, UNHCR needed to find a third country willing to host people temporarily, one where European resettlement agencies could carry out their procedures. Niger was the first – and so far only – country to volunteer.
“For us, it is an obligation to participate,” Mohamed Bazoum, Niger’s influential interior minister, said when interviewed by IRIN in Niamey. Niger, the gateway between West Africa and Libya on the migration trail to Europe, is the top recipient of funds from the EU Trust Fund for Africa, an initiative launched in 2015 to “address the root causes of irregular migration”.
“It costs us nothing to help,” Bazoum added, referring to the evacuation programme. “But we gain a sense of humanity in doing so.”
‘Time is just running from my life’
The first evacuees landed in Niamey on 12 November. A little over a month later, on 19 December, they were on their way to France.
By March, they had been in Thal-Marmoutier for three months and were preparing to move from the reception centre in the convent to individual apartments in different cities.
Among them, several families with children had been living in Libya for a long time. But most of the evacuees were young women who had been imprisoned by smugglers and militias, held in official detention centres, or often both.
“In Libya, it was difficult for me,” said Farida, a 24-year-old aspiring runner from Ethiopia. She fled her home in 2016 because of the conflict between the government and the Oromo people, an ethnic group.
After a brief stay in Cairo, she and her husband decided to go to Libya because they heard a rumour that UNHCR was providing more support there to refugees. Shortly after crossing the border, Farida and her husband were captured by a militia and placed in a detention centre.
“People from the other government (Libya has two rival governments) came and killed the militiamen, and some of the people in the prison also died, but we got out and were taken to another prison,” she said. “When they put me in prison, I was pregnant, and they beat me and killed the child in my belly.”
Teyba, a 20-year-old woman also from Ethiopia, shared a similar story: “A militia put us in prison and tortured us a lot,” she said. “We stayed in prison for a little bit more than a month, and then the fighting started…. Some people died, some people escaped, and some people, I don’t know what happened to them.”
Three months at the reception centre in Thal-Marmoutier had done little to ease the trauma of those experiences. “I haven’t seen anything that made me laugh or that made me happy,” Farida said. “Up to now, life has not been good, even after coming to France.”
The French government placed the refugees in the reception centre to expedite their asylum procedures, and so they could begin to learn French.
Everyone in the group had already received 10-year residency permits – something refugees who are placed directly in individual apartments or houses usually wait at least six months to receive. But many of them said they felt like their lives had been put on pause in Thal-Marmoutier. They were isolated in the small village with little access to transportation and said they had not been well prepared to begin new lives on their own in just a few weeks time.
“I haven’t benefited from anything yet. Time is just running from my life,” said Intissar, a 35-year-old woman from Sudan.
A stop-start process
Despite their frustrations with the integration process in France, and the still present psychological wounds from Libya, the people in Thal-Marmoutier were fortunate to reach Europe.
By early March, more than 1,000 people had been airlifted from Libya to Niger. But since the first group in December, no one else had left for Europe. Frustrated with the pace of resettlement, the Nigerien government told UNHCR that the programme had to be put on hold.
“We want the flow to be balanced,” Bazoum, the interior minister, explained. “If people arrive, then we want others to leave. We don’t want people to be here on a permanent basis.”
Since then, an additional 148 people have been resettled to France, Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands, and other departures are in the works. “The situation is improving,” said Louise Donovan, a UNHCR communications officer in Niger. “We need to speed up our processes as much as possible, and so do the resettlement countries.”
A further 312 people were evacuated directly to Italy. Still, the total number resettled by the programme remains small. “What is problematic right now is the fact that European governments are not offering enough places for resettlement, despite continued requests from UNHCR,” said Matteo de Bellis, a researcher with Amnesty International.
Less than 1 percent
Globally, less than one percent of refugees are resettled each year, and resettlement is on a downward spiral at the moment, dropping by more than 50 percent between 2016 and 2017. The number of refugees needing resettlement is expected to reach 1.4 million next year, 17 percent higher than in 2018, while global resettlement places dropped to just 75,000 in 2017, UNHCR said on Monday.
The Trump administration’s slashing of the US refugee admissions programme – historically the world’s leader – means this trend will likely continue.
Due to the limited capacity, resettlement is usually reserved for people who are considered to be the most vulnerable.
In Libya alone, there are around 19,000 refugees from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan registered with UNHCR – a number increasing each month – as well as 430,000 migrants and potential asylum seekers from throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Many have been subjected to torture, sexual violence, and other abuses. And, because they are in Libya irregularly, resettlement is often the only legal solution to indefinite detention.
In the unlikely scenario that all the sub-Saharan refugees in Libya were to be resettled, they would account for more than one third of the EU’s quota for the next two years. And that’s not taking into account people in Libya who may have legitimate grounds to claim asylum but are not on the official radar. Other solutions are clearly needed, but given the lack of will in the international community, it is unclear what those might be.
“The Niger mechanism is a patch, a useful one under the circumstance, but still a patch,” de Bellis, the Amnesty researcher, said. “There are refugees… who cannot get out of the detention centres because there are no resettlement places available to them.”
It is also uncertain what will happen to any refugees evacuated to Niger that aren’t offered a resettlement spot by European countries.
UNHCR says it is considering all options, including the possibility of integration in Niger or return to their countries of origin – if they are deemed to be safe and people agree to go. But resettlement is the main focus. In April, the pace of people departing for Europe picked up, and evacuations from Libya resumed at the beginning of May – ironically, the same week the Nigerien government broke new and dangerous ground by deporting 132 Sudanese asylum seekers who had crossed the border on their own back to Libya.
For the evacuees in Niger awaiting resettlement, there are still many unanswered questions.
As Abdu was biding his time back in March, something other than the uncertainty about his own future weighed on him: the people still stuck in the detention centres in Libya.
He had started his travels with his best friend. They had been together when they were first kidnapped and held for ransom. But Abdu’s friend was shot in the leg by a guard who accused him of stealing a cigarette. When Abdu tried to escape, he left his friend behind and hasn’t spoken to him or heard anything about him since.
“UNHCR is saying they are going to find a solution for me; they are going to help me,” Abdu said. “It’s okay. But what about the others?”
►https://www.irinnews.org/special-report/2018/06/26/destination-europe-evacuation
Vincent Cochtel, 14.02.2019 :
159 refugees evacuated from #Libya to #Niger last night. For many, it may sound like a drop of water in an ocean of needs, for us, it is brining refugees to protection they cannot get in Libya & saving lives
Hot Spots #1 : Niger, les évacués de l’enfer libyen
Fuir l’enfer libyen, sortir des griffes des trafiquants qui séquestrent pendant des mois leurs victimes dans des conditions inhumaines. C’est de l’autre côté du désert, au Niger, que certains migrants trouvent un premier refuge grâce à un programme d’#évacuation d’urgence géré par les Nations Unies depuis novembre 2017.
▻https://guitinews.fr/video/2019/03/12/hot-spots-1-niger-les-evacues-de-lenfer-libyen
Lien vers la #vidéo :
« Les gens qu’on évacue de la Libye, ce sont des individus qui ont subi une profonde souffrance. Ce sont tous des victimes de torture, des victimes de violences aussi sexuelles, il y a des femmes qui accouchent d’enfants fruits de cette violences sexuelles. » Alexandra Morelli, Représentante du HCR au Niger.
Une trentaine de réfugiés érythréens ont quitté le camp du HCR à Niamey depuis lequel ils devaient être réinstallés en Europe.Tous évacués de l’enfer libyen,certains attendent depuis + d’un an de pouvoir reprendre leur vie
source : ▻https://twitter.com/JuliaPascualita/status/1177286212379435009
#limbe
Tunisia: #OIM usa il teatro per far riflettere su migrazioni
Con la messa in scena al cinema «Le Rio» di Tunisi della pièce teatrale «#Le_radeau» (La zattera) di #Cyrine_Gannoun e #Majdi_Boumatar, è iniziato ieri sera un tour che porterà questo spettacolo sulla migrazione a Medenine il 1 novembre, Sfax il 2 novembre e Seliana il 4. Si tratta della prima attività di una campagna di sensibilizzazione pubblica che durerà diversi mesi sui rischi e i miti associati alla migrazione irregolare, coordinata dall’Organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni (Oim) e dal teatro di El Hamra, in collaborazione con i ministeri tunisini dell’Istruzione superiore e della ricerca scientifica e degli Affari culturali, attraverso i delegati regionali alla cultura di Medenine, Seliana e Sfax. Durante la rappresentazione di «Le radeau», il pubblico è invitato a proiettarsi nell’avventura di otto personaggi che condividono un momento cruciale nella loro vita: la traversata del Mar Mediterraneo. La zattera è dunque un luogo in cui si incontrano tragedie, speranze, illusioni e disillusioni di migranti in cerca di una vita migliore. Il teatro della migrazione, si legge in un comunicato dell’Oim, diventa una metafora grazie alla quale è possibile riflettere sulla questione migratoria mettendo al centro l’umanità, un’espressione culturale che porta la voce dei migranti oltre l’aspetto politico, economico e mediatico. Il tutto con il fine di promuovere migrazioni sicure, umane, nell’interesse di tutti e con l’ambizione di creare momenti conviviali per rendere più fruttuosi i dibattiti sul tema migratorio. Aperti a tutti, giovani e meno giovani, e gratuiti, questi incontri, secondo l’Oim, permetteranno di discutere insieme le opportunità e le sfide sulla migrazione.
Petit commentaire:
L’#OIM ne serait-il pas en train de convaincre, via une représentation théâtrale et ludique, les jeunes à ne pas partir ? Au lieu de faire un plaidoyer pour l’ouverture des frontières ? Je pose juste la question. J’aimerais bien voir la pièce pour juger de moi-même. Car, comment dire, je n’ai quand même pas trop confiance en l’OIM...
cc @_kg_
Point 5 de leur focus To support States, migrants and communities in addressing the challenges of irregular migration, including through research and analysis into root causes, sharing information and spreading best practices, as well as facilitating development-focused solutions
In Zarzis, #Tunisia, with our partners trying to prevent dangerous journeys
▻https://twitter.com/cochetel/status/1056991987470135296/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1056991987470135296&
Et là on voit apparaître les logos du #HCR #UNHCR et de... la #Suisse
Intéressant de noter « Traverser irrégulièrement la mer est dangereux. Il existe d’autres options plus sûres. Nous pouvons vous conseiller ».
–-> j’aimerais bien savoir quelles sont ces « options plus sûres qu’on leur conseille », car si elles existaient VRAIMENT, les Tunisiens le sauraient ! Et si les seules options proposées sont « Ne partez pas ! », ça sera certainement un échec. A coup sûr.
#métaliste (qui va être un grand chantier, car il y a plein d’information sur seenthis, qu’il faudrait réorganiser) sur :
#externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #migrations #réfugiés
Des liens vers des articles généraux sur l’externalisation des frontières de la part de l’ #UE (#EU) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/569305
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/390549
►https://seenthis.net/messages/320101
Ici une tentative (très mal réussie, car évidement, la divergence entre pratiques et les discours à un moment donné, ça se voit !) de l’UE de faire une brochure pour déconstruire les mythes autour de la migration...
La question de l’externalisation y est abordée dans différentes parties de la brochure :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/765967
Petit chapitre/encadré sur l’externalisation des frontières dans l’ouvrage "(Dé)passer la frontière" :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/769367
Les origines de l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers (maritimes) : accord #USA-#Haïti de #1981 :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/768694
L’externalisation des politiques européennes en matière de migration
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/787450
"#Sous-traitance" de la #politique_migratoire en Afrique : l’Europe a-t-elle les mains propres ?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/789048
Partners in crime ? The impacts of Europe’s outsourced migration controls on peace, stability and rights :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/794636
#paix #stabilité #droits #Libye #Niger #Turquie
Proceedings of the conference “Externalisation of borders : detention practices and denial of the right to asylum”
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/880193
Brochure sur l’externalisation des frontières (passamontagna)
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/952016
Deux articles sur les affaires de l’Italie (notamment via l’entreprise #Cantieri_navali_Vittoria ) avec #Egypte , Niger, Tunisie et Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/759608
#business
Le rapport « Expanding the fortress » et des liens associés à la sortie de ce rapport :
Dans le rapport sont abordées à la fois les conséquences de l’externalisation (notamment en termes de #droits_humains) et les profiteurs (#complexe_militaro-industriel).
Cas d’étude : #Libye #Turquie #Niger #Egypte #Soudan #Mauritanie #Mali
►https://seenthis.net/messages/694887
–-
Le rapport « #Financement des frontières : #fonds et stratégies pour arrêter l’immigration » (2020) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/893191
#Mali #Soudan
–—
Le droit d’asile à l’épreuve de l’externalisation des politiques migratoires
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/893452
Le lien entre #fonds_fiduciaire_pour_l'Afrique et externalisation :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/707133
Avril 2019 : enveloppe de 115,5 millions pour le Fonds fiduciaire :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/773289
#fonds_fiduciaire
v. aussi plus de détail sur la métaliste migrations et développement :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/733358
Dans le cadre du fonds fiduciaire pour l’Afrique —> privatisation du business des cartes d’identité biométriques :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/764850
#biométrique
v. aussi le communiqué de presse de la commission européenne, mars 2019 :
Grâce au #fonds_fiduciaire d’urgence de l’UE pour l’Afrique, plus de 5,3 millions de personnes vulnérables bénéficient actuellement d’une aide de première nécessité et plus de 60 000 personnes ont reçu une aide à la réintégration après leur retour dans leur pays d’origine.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/765959
–—
Plainte déposée à la #cour_des_comptes_européenne contre l’Europe complice des horreurs perpétrées en #Libye :
L’UE a alloué, en juillet 2017, 91,3 millions d’euros au programme « #Gestion_intégrée_des_frontières_et_des_migrations_en_Libye » (#GIF) qui doit durer jusqu’à la fin de 2021. Ce programme a pour objectif « d’améliorer la capacité de la Libye à contrôler ses frontières et à assurer le sauvetage en mer, d’une manière pleinement conforme aux obligations et aux normes internationales en matière de droits de l’homme. » Ces #fonds ont été engagés par le biais du #Fonds_fiduciaire_d’urgence_de_l’Union_européenne_pour_la stabilité_et_la_lutte_contre_les_causes_profondes_des-migrations_irrégulières_et_des personnes_déplacées_en_Afrique (#EUTFA), lui-même principalement financé par le #Fonds_européen_de_développement.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/848481
Budget européen pour la migration : plus de contrôles aux frontières, moins de respect pour les droits humains :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/867813
Report to the EU Parliament on #Frontex cooperation with third countries in 2017 :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/760914
#Frontex_plus :
►https://seenthis.net/tag/frontex_plus
Frontex, version 2019 : + d’hommes, + de pouvoirs opérationnels + de coopérations avec des pays non-EU, + de retours, + de matériel + + + +
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/771558
Autour de #EUROSUR et du #complexe_militaro-industriel
Rôle du #Portugal et de la #European_Maritime_Safety_Agency (#EMSA) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/764491
Plus en général avec le tag Eurosur :
▻https://seenthis.net/tag/eurosur
Et avec le tag complexe militaro-industriel :
▻https://seenthis.net/tag/complexe_militaro-industriel
Voir notamment le livre de #Claire_Rodier, #Xénophobie_business :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/305703
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/187137
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/135750
►https://seenthis.net/messages/115086
Externalisation des contrôles frontaliers en #Libye :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/705401
(lien avec #droits_humains)
►https://seenthis.net/messages/623809
Commissaire aux droits humains Conseil Europe :
EU member states to show urgently that the support to the Libyan Coast Guard is not contributing to human rights violations, and to suspend this support if they cannot do so.
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/770463#message770466
–----
"Dossier Libia" —> un site d’information et dénonciation de ce qui se passe en Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/742662
–-----
Reportage en allemand :
Das Geschäft mit den Flüchtlingen - Endstation Libyen
►https://seenthis.net/messages/744384
–----
#Statistiques et #chiffres du nombre de personnes migrantes présentes en Libye (chiffres OIM) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/751596
Et de celles rapatriées par l’#OIM :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/763151
#organisation_contre_la_migration
–------
Sur les #centres_de_détention en Libye, voulus, soutenus et financés par l’UE ou des pays de l’UE :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/772984
►https://seenthis.net/messages/621902
►https://seenthis.net/messages/615857
#torture #viols #abus_sexuels #détention
Marché aux esclaves en Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/598508
#esclavage #néo-esclavage
–-------
Rapport sur les viols contre hommes et garçons en Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/771994
–-> et ce chiffres de 90% qui apparaît 2 fois :
Il 90% dei migranti visitati nelle cliniche del Medu ha parlato di violenza estrema e torture
►https://seenthis.net/messages/598508#message599359
A UN officer estimated that 90% of male refugees and migrants being hosted in the Italian reception system had experienced sexual violence during their journey.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/615857#message770193
–--------
Les migrants présents dans les camps enrôlés dans les #milices du général Haftar pour combattre à Tripoli (avril 2019) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/773233
–-----------
Février 2019 : #retours_volontaires de "migrants" (c’est le mot employé) érythréens vers l’#Erythrée, avec l’aide de l’#OIM (#IOM) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/763088
#retour_volontaire
–--------
Le rôle de l’#HCR (un piège) dans un dessin :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/770785
#UNHCR
–--------
Un analyse intéressante des centres de détention en Libye, avec #chronologie (et #cartographie) depuis les années 1980 :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/752742
Ici en #dessins :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/747869
#dessin
►https://seenthis.net/messages/612089
Et des mesures-sparadrap en lien avec l’#OMS cette fois-ci —> projet “Enhancing Diagnosis and Treatment for Migrants in detention centers in Libya” :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/737102
D’autres liens où l’on parle aussi des centres de détention en Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/689187
►https://seenthis.net/messages/612089
Des #témoignages audio depuis la Libye, un projet audio-documentaire de #Michelangelo_Severgnini :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/772503
Michelangelo Severgnini est aussi le réalisateur du #film "Schiavi di riserva"
–-------
#Poursuites_judiciaires —> "Un demandeur d’asile va poursuivre le Royaume-Uni pour le financement de centres de détention libyens"
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/746025
–---------
Et l’excellent film de #Andrea_Segre "L’ordine delle cose" , qui montre les manoeuvres de l’Italie pour créer ces centres en Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/677462
–--------
Autour des #gardes-côtes_libyens et les #refoulements (#push-back, #pull-back) en Libye :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/719759
Migrants : des #enregistrements attestent de la #collaboration entre #UE et #gardes-côtes_libyens :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/830340
–---------
Les pull-back vers la Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/730613
–-> et centres de détention
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/651505
Le reconstruction d’un naufrage et d’un pull-back vers la Libye effectué par les gardes-côtes libyen. Reconstruction #vidéo par #Charles_Heller et #Lorenzo_Pezzani :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/747918
11.04.2019 : #Minniti déclare que laisser les gardes-côtes libyen coordonner les sauvetages en mer a été une #dramatique_erreur :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/774010
Avril 2019 : les gardes-côtes libyens ont arrêtés de faire des secours :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/776098
–-> #Operation_Sophia et... "L’UE sait que certaines de ses politiques ont rendu la traversée plus dangereuse pour les migrants, toutefois, elle a décidé de continuer cette stratégie" :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/763871
D’ailleurs, depuis juillet 2018, aucune personne n’a été sauvée par l’#opération_Sophia :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/770463#message770472
–----------
Résistance de migrants sauvetés en Méditerranée, qui refusent d’être ramenés en Libye en refusant de descendre du navire ( #Nivin ) qui les a secourus :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/735627
–--------
#évacuation de migrants/réfugiés depuis la Libye vers le #Niger :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/737065
#réinstallation
Un #rapport sur les #returnees #returning_migrants :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/765311
–-> attention, il y a peut-être d’autres articles sur ce sujet dans les longs fils de discussions sur le Niger et/ou la Libye (à contrôler)
... et évacuation vers le #Rwanda :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/796723
–-----------
L’aide de la #Suisse aux gardes-côtes libyens :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/623935
Et la #France...
►https://seenthis.net/messages/760908
Et de l’UE à travers le #Trust_Fund :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/763529
Et l’#Italie :
Italy strengthens Libya accord, another four patrol boats :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/763660
Aerei da pattugliamento e #radar. Ecco il piano segreto anti-sbarchi :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/794614
(attention : ce n’est pas la première "livraison" italienne, il y en a eu par le passé, il faudrait voir dans les autres listes)
#Trust_Fund #Trust_Fund_for_Africa
En 2013 :
Italia-Libia, al via accordo di cooperazione su controllo frontiere :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/201853
Le 2 novembre 2019, l’#accord de #2017 entre #Italie et #Libye se renouvellera automatiquement :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/808872
–----------
Et quelques lignes sur le #traité_de_Benghazi , le fameux #pacte_d'amitié entre l’#Italie et la #Libye (2009)
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/717799
J’en parle aussi dans ce billet que j’ai écrit pour Visionscarto sur les films #Mare_chiuso et #Mare_deserto :
Vaincre une mer déserte et fermée
►https://visionscarto.net/vaincre-une-mer-deserte-et-fermee
–-> il y a certainement plus sur seenthis, mais je ne trouve pas pour l’instant... j’ajouterai au fur et à mesure
–---------------
Communiqué de presse Commission européenne, mars 2019 :
améliorer les conditions d’accueil déplorables en #Libye : les efforts déployés par l’intermédiaire du groupe de travail trilatéral UA-UE-NU doivent se poursuivre pour contribuer à libérer les migrants se trouvant en #rétention, faciliter le #retour_volontaire (37 000 retours jusqu’à présent) et évacuer les personnes les plus vulnérables (près de 2 500 personnes évacuées).
►https://seenthis.net/messages/765959
–----------
Plainte contre le gouvernement anglais pour participation au #Trust_Fund_for_Africa par lequel l’UE finance des centres de détention en Libye :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/768134
–--------
Des #timbres produits par la poste libyenne :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/745453
–--------
Rapport Arci 2019 :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/783060
–----------
Accord / pacte entre la Libye et #Malte :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/827362
►https://seenthis.net/messages/810329
Externalisation des contrôles frontaliers au #Niger (+ implication de l’#OIM (#IOM) et #Agadez ) :
Mission #Eucap_Sahel et financement et création de #Compagnies_mobiles_de_contrôle_des_frontières (#CMCF), financé par #Pays-Bas et Allemagne financés par l’Allemagne :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/733601
Financement de la #police_locale au Niger :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/763890
Le Niger, #nouvelle frontière de l’Europe et #laboratoire de l’asile :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/801799
Et des #camps_militaires :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/736433
Autres liens sur le Niger :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/696283
–-> plein de choses, il faudra un jour faire un meilleur archivage !
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/586729
–-> rapport de #Frontex sur les #routes_migratoires empruntées par les migrants dans le #désert (avec #images_satellitaires)
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/370536
–-> sujet inclus dans ce fil de discussion : #loi anti-passeurs au Niger ; création de #camps (appelé #centres)... but : convaincre les migrants de ne pas partir... faire un premier #tri...
Le Niger et l’Italie se félicitent de la chute des flux migratoires... (sic)
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/752551
–-> v. aussi : « Baisse des demandes d’asile. Pas de quoi se réjouir » :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/693203
L’impact de la diminution des flux migratoires via Agadez, dans ce rapport :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/853585
Conséquences de l’externalisation des politiques migratoires sur le #Niger, mais aussi le #Soudan et le #Tchad :
▻https://asile.ch/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/multilateral-damage.pdf
signalé ici :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/741956
v. aussi le communiqué de presse de la commission européenne, mars 2019 :
La lutte contre les réseaux de passeurs et de trafiquants a encore été renforcée. En 2018, le centre européen chargé de lutter contre le trafic de migrants, établi au sein d’#Europol, a joué un rôle majeur dans plus d’une centaine de cas de trafic prioritaires et des équipes communes d’enquête participent activement à la lutte contre ce trafic dans des pays comme le #Niger.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/765959
Note de Migreurop sur l’#OIM :
L’#OIM, une organisation au service des #frontières… fermées.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/779989
Rapport Arci 2019 sur le Niger :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/783060
Juin 2019 : #Italie et #OIM financent le renforcement des frontières à #Assamaka (à la frontière entre le Niger et l’#Algérie) et à la frontière avec le #Nigeria :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/788517
... et en octobre 2019, l’OIM organise des « charters humanitaires » de l’Algérie au Niger. Programme financé par l’#Italie et le #UK (#Angleterre) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/806477
v. aussi ce rapport sur l’externalisation des frontières au Niger, mais aussi Soudan et Tchad :
Multilateral DamageThe impact of EU migration policies on central Saharan routes
►https://seenthis.net/messages/804173
Une belle synthèse de Alizée Dauchy en 3 pages de la situation au Niger :
–-> « Des trajectoires immobilisées : #protection et #criminalisation des migrations au #Niger » :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/844250
2021 :
Deux décisions qui donnent pouvoir à #Frontex pour négocier des #accords_de_travail avec le #Niger (parmi d’autres pays hors UE) et avec #Eucap_Sahel au Niger (ainsi qu’en Libye)
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/927299
Et implication de l’#OIM dans le contrôle des frontières en #Guinée (#campagne de #dissuasion financée par l’UE) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/757474
Il y a d’autres campagnes qui ont été mise en place notamment par la #Suisse pour convaincre les migrants à rentrer au pays :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/385940
#retour_au_pays #Nigeria #Cameroun #Balkans #Afrique_de_l'Ouest #Kosovo #Serbie #Macédoine, #Albanie #Monténégro #Bosnie-Herzégovine
Et le #Danemark, même politique :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/385940#message397757
Evidemment l’#Australie aussi :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/474986
►https://seenthis.net/messages/305573
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/302153
Et l’#Allemagne :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/432534
Autres types de dissuasion... un projet de formation à la #photographie en #Côte_d'Ivoire :
The aim of this pilot project was to offer returned migrants an opportunity to become visual storytellers of their daily life back home and help local journalists change the narrative on migration in the country.
This training is the first of a series that will be organized by IOM across West Africa in 2020. It was organized in the frame of an EU-IOM Joint Initiative for Migrant Protection and Reintegration in the Sahel and Lake Chad regions.
Externalisation des frontières au #Sénégal et en #Mauritanie :
Chronique Monde | #Mauritanie. Un partenariat européen au goût amer
►https://seenthis.net/messages/858930
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/740468
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/668973
►https://seenthis.net/messages/608653
►https://seenthis.net/messages/320101
Status agreement with Senegal : #Frontex might operate in Africa for the first time :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/948918
Italie, Allemagne, France, Espagne
Les efforts de l’ #Italie d’externaliser les contrôles frontaliers :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/600874
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/595057
L’Italie avec l’ #Allemagne :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/566194
The big wall. An ActionAid investigation into how Italy tried to stop migration from Africa, using EU funds, and how much money it spent.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/905345
–-------------
#France et ses tentatives d’externalisation les frontières (proposition de Macron notamment de créer des #hub, de faire du #tri et de la #catégorisation de migrants) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/704970
►https://seenthis.net/messages/618133
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/677172
La #France et « sa » #CIVIPOL (programmes de coopération technique et de contrôles migratoires au #Soudan, et en #Erythrée) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/795208
Plus sur CIVIPOL : ▻https://seenthis.net/tag/civipol
–-------------
L’#Espagne :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/737099
#modèle_espagnol
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/737095
v. aussi plus bas la partie consacrée au Maroc...
L’externalisation des politiques migratoires espagnoles : cadre légal (Migreurop, 2019) :
▻http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/fiche_3_fr-def.pdf
L’externalisation en #Tunisie (accords avec l’Italie notamment) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/511895
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/573526
Livraison d’avions et radar à la Tunisie de la part de l’Italie (juillet 2019) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/794614
Et avec l’UE :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/737477
Comment l’Europe contrôle ses frontières en #Tunisie ?
►https://seenthis.net/messages/833041
The new installation is entitled „#Integrated_System_for_Maritime_Surveillance“ (#ISMariS), an EU projet for Gulf of Tunis’ surveillance :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/866952
Les #accords_de_réadmission , autre panel de l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers :
▻https://seenthis.net/tag/accords_de_r%C3%A9admission
Cet inventaire des accords en lien avec les réadmissions (2015) avec visualisation :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/413779
Et cette carte de Reka pour Vivre Ensemble concernant les accords signés par les pays européens :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/443738
Voir aussi cette liste « de travail » autour de la question :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/736091
Europe et #Afghanistan :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/528689
Négociations #France-#Mali :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/765027
Et l’Europe avec le Mali :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/550612
Les accords de réadmissions signés par la #Suisse :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/444316
Et les tentatives de la Suisse de signer des accords de réadmission avec l’#Erythrée (sic) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/685650
►https://seenthis.net/messages/538851
Et la Suisse avec la #Turquie :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/567121
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/563101
L’#Italie et le #Soudan :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/518543
Accord de l’Europe avec l’#Ethiopie :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/684082
Accord entre #Allemagne et #Algérie :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/723089
Accord signé entre le #Kenya et la #Somalie :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/194871
European Commission Publishes Findings of the First Annual Assessment of Third Countries’ Cooperation on Readmission (February 2021)
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/901672
Ci-dessous, le fameux accord UE-Turquie.
L’ #accord_UE-Turquie :
▻https://seenthis.net/tag/accord_ue-turquie
Et plus en général sur l’externalisation vers la #Tuquie :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/427270
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/419432
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/679603
EU concludes €6 billion contract for refugees in Turkey :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/892499
Erdogan accuse les Européens de ne pas tenir leurs promesses d’aide financière...
►https://seenthis.net/messages/512196
Et le #monitoring de l’accord (#observatoire) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/478621
Sur la « #facilité » en faveur des réfugiés en Turquie, le rapport de la Cour des comptes européenne :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/737085
#aide_financière
Un lien sur comment l’aide a été utilisée en faveur des #réfugiés_syriens à #Gaziantep :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/667241
Accord de réadmission signé par la Turquie avec l’#Irak et l’#Iran :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/483667
Tag #réintégration dans les pays d’origine après #renvois (#expulsions) :
▻https://seenthis.net/tag/r%C3%A9int%C3%A9gration
La question des #regional_disembarkation_platforms :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/703288
#plateformes_de_désembarquement #disembarkation_paltforms #plateformes_de_débarquement
Février 2019, Le sauvetage maritime espagnol, le #Salvamento_Marítimo, est désormais autorisé à débarquer une partie des migrants sauvés dans la Méditerranée au Maroc :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/761993
–-> info démentie par le gouvernement marocain : ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/761993#message761998
En 2004, on parlait plutôt de #centres_off-shore en #Afrique_du_Nord ...
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/607615
Au #Sénégal ...
#Frontex wants to disembark refugees in Senegal :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/828755
Au Niger :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/749456
#externalisation_de_l'asile #délocalisation
Et avec le projet #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism (#ETM), évacuation des réfugiés de #Libye via le #Niger... où l’on fait une sélection entre réfugiés et migrants... c’est déjà externaliser une partie de la procédure... (c’est HCR et OIM qui décide qui est réfugié et qui pas) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/799353
Les efforts d’externalisation au #Maroc :
Une nouvelle aide européenne de 101,7 millions d’euros pour lutter contre l’immigration clandestine
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/815925
L’Espagne appelle l’UE à récompenser les efforts du Maroc
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/696321
Fabrice Leggeri : Le #Maroc, un partenaire de premier plan de #Frontex
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/643905
#Espagne et #Maroc : les exemples polémiques de #Frontex pour illustrer comment stopper les flux d’immigrés
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/458929
Au #Maroc, la #chasse aux #étrangers tue et pendant ce temps, l’UE négocie et se tait
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/162299
#Fonds_fiduciaire de l’#UE à utiliser pour les décisions du comité de gestion au Maroc :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/763541
Communiqué de presse Commission européenne, mars 2019 :
L’aide au #Maroc doit encore être intensifiée, compte tenu de l’augmentation importante des arrivées par la route de la Méditerranée occidentale. Elle doit comprendre la poursuite de la mise en œuvre du programme de 140 millions d’euros visant à soutenir la gestion des frontières ainsi que la reprise des négociations avec le Maroc sur la réadmission et l’assouplissement du régime de délivrance des visas.
Lien #coopération_au_développement, #aide_au_développement et #contrôles_migratoires :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/660235
Pour la Suisse :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/564720
►https://seenthis.net/messages/719752
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/721921
–-> il y a certainement plus de liens sur seenthis, mais il faudrait faire une recherche plus approfondie...
#développement #conditionnalité
Sur cette question, il y a aussi des rapports, dont notamment celui-ci :
Aid and Migration : externalisation of Europe’s responsibilities
▻https://concordeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CONCORD_AidWatchPaper_Aid_Migration_2018_online.pdf?1dcbb3&1dcbb3
La rhétorique sur la #nouvelle_frontière_européenne , qui serait le #désert du #Sahara (et petit amusement cartographique de ma part) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/604039
#cartographie #visualisation
►https://seenthis.net/messages/548137
–-> dans ce lien il y a aussi des articles qui parlent de l’externalisation des frontières au #Soudan
Plus spécifiquement #Soudan :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/519269
Les liens avec le tag #processus_de_Khartoum :
▻https://seenthis.net/tag/processus_de_khartoum
Les efforts d’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers en #Erythrée et #Ethiopie :
Conte in Etiopia, Unione Africana ci aiuti coi rimpatri
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/729629
#Italie
Sudan and Eritrea crackdown on migrants amid reports of EU incentives :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/493279
Eritrea, l’Ue finanzia il regime. È questa la via del “aiutarli a casa loro” ?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/387744
#UE #EU #Union_européenne
–--------------
Et le financement de l’Erythrée via des fonds d’aide au développement :
Outrage over reports EU-funding linked to forced labour in Eritrea :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/821967
Gli attivisti eritrei denunciano la Ue : “Finanzia il lavoro forzato” :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/772509
#Trust_Fund_for_Africa #Trust_Fund
Eritrea, l’UE finanzia il regime di Afewerki mentre ogni giorno fuggono migliaia di persone :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/405308
Quand l’#UE finance la dictature de l’#Érythrée pour stopper les migrants :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/366439
–-------------
L’Erythrée, après la levée des sanctions de l’ONU, devient un Etat avec lequel il est désormais possible de traiter (sic) :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/721926
–-----------
... Et autres #dictateurs
Migranti, Italia e Ue dialogano con l’Africa delle dittature
►https://seenthis.net/messages/318425
#Italie
Dessin de presse de Herji :
Dictators as
Gatekeepers for Europe :
Outsourcing EU border
controls to Africa
►https://seenthis.net/messages/805117
La question des #carrier_sanctions infligées aux #compagnies_aériennes :
▻https://seenthis.net/tag/carrier_sanctions
Des choses sur la #pacific_solution de l’#Australie :
▻https://seenthis.net/recherche?recherche=%23pacific_solution
L’atlas de Migreurop, qui traite de la question de l’externalisation :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/690134
Externalisation en #Egypte
L’Egypte un des pays envisagés pour les centres de déportation envisagés par l’Autriche et le Danemark :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/728056
L’UE veut intensifier la coopération avec l’Egypte (et autres pays d’Afrique du Nord) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/724148
Minniti s’envole en Egypte :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/653351
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/641297#message677901
#Allemagne et Egypte signe un accord sur les migrations :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/629922
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/569305#message578455
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/569305#message735629
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/511895#message572698
#Push-back, #refoulements vers l’Egypte :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/393877
–-> et des push-back de l’Egypte vers le #Soudan :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/391708
Rapport Arci 2019 sur l’Egypte :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/783060
Rapport EuroMed 2019 :
EU-Egypt migration cooperation : where are human rights ?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/793069
Rapport Migreurop 2021 :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/939104
The fortified gates of the Balkans. How non-EU member states are incorporated into fortress Europe.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/907907
Chantage dans les Balkans : comment l’UE externalise ses politiques d’asile (rapport Migreurop 2021) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/918125
Externalisation des contrôles migratoires en #Europe_de_l'Est et #Balkans —> une proposition de l’#axe Autriche / Allemagne / Italie / Danemark („#Achse_der_Willigen“) :
–---
Et voilà, la première "joint operation" de la nouvelle agence #Frontex sur son non européen... en #Albanie :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/782260
Mais aussi
#Bosnie-Herzégovine #Bosnie #Macédoine_du_Nord #Monténégro #Serbie :
–—
Et au #Kosovo...
Le #Kosovo va-t-il rejoindre les normes européennes ?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/909829
Et en #Bulgarie (ça date de 2016) :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/529415
#Serbie, toujours en 2016 :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/462817
#Bosnie :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/798862
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/743581
Où l’#OIM est aussi impliquée
Aussi sur la Bosnie : "Rückführung illegaler MigrantenNGOs üben scharfe Kritik an Nehammers Balkan-Plänen" :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/913347
#Croatie :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/781830
La Germania finanzia il controllo delle frontiere croate :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/984417
#Allemagne
Les pressions de #Trump (#USA, #Etats-Unis) pour que le #Mexique expulse les migrants de son territoire :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/516675
#Mexique
Ou alors... vers le #Guatemala :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/793063
Externalisation des contrôles frontaliers au #Soudan :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/804166
–-> lien avec le financement des #milices #Janjawid et le financement de l’#armée_soudanaise
v. aussi ce rapport sur l’externalisation des frontières au Soudan, mais aussi Niger et Tchad :
Multilateral DamageThe impact of EU migration policies on central Saharan routes
►https://seenthis.net/messages/804173
Externalisation des frontières au #Tchad :
v. rapport sur l’externalisation des frontières au Tchad, mais aussi Soudan et Niger :
Multilateral DamageThe impact of EU migration policies on central Saharan routes
►https://seenthis.net/messages/804173
Externalisation des frontières au #Nigeria :
La #France propose d’aider la #Grèce à reconduire des #déboutés de l’asile
... en s’appuyant sur ces rapports privilégiés avec des pays africains...
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/821637
#continuité_coloniale #colonialisme
#Mer_Méditerranée (donc #Italie et #Libye) —> rapport #ASGI 2020 :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/847086
#Méditerranée #Méditerranée_centrale
Mais aussi lien avec le #Trust_Fund #Trust_Fund_for_Africa #fonds_fiduciaire_d’urgence
#métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers
►https://seenthis.net/messages/900122
#procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #modèle_australien
Migration and asylum: updates to the EU-Africa ’#Joint_Valletta_Action_Plan' on the way
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/901310
#update #mise_à_jour #Valletta #sommet_de_La_Vallette #La_Vallette #Vallette #2015 #2021 #JVAP #Global_Approach_on_Migration_and_Mobility (#GAMM)
Esclave en #Tunisie : le calvaire d’une migrante ivoirienne séquestrée par une riche famille de #Tunis (1/4)
Depuis l’été 2018, de plus en plus d’embarcations partent de Tunisie pour traverser la mer #Méditerranée. En face, l’Union européenne grince des dents. Pourtant, Tunis ne réagit pas, ou si peu. Déjà confronté à une crise économique et sociale majeure, le pays n’a pas - encore - fait de la #crise_migratoire une priorité. La Tunisie n’a toujours pas mis en place une politique nationale d’asile et il n’existe presqu’aucune structure d’aide pour les migrants. InfoMigrants s’est rendu sur place pour enquêter et a rencontré Jeanne-d’Arc, une migrante ivoirienne, séquestrée et réduite en #esclavage pendant plusieurs mois par une famille tunisienne aisée. Elle se dit aujourd’hui abandonnée à son sort.
Son visage exprime une détermination sans faille, la voix est claire, forte. « Non, je ne veux pas témoigner de manière anonyme, filmez-moi, montrez-moi. Je veux parler à visage découvert. Pour dénoncer, il ne faut pas se cacher ». Jeanne-d’Arc, est dotée d’un courage rare. Cette Ivoirienne, à la tête d’un salon de coiffure afro à Tunis, #sans_papiers, refuse l’anonymat tout autant que le mutisme. « Il faut que je raconte ce que j’ai subi il y quelques années pour éviter à d’autres filles de se faire piéger ».
C’était il y a 5 ans, en décembre 2013, et les souvenirs sont toujours aussi douloureux. Pendant 5 mois, Jeanne-d’Arc a été l’#esclave_domestique d’une famille aisée de Tunis. « L’histoire est si banale…, commence-t-elle. Vous avez un #trafiquant qui promet à votre famille de vous faire passer en Europe et puis qui trahit sa promesse et vous vend à quelqu’un d’autre », résume-t-elle, assise sur le canapé de son salon dont les néons éclairent la pièce d’une lumière blafarde. « Quand nous sommes arrivées à Tunis, j’ai vite compris que quelque chose ne tournait pas rond, il y avait plusieurs jeunes filles comme nous, on nous a emmenées dans un appartement puis réparties dans des familles... Je n’ai rien pu faire. Une fois que vous êtes sortie de votre pays, c’est déjà trop tard, vous avez été vendue ».
Comme de nombreuses autres Ivoiriennes, Jeanne-d’Arc a été victime de réseaux criminels « bien rôdés » dont l’intention est d’attirer des migrantes d’#Afrique_subsaharienne pour ensuite les « louer » à de riches familles tunisiennes. Pendant 5 mois, Jeanne-d’Arc ne dormira « que quand sa patronne s’endormira », elle nettoiera chaque jour ou presque « les 6 chambres, 4 salons et deux cuisines » du triplex de ses « patrons » qui vivent dans une banlieue chic de la capitale, la « #cité_el_Ghazala ». « La patronne m’a confisqué mon passeport. Évidemment je n’étais pas payée. Jamais. On me donnait l’autorisation de sortir de temps en temps, je pouvais dormir aussi, j’avais plus de chance que certaines. »
Jeanne d’Arc a raconté son histoire au Forum tunisien des droits économiques et sociaux (FTDES), une association qui vient en aide, entre autres, aux migrants. L’association tente depuis longtemps d’alerter les autorités sur ces réseaux - ivoiriens notamment - de #traite_d’êtres_humains. Des mafias également bien connues de l’organisation internationale des migrations (#OIM). « Comme beaucoup de pays dans le monde, la Tunisie n’est pas épargnée par ce phénomène [de traite] dont les causes sont multiples et profondes », a écrit l’OIM dans un de ces communiqués. Depuis 2012, l’OIM Tunisie a détecté 440 victimes de traite, 86 % viennent de #Côte_d'Ivoire.
Pour lutter contre ce fléau, la Tunisie a adopté en août 2016 une #loi relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la traite des personnes - loi qui poursuit et condamne les auteurs de trafics humains (#servitude_domestique, #exploitation_sexuelle…). Ce cadre juridique devrait en théorie permettre aujourd’hui de protéger les victimes – qui osent parler - comme Jeanne-d’Arc. Et pourtant, « l’État ne fait rien », assure-t-elle. « L’OIM non plus… Une loi, c’est une chose, la réalité, c’est autre chose ».
L’enfer des « #pénalités » imposées aux migrants sans-papiers en Tunisie
Car Jeanne-d’Arc a essayé de s’en sortir après sa « libération », un jour de janvier 2014, quand sa patronne lui a rendu son passeport et lui a ordonné de partir sur le champ, elle a cru son calvaire terminé. Elle a cru que l’État tunisien allait la protéger.
« C’est tout le contraire... À peine libérée, un ami m’a parlé de l’existence de ’pénalités’ financières en Tunisie… Il m’a dit que j’allais certainement devoir payer une amende. Je ne connaissais pas ce système. Je ne pensais pas être concernée. J’étais prise au #piège, j’ai été anéantie ».
La demande d’asile de Jeanne-d’Arc a été rejetée en 2015. Crédit : InfoMigrants
En Tunisie, selon la loi en vigueur, les étrangers en #situation_irrégulière doivent s’acquitter de « pénalités de dépassement de séjour », sorte de sanctions financières contre les sans papiers. Plus un migrant reste en Tunisie, plus les pénalités s’accumulent. Depuis 2017, cette amende est plafonnée à 1 040 dinars tunisiens (environ 320 euros) par an, précise le FTDES. « C’est une triple peine, en plus d’être en situation irrégulière et victime de la traite, une migrante doit payer une taxe », résume Valentin Bonnefoy, coordinateur du département « Initiative pour une justice migratoire » au FTDES.
Malgré l’enfer qu’elle vient de vivre, Jeanne d’Arc est confrontée à une nouvelle épreuve. « Mon ami m’a dit : ‘Tu pourras vivre ici, mais tu ne pourras pas partir’... » En effet, les « fraudeurs » ne sont pas autorisés à quitter le sol tunisien sans s’être acquitté de leur dette. « Si j’essaie de sortir du pays, on me réclamera l’argent des pénalités que j’ai commencé à accumuler quand j’étais esclave !… Et ça fait 5 ans que je suis en Tunisie, maintenant, le calcul est vite fait, je n’ai pas assez d’argent. Je suis #bloquée ».
Asile rejeté
Ces frais effraient les étrangers de manière générale – qui craignent une accumulation rapide de pénalités hebdomadaires ou mensuelles. « Même les étudiants étrangers qui viennent se scolariser en Tunisie ont peur. Ceux qui veulent rester plus longtemps après leurs études, demander une carte de séjour, doivent parfois payer ces pénalités en attendant une régularisation. C’est environ 20 dinars [6 euros] par semaine, pour des gens sans beaucoup de ressources, c’est compliqué », ajoute Valentin Bonnefoy de FTDES.
Pour trouver une issue à son impasse administrative et financière, Jeanne-d’Arc a donc déposé en 2015 un dossier de demande d’asile auprès du Haut-commissariat à l’ONU – l’instance chargée d’encadrer les procédures d’asile en Tunisie. Elle pensait que son statut de victime jouerait en sa faveur. « Mais ma demande a été rejetée.La Côte d’Ivoire n’est pas un pays en guerre m’a-t-on expliqué. Pourtant, je ne peux pas y retourner, j’ai des problèmes à cause de mes origines ethniques », dit-elle sans entrer dans les détails. Jeanne d’arc a aujourd’hui épuisé ses recours. « J’ai aussi pensé à dénoncer la famille qui m’a exploitée à la justice, mais à quoi bon... Je suis fatiguée… »
« J’ai le seul salon afro du quartier »
Après une longue période d’abattement et de petits boulots, Jeanne-d’Arc a récemment repris du poil de la bête. « Je me suis dit : ‘Ce que tu veux faire en Europe, pourquoi ne pas le faire ici ?’ ». Avec l’aide et le soutien financier d’un ami camerounais, la trentenaire sans papiers a donc ouvert un salon de coiffure afro, dans un quartier populaire de Tunis. « Je paye un loyer, le bailleur se fiche de ma situation administrative, du moment que je lui donne son argent ».
Les revenus sont modestes mais Jeanne d’Arc défend sa petite entreprise. « Je me suis installée ici, dans un quartier sans migrants, parce que je ne voulais pas de concurrence. Je suis le seul salon afro du secteur, et plus de 90 % de ma clientèle est tunisienne », dit-elle fièrement, en finissant de tresser les nattes rouges et noires d’une jeune fille. Mais les marchandises manquent et ses étals sont ostensiblement vides. « J’ai besoin de produits, de mèches, d’extensions… Mais pour m’approvisionner, il faudrait que je sorte de Tunisie... Je ne sais pas comment je vais faire ».
Pour les migrants comme Jeanne-d’Arc acculés par les pénalités, la seule solution est souvent la fuite par la mer. « Payer un #passeur pour traverser la Méditerranée peut s’avérer moins cher que de payer cette amende », résume Valentin Bonnefoy de FTDES. Une ironie que souligne Jeanne d’Arc en souriant. « En fait, ce gouvernement nous pousse à frauder, à prendre des dangers… Mais moi, que vais-je faire ? », conclut-elle. « Je ne veux pas aller en #Europe, et je ne peux pas retourner vivre en Côte d’Ivoire. Je suis définitivement prisonnière en Tunisie ».
►http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/12875/esclave-en-tunisie-le-calvaire-d-une-migrante-ivoirienne-sequestree-pa
L’équation des #refoulements en Libye : depuis le début #2018 près de 15000 boat-people ont été reconduits en #Libye où sont enregistrés plus de 56000 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile. Parmi eux, en un an, 900 ont été réinstallés. Que deviennent les autres ?
▻https://twitter.com/Migreurop/status/1053981625321771008
#push-back #refoulement #statistiques #chiffres #Méditerranée #pull-back #réinstallation
Source :
Flash update Libya (UNHCR)
Population Movements
As of 11 October, the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) rescued/intercepted 14,156 refugees and migrants (9,801 men, 2,126 women and 1,373 children) at sea during 108 operations. So far in 2018, the LCG recovered 99 bodies from the sea. The number of individualsdis embarked in Libya has gradually increased over the past weeks when compared to the month of August (552 individuals in August, 1,265 individuals in September and 884 individuals so far in October). An increase in disembarkations may be expected as the sea iscurrently very calm.
During the reporting period, 174 refugees and migrants (163 men, eight women and three children) disembarked in #Alkhums (97 km southwest of Tripoli) and #Zawia (45 km west of Tripoli). The group was comprised mainly of Bangladeshi and Sudanese nationals. UNHCR and its partner International Medical Corps (IMC) provided core-relief items (CRIs) and vital medical assistance both at the disembarkation points and in the detention centres to which individuals were subsequently transferred by the authorities. So far in 2018, UNHCR has registered 11,401 refugees and asylum-seekers, bringing the total of individuals registered to 56,045.
UNHCR Response
On 9 October, #UNHCR in coordination with the municipality of Benghazi, distributed water tanks, medical waste disposal bins and wheel chairs to 14 hospitals and clinics in Benghazi. This was part of UNHCR’s quick-impact projects (#QIPs). QIPs are small, rapidly implemented projects intended to help create conditions for peaceful coexistence between displaced persons and their hosting communities. QIPs also strengthen the resilience of these communities. So far in 2018, UNHCR implemented 83 QIPs across Libya.
On 8 October, UNHC partner #CESVI began a three-day school bag distribution campaign at its social centre in Tripoli. The aim is to reach 1,000 children with bags in preparation for the new school year. Due to the liquidity crisis in Libya, the price of school materials has increased over the past years. With this distribution, UNHCR hopes to mitigate the financial impact that the start of the school year has on refugee families.
UNHCR estimates that 5,893 individuals are detained in Libya, of whom 3,964 are of concern to UNHCR. On 7 October, UNHCR visited #Abu-Slim detention centre to deliver humanitarian assistance and address the concerns of refugees and asylum-seekers held in the facility. UNHCR distributed non-food items including blankets, hygiene kits, dignity kits, sleeping mats and water to all detained individuals. UNHCR carried out a Q&A session with refugees and migrants to discuss UNHCR’s activities and possible solutions for persons of concern. Security permitting, UNHCR will resume its registration activities in detention centres over the coming days, targeting all persons of concern.
So far in 2018, UNHCR conducted 982 visits to detention centres and registered 3,600 refugees and asylum-seekers. As of 10 October, UNHCR distributed 15,282 core-relief items to refugees and migrants held in detention centres in Libya.
Throughits partner #IMC, UNHCR continues to provide medical assistance in detention centres in Libya. So far in 2018, IMC provided 21,548 primary health care consultations at the detention centres and 231 medical referrals to public hospitals. As conditions in detention remain extremely dire, UNHCR continues to advocate for alternatives to detention in Libya and for solutions in third countries. Since 1 September 2017, 901 individuals have been submitted for resettlement to eight States (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland).
▻http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/UNHCR%20Libya%20Flash%20Update%20-%205-12OCT18.pdf
#réinstallation #détention #centres_de_détention #HCR #gardes-côtes_libyens
Migranti, 100 persone trasferite su cargo e riportate in Libia. Alarm Phone: “Sono sotto choc, credevano di andare in Italia”
Dopo l’allarme delle scorse ore e la chiamata del premier Conte a Tripoli, le persone (tra cui venti donne e dodici bambini, uno dei quali potrebbe essere morto di stenti) sono state trasferite sull’imbarcazione che batte bandiera della Sierra Leone in direzione Misurata. Ma stando alle ultime informazioni, le tensioni a bordo rendono difficoltoso lo sbarco. Intanto l’ong Sea Watch ha salvato 47 persone e chiede un porto dove attraccare.
Gli hanno detto che sarebbero sbarcati in Italia e quando hanno scoperto che invece #Lady_Sharm, il cargo battente bandiera della Sierra Leone, li stava riportando a Misurata in Libia, sono iniziate le tensioni a bordo. Secondo Alarm Phone i 100 migranti, che ieri avevano lanciato l’allarme a 50 miglia dalle coste libiche, dicendo che stavano congelando, sono “sotto choc” e si rifiutano di sbarcare. Le comunicazioni però sono molto difficoltose: non ci sono giornalisti sul posto e mancano conferme ufficiali. Le difficoltà di far sbarcare i 100 migranti sono state confermate a ilfattoquotidiano.it. L’episodio ricorda quello della nave Nivin, quando a novembre scorso un gruppo di migranti si rifiutò per giorni di scendere e l’esercito libico decise di fare irruzione sull’imbarcazione.
Poco dopo la mezzanotte era terminato il trasbordo sul mercantile inviato da Tripoli in loro soccorso. Le persone – tra cui venti donne e dodici bambini, uno dei quali potrebbe essere morto di stenti – sono state in balia del mare e del freddo per ore. Ore di angoscia che sono terminate con l’invio dei soccorsi: in serata il mercantile dirottato sul posto dalla Guardia costiera libica – su cui pare sia intervenuto personalmente il premier Giuseppe Conte – ha raggiunto la carretta, cominciando ad imbarcare i migranti. “Verranno portati in salvo nel porto di Misurata”, aveva fatto sapere in serata Palazzo Chigi, che in precedenza aveva sollecitato la guardia costiera libica affinché effettuasse quanto prima l’intervento.
▻https://twitter.com/alarm_phone/status/1087403549506658308?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E10
Parallelamente altri 47 migranti, salvati dalla ong Sea Watch, attendono di avere notizie sulla loro destinazione finale: “Sono terrorizzati” dal possibile ritorno in Libia. “Le loro condizioni di salute sono buone e stazionarie”, ha detto all’agenzia Ansa l’equipaggio, “ma ora a preoccupare sono le condizioni meteo in peggioramento“.Di Maio: “D’ora in poi li porteremo a Marsiglia”
“D’ora in poi i migranti che salviamo nel Mediterraneo glieli portiamo a Marsiglia – ha dichiarato questa mattina il vicepremier e ministro del Lavoro e dello Sviluppo economico, Luigi Di Maio, a Rtl 102.5 – Per far stare gli africani in Africa basta che la Francia stia a casa propria”. Il Viminale esprime soddisfazione: “Tutti sani e salvi, e riportati indietro, i 393 immigrati recuperati dalla Guardia Costiera libica nella giornata di ieri. In particolare, 143 sono stati riportati a Tripoli. 144 a Misurata, 106 ad al-Khoms”. La collaborazione funziona, gli scafisti, i trafficanti e i mafiosi devono capire che i loro affari sono finiti. Meno partenze, meno morti, la nostra linea non cambia” commenta il ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini.
L’allarme e le richieste di aiuto inascoltate per ore
Domenica mattina Alarm Phone, il sistema di allerta telefonico utilizzato per segnalare imbarcazioni in difficoltà, ha ricevuto la segnalazione del natante in avaria al largo di Misurata. Ora per ora, minuto per minuto, ha raccontato via tweet il dramma delle 100 persone stipate nell’imbarcazione facendo il resoconto delle innumerevoli segnalazioni effettuate a Roma, La Valletta e Tripoli, quest’ultima indicata da tutti come autorità competente a coordinare i soccorsi. “Abbiamo chiamato sette numeri differenti della sala operativa della cosiddetta Guardia costiera di Tripoli – raccontano i volontari – ma non abbiamo ricevuto risposta. Malta ci ha fornito un ottavo numero, che non risponde. Tutto questo è ridicolo. Ne basterebbe uno che funzionasse. Abbiamo avvisato Italia e Malta che la Libia non è raggiungibile. Nessuno ha attivato un’operazione di soccorso”.
Affermazioni respinte dalla Marina libica, che con il suo portavoce, il brigadiere Ayoub Gassem, ha smentito che le richiesta di soccorso siano state ignorate, sottolineando che in mattinata altri 140 migranti sono stati salvati da una motovedetta di Tripoli. Dal canto suo la Guardia costiera italiana ha precisato che, non appena saputo dell’emergenza, “come previsto dalla normativa internazionale sul Sar ha immediatamente contattato la Guardia Costiera libica, nella cui area di responsabilità era in corso l’evento, che ha assunto il coordinamento e non potendo mandare propri mezzi perché impegnati nei precedenti soccorsi, ha inviato sul posto il mercantile della Sierra Leone”.
I migranti: “Congeliamo, abbiamo paura di morire”
A bordo del barcone i naufraghi hanno trascorso ore drammatiche: “Stiamo congelando, la situazione è disperata, aiutateci. Abbiamo paura di morire”, dicevano mentre imbarcavano acqua. Altri 47, salvati ieri da un gommone che stava per affondare, sono sulla Sea Watch, sempre al largo della Libia, in attesa di conoscere quale sarà il loro destino. “Nessuno ci dà informazioni, non sappiano cosa fare, quale sarà il porto dove attraccare – dicono dall’equipaggio – “Chiediamo istruzioni e restiamo in attesa. Siamo stati rimandati ai libici che però non rispondono. Non c’è modo di parlare con loro”.
►https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/01/21/migranti-100-persone-trasferite-su-cargo-e-riportate-in-libia-alarm-phone-sono-sotto-choc-credevano-di-andare-in-italia/4911794
Il governo italiano elude il divieto di respingimenti collettivi
La pietà per le 117 vittime del naufragio di venerdì 18 gennaio non è durata a lungo, e sono rimasti inascoltati tutti gli appelli volti a chiedere agli stati il rispetto degli obblighi di soccorso sanciti dal diritto internazionale. Una strage dopo l’altra, e sempre più rapidamente scattano i meccanismi di rimozione. Alla fine i “colpevoli” vengono indicati nelle ONG, ormai praticamente assenti, e non invece tra i governanti che hanno concluso accordi con autorità militari e guardiacoste che non rispettano i diritti umani, ed adesso omettono sistematicamente gli interventi di soccorso in acque internazionali.
Si è conclusa nel peggiore dei modi l’operazione di ricerca e soccorso in acque internazionali di un gommone con circa cento persone a bordo, segnalato nella mattina di domenica 20 gennaio a circa 50 miglia a nord della città di Misurata. Per ore, che potevano fare la differenza tra la vita e la morte, praticamente per l’intera giornata di domenica, le autorità italiane, maltesi e libiche non hanno risposto alle richieste di aiuto rilanciate dall’organizzazione Alarm Phone.
Senza l’insistenza delle organizzazioni umanitarie nessuno sarebbe andato a salvare le persone che erano ormai sul punto di annegare, e malgrado questo dato evidente, il ministro dell’interno Salvini non ha trovato altra risposta che inasprire le minacce contro le ONG, colpevoli di avere portato alla luce l’evento di soccorso, e sprattutto di avere salvato, in una precedente oprazione SAR, altre 46 persone portate a bordo della nave Sea Watch. Persone che ancora oggi rimangono abbandonate, con l’equipaggio della nave soccorritrice in alto mare, perchè nessun governo delle diverse zone SAR confinati nel Mediterraneo centrale ( Italia, Malta, Libia) risponde indicando un porto sicuro di sbarco, come sarebbe imposto dalle Convenzioni internazionali del diritto del mare e dal Diritto internazionale dei rifugiati. Sempre, ammesso e non concesso, che di Libia come stato unitario si possa parlare, e di una Guardia costiera “libica” con un Coordinamento centrale (MRCC) si possa disporre per garantire operazioni di soccorso che non possono essere legate alla ridotta capacità di intervento dei suoi assetti navali o alle pressioni diplomatiche di un governo straniero.
Dopo una giornata in cui le autorità libiche avevano lasciato cadere le richieste di intervento, a 50 miglia a nord di Misurata, da parte delle autorità italiane, l’intervento del Presidente del Consiglio Conte, e di non meglio precisate componenti diplomatiche, ha indotto il governo di Tripoli a dirottare verso il gommone una nave cargo la Lady Shar con bandiera della Sierra Leone, ma in precedenza immatricolata con altro nome presso i registri maltesi, la nave commerciale più vicina in navigazione nella zona dei soccorsi, ed a effettuare un primo trasbordo dei naufraghi ormai stremati dal freddo. Successivamente, per quanto si è appreso dai media, sembrerebbe che alcune motovedette libiche avrebbero trasportato alcune persone a terra, riportandole nel porto di Misurata, dunque molto vicine al luogo dal quale erano state fatte partire dai trafficanti su un gommone fatiscente, approfittando del temporaneo miglioramento delle condizioni meteo. In realtà risulta che ai migranti “soccorsi” a bordo della nave commerciale “coordinata” dalle autorità libiche nessuno avesse detto che la nave li avrebbe sbarcati a Misurata. E che anzi qualcuno li aveva rassicurati che sarebbero stati sbarcati in Italia.
Secondo le notizie più recenti però, una parte dei naufraghi starebbe facendo resistenza ancora a bordo della nave che li ha soccorsi, e si profilano altre violenze ai danni dei naufraghi, come già verificato proprio a Misurata, nel caso dello sbarco-irruzione operato a bordo della NIVIN. I naufraghi erano stati sbarcati con la forza dopo una irruzione delle milizie armate che sparavano con fucili proiettili di gomma ad altezza d’uomo. Mentre giornalisti ed operatori umanitari pure presenti nel porto di Misurata venivano tenuti lontani. Non ci sono state più notizie sulla sorte di quelle persone, fatte scomparire nel nulla. Questa è la “Libia”, meglio il territorio controllato dal governo di Tripoli e dalle milizie alleate, con cui collabora il governo italiano.
A nulla sono serviti gli appelli perchè i migranti, che si trovavano ormai in acque internazionali, molto vicini al limite della zona SAR maltese, fossero portati in un porto sicuro Un place of safety (POS) che non si trova certo in Libia, neppure a Misurata come i fatti dimostrano. In Libia non ci sono place of safety per chi viene intercettato in alto mare, anche secondo quanto recentemente dichiarato dal Commissario per le Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati Grandi, sulla base di rapporti delle stesse Nazioni Unite, che documentano gli abusi che subiscono i migranti intercettati in alto mare e riportati indietro dalla sedicente Guardia costiera “libica”. Per comprendere la gravità delle violazioni del diritto internazionale commesse in questa occasione dal governo italiano occorre una breve ricostruzione dei rapporti intercorsi in questi ultimi due anni tra l’Italia ed il governo di Tripoli.
2.Dopo gli accordi con la Libia del 2 febbraio 2017, ratificati dal Vertice euromediterraneo de La Valletta, a Malta, il giorno successivo, le autorità italiane hanno sempre operato per aggirare il divieto di respingimenti collettivi in mare, affermato dalla sentenza di condanna dell’Italia da parte della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo il 23 febbraio 2012 nel caso Hirsi.
Occorreva chudere, o almeno ridurre in modo sostanziale, gli arrivi di migranti dalla Libia, dopo che i principali partiti allora di opposizione, e soprattutto la Lega ed i Cinquestelle, avevano conquistato fasce sempre più larghe di elettorato, utilizzando in modo strumentale l’allarme che si era fatto derivare dall’elevato numero di arrivi di migranti negli anni dal 2013 al 2016, effetto della crisi siriana e di una situazione di crescente instabilità in Libia e negli altri paesi dell’africa subsahariana. Per tutto questo occorreva delegare alla guardia costiera “libica” quell’attività di intercettazione e di respingimento collettivo che le unità italiane, in particolare la Guardia di finanza, non potevano più svolgere come avevano fatto nel 2009 e nel 2010, con Maroni ministro dell’interno. Cosa importava se le motovedette libiche non avevano a bordo neppure salvagenti o mezzi collettivi di salvataggio, in dotazione invece sulle navi delle ONG ?
In questa direzione, con il supporto dell’Unione Europea ( missione Eunavfor Med) si sono addestrati centinaia di guardiacoste, nella veste di Guardia costiera “libica”, e si erano fornite motovedette e risorse finanziarie (Africa Trust Fund). Prima ancora che si arrivasse alla proclamazione di una zona SAR “libica”, si era quindi intensificata la collaborazione operativa con la sedicente Guardia costiera “libica”, come documentato dalla sentenze della magistratura di Catania, Ragusa e Palermo, al punto che i giudici arrivavano al punto di osservare quasi come scontato che il coordinamento sostanziale delle attività di ricerca e salvataggio (SAR) svolte dai libici in acque internazionali fosse di fatto demandato alle autorità italiane, presenti nel porto militare di Tripoli con la missione NAURAS.
In un primo periodo, anche sulla base di operazioi di disinformazione alimentate da gruppi della estrema destra europea (GEFIRA), si cercavo di rallentare, se non dissuadere, con una forte pressione mediatica le attività delle navi delle ONG che operavano nelle acque del Mediterraneo centrale, per colmare un vuoto determinato dalla fine dell’operazione Mare Nostrum (2014) e poi dal progressivo ritiro degli assetti navali dell’operazione TRITON di Frontex.
Nel giugno del 2017 un piano articolato su sette punti,proposto dall’allora ministro dell’interno Minniti, veniva proposto all’Unione Europea che lo approvava e si impegnava a finanziarlo. Tra le azioni previste dal piano rientravano anche le attività di collaborazione e coordinamento con la Guardia costiera “libica”. Gli obiettivi proposti all’Unione europea erano i seguenti :” 1) rafforzare la capacità della Libia nella sorveglianza marittima; 2) dare loro assistenza per la definizione di un’area marittima Sar (Search and rescue, ricerca e salvataggio); 3) istituire una Mrcc (maritime rescue coordination centre), una centrale operativa di coordinamento di salvataggio; 4) assistere la guardia costiera di Tripoli nelle procedure Sar; 5) irrobustire la cooperazione tra le agenzie internazionali e le autorità libiche; 6) intensificare gli interscambi operativi marittimi con l’Italia e gli altri stati Ue; 7) sviluppare le capacità di intervento ai confini di terra nel controllo dei traffici di esseri umani e di soccorso ai migranti in fuga.
Con il Codice di condotta Minniti, alla fine del mese di luglio del 2017, venivano stabiliti obblighi pretestuosi che esulavano dalle prescrizioni stabilite nelle Convenzioni internazionali e si introduceva il principio che le navi private delle ONG avrebbeo dovuto operare nelle attività SAR senza interferire con le attività di soccorso che nel frattempo venivano affidate alla sedicente Guardia costiera libica, allora coordinata direttamente da personale italo-libico a bordo di una nave della Marina militare italiana della missione NAURAS di stanza nel porto militare di Abu Sittah a Tripoli. Tra le attività di supporto della missione Nauras a Tripoli, rientrava, fino al 28 giugno scorso, anche“l’importante compito di aiutare i libici a interfacciarsi con la Centrale operativa della Guardia costiera a Roma che coordina le operazioni di ricerca soccorso nel Mediterraneo centrale”. Questo coordinamento italiano delle attività di intercettazione in mare, affidate gia’ nella prima parte di quest’anno alla cd. Guardia costiera “libica“.
Una previsione che contrastava con il riconoscimento della superiorità gerarchica ( rispetto al codice di condotta ed agli accordi bilterali) delle norme di diritto internazionale o di rango costituzionale, dal momento che già allora risultava evidente quanto gravi fossero le violazioni dei diritti ( e dei corpi) dei migranti sempre più frequenti in Libia, paese che ancora oggi non risulta firmatario della Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati). Violazioni gravisssime che lasciavano segni evidenti nei corpi e nello spirito anche nelle persone che erano state bloccate in mare, in acque internazionali e riportate a terra in mano alle stesse milizie dalle quali erano fuggite.
Il 26 luglio del 2017, all’indomani dell’incontro organizzato a Parigi sulla Libia, l’ex premier Gentiloni dichiarava addirittura che il capo del governo di Tripoli Serraj avrebbe chiesto l’aiuto dell’Italia ” in acque libiche con unità navali, per il contrasto ai trafficanti di esseri umani”.
Nel mese di agosto del 2017 si concretizzava l’offensiva di alcune procure contro le navi delle ONG, con sequestri ed incriminazioni sempre più gravi, dopo una violenta campagna mediatica nei loro confronti, e soprattutto dopo che i loro equipaggi erano stati “infiltrati” da agenti sotto copertura che fornivano una ricostruzione artefatta delle attività di soccorso che avrebbe dovuto mostrare una “collusione” tra i trafficanti, gli scafisti, e gli operatori umanitari. Una “collusione” che veniva presto smontata da indagini difensive che dimostravano la artificiosità delle prove raccolte a base delle prime denunce, ma che comunque resta oggetto di un procedimento penale a Trapani. Il procedimento penale contro l’equipaggio della nave Juventa della ONG Jugend Rettet è infatti ancora in corso, mentre la Procura di Palermo ha chiesto ed ottenuto l’archiviazione di un analogo procedimento penale avviato presso il Tribunale di Palermo, contro la ONG spagnola Open Arms e contro la ONG tedesca Sea Watch. Anche per la Procura di Palermo nessun porto libico si poteva qualificare come “Place of safety (POS)” luogo di sbarco sicuro, e dunque bene avevano fatto le ONG, peraltro sotto coordinamento della Centrale operativa della Guardia costiera italiana (IMRCC), che in quel periodo avevano sbarcato in porti italiani i naufraghi raccolti nelle acque internazionali a nord della Libia.
Dopo una serie di comunicati stampa e pesanti interventi mediatici, nonchè una audizione in Parlamento, la Procura di Catania non giungeva invece a formulare alcuno specifico capo di accusa, corrispondente alle prime dichiarazioni del Procuratore capo. Il processo avviato con il sequestro della nave Open Arms a Pozzallo nel mese di marzo del 2018, rimane ancora aperto, presso il Tribunale di Ragusa, dove il procedimento avviato a catania è stato trasferito per la caduta delle contestazioni relative alle ipotesi associative. Ma la nave è stata dissequestrata, dopo che il Giudice delle indagini preliminari, e poi il Tribunale di Ragusa, hanno ritenuto la Libia priva di porti sicuri e dunque conforme al diritto il comportamento del comandante che non aveva chiesto alle autorità libiche la indicazione di un porto di sbarco, ma sie era diretto invece verso le coste maltesi ed italiane per chiedere un POS (Place of safety), ricevendo anche da Malta un netto rifiuto di sbarco. Il Giudice delle indagini preliminari di Catania, decidendo su questo caso, rilevava il sostanziale coordinamento da parte delle autorità italiane (Operazione Nauras) delle attività di ricerca e salvataggio (SAR) condotte dalle autorità libiche nelle occasioni denunciate. Il Gip di Catania osservava in particolare che ” Anche questa eccezione non può essere condivisa, poiché le motovedette libiche erano intervenute per effettuare una operazione di soccorso, come richiesto da IMRCC di Roma e sotto l’egida italiana con le navi militari di stanza a Tripoli, e perciò non si può parlare minimamente di respingimento, ma solamente di soccorso e salvataggio in mare”.
3.L’aggiramento della sentenza di condanna dell’Italia da parte della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo sul caso Hirsi era ormai realizzato. Con l’insediamento del nuovo governo Salvini-Di Maio-Conte, già nelle prime dichiarazioni del ministro dell’interno si percepiva un ulteriore inasprimento della linea di condotta delle autorità italiane nelle occasioni ancora frequenti di interventi di ricerca e soccorso in acque internazionali sulla rotta libica operati dalle navi delle ONG. Per tutta l’estate dello scorso anno era una guerra aperta contro le ONG, con espedienti burocratici, come le pressio i sugli stati di bandiera delle navi umanitarie perchè le cancellassero dai registri navali, e con la minaccia di altre sanzioni penali, unico strumento per “chiudere i porti”.
Cresceva anche la pressione diplomatica sulla Libia e sull’IMO a Londra (Organizzazione marittima internazionale che fa capo alle Nazioni Unite) perchè fosse riconosciuta una zona SAR “libica” in modo da delegare completamente, almeno sulla carta, il coordinamento delle attività di salvataggio ad assetti libici ed alla costituenda Centrale operativa libica (IRCC). Una autentica finzione, dal momento che la Libia non ha ancora oggi organi di governo o forze armate uniche per tutto il suo vasto territorio, coste e mare territoriale compreso, controllato da milizie in perenne conflitto tra loro. Il 28 giugno 2018, l’IMO inseriva nei suoi data base la autoproclamata zona SAR “libica” comunicata dal governo di Tripoli che neppure riusciva a controllare il territorio dell’intera città, ma che veniva incontro alle richieste del governo italiano, dopo che una prima richiesta rivolta dai libici all’IMO nel dicembre del 2017 era stata ritirata per la evidente mancanza dei requisiti richiesti a livello internazionale per il riconoscimento di una zona SAR.
Se fino al 28 giugno scorso era almeno chiaro che le responsabilità di coordinamento spettavano tutte alla Centrale operativa della Guardia costiera italiana (IMRCC), a partire da quella data, con la notifica di una zona SAR “libica” da parte del governo di Tripoli all’IMO a Londra,a partire da quella data è venuta meno qualsiasi certezza circa le responsabilità di coordinamento dei soccorsi, e dunque di individuazione del punto di sbarco. Non si è riusciti neppure a risolvere il problema ricorrente della sovrapposizione tra la zona SAR maltese e la zona SAR italiana, a sud di Lampedusa e Malta, già occasione di conflitti di competenze, che avevano portato a tragedie con centinaia di morti, come in occasione della cd. strage dei bambini dell’11 ottobre 2013. Per quella strage è ancora in corso un procedimento penale presso il Tribunale di Roma, dopo due richieste di archiviazione da parte delle procure di Agrigento e Roma.
Intanto il responsabile della sedicente Guardia costiera libica da Tripoli annunciava che gli assetti militari a sua disposizione non avrebbero proceduto a svolgere attività di ricerca e soccorso che non fossero coordinate da autorità libiche con mezzi decisi da Tripoli, dunque con totale esclusione di ogni possibilità di collaborazione con le ONG, ancora presenti nelle acque internazionali del Mediterraneo centrale. Per le Nazioni Unite, invece,e dunque per qualunque governo del mondo, “la Libia non può essere considerata un luogo sicuro di sbarco”, come ricorda il più recente rapporto diffuso a livello mondiale. Anche se nei punti di sbarco compaiono le pettorine azzurre dell’UNHCR, coloro che ancora riescono a tentare la pericolosa traversata del Mediterraneo, e che “vengono sempre più spesso intercettati o soccorsi dalla Guardia costiera libica che li riconduce in Libia”, ritrovano l’inferno da dove erano fuggiti. Dopo lo sbarco e la consegna di un kit di prima accoglienza finiscono nelle mani delle milizie che controllano i centri di detenzione.
In una visita in Libia ai primi di luglio, Human Rights Watch ha intervistato le forze della guardia costiera libica, decine di rifugiati e migranti detenuti in centri a Tripoli, Zuara e Misurata, e funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali. I richiedenti asilo detenuti e i migranti intervistati hanno espresso gravi accuse di abusi da parte delle guardie e dei trafficanti, e alcuni hanno riferito di comportamenti aggressivi da parte delle forze della guardie costiera durante le operazioni di salvataggio in mare. Human Rights Watch ha confermato che le forze della guardia costiera libica mancano della capacità di assicurare operazioni di ricerca e soccorso sicure ed efficaci.
4. La competenza nelle attività SAR o la individuazione del place of safety non possono derogare i principi fondamentali affermati in favore dei rifugiati ai quali sono parificati i richiedenti asilo. In base alla Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati (art.33), “nessuno Stato contraente potrà espellere o respingere (refouler) – in nessun modo – un rifugiato verso le frontiere dei luoghi ove la sua vita o la sua libertà sarebbero minacciate a causa della sua razza, della sua religione, della sua nazionalità, della sua appartenenza ad una determinata categoria sociale o delle sue opinioni politiche. Il beneficio di detta disposizione non potrà tuttavia essere invocato da un rifugiato per il quale vi siano gravi motivi per considerarlo un pericolo per la sicurezza dello Stato in cui si trova, oppure da un rifugiato il quale, essendo stato oggetto di una condanna già passata in giudicato per un crimine o un delitto particolarmente grave, rappresenti una minaccia per la comunità di detto Stato”.
In ogni caso, le espulsioni collettive sono vietate dal quarto protocollo addizionale della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo firmato a Strasburgo il 16 settembre 1963 (cfr. art. 19.1 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea).
L’art.33 della Convenzione di Ginevra che impone il divieto di respingimento delle persone verso paesi che non ne garantiscono i diritti fondamentali, in coerenza con l’art. 10 della Costituzione italiana, rendono del tutto privo di basi legali, e dunque non vincolante, qualsiasi ordine di riconsegna dei naufraghi ai libici impartito dopo i soccorsi a navi private che si trovino in acque internazionali. Va ricordato che né la Libia, né le diverse entità statali in cui risulta divisa, hanno sottoscritto la Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati, ne garantiscono un effettiva salvaguardia dei diritti fondamentali delle persone, per non parlare della condizione di abuso alla quale,dopo la riconduzione a terra, sono sistematicamente esposti donne e minori ( ma adesso anche molti adulti di sesso maschile).
Se è vero che in base all’art. 25 della Convenzione UNCLOS lo stato può comunque impedire l’ingresso nei propri porti ad una nave sospettata di trasportare migranti irregolari, è altrettanto da considerare che se uno Stato respinge una imbarcazione carica di naufraghi soccorsi in acque internazionali, senza controllare se a bordo vi siano dei richiedenti asilo o soggetti non respingibili, o altrimenti inespellibili, come donne abusate e/o in stato di gravidanza e minori, e senza esaminare se essi possiedano i requisiti per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato, commette una violazione del principio di non respingimento sancito dall’art. 33 par. 1 della Convenzione del 1951 se i territori (Stati terzi o alto mare) verso cui la nave è respinta non offrono garanzie sufficienti per l’incolumità dei migranti. L’articolo 10 del Testo Unico sull’immigrazione 256/98 prevede ancora espressamente la possibilità di applicare il respingimento differito (comma 2) alle persone straniere che sono state “temporaneamente ammessi nel territorio per necessità di pubblico soccorso”. Dunque anche l’ordinamento interno prevede che in caso di eventi di ricerca e soccorso in mare non si possa procedere ad operazioni di respingimento che peraltro assumerebbero il carattere di respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 4 del Quarto Protocollo allegato alla CEDU e dall’art.19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea.
La Convenzione di Palermo contro il crimine transnazionale ed i due Protocolli allegati, contro la tratta e contro il traffico di esseri umani, che pure prevedono accordi con i paesi di origine e transito dei migranti, antepongono la salvaguardia della vita umana in mare alla lotta contro quella che si definisce immigrazione “illegale”. In base all’art.7 del Protocollo contro il traffico, (Cooperazione) “Gli Stati Parte cooperano nella maniera più ampia per prevenire e reprimere il traffico di migranti via mare, ai sensi del diritto internazionale del mare”. Secondo l’art. 9 dello stesso Protocollo “Qualsiasi misura presa, adottata o applicata conformemente al presente capitolo tiene debitamente conto della necessità di non ostacolare o modificare: a) i diritti e gli obblighi degli Stati costieri e l’esercizio della loro giurisdizione, ai sensi del diritto internazionale del mare. Particolarmente importante l’art. 16 del Protocollo che prevede Misure di tutela e di assistenza: (1) Nell’applicazione del presente Protocollo, ogni Stato Parte prende, compatibilmente con i suoi obblighi derivanti dal diritto internazionale, misure adeguate, comprese quelle di carattere legislativo se necessario, per preservare e tutelare i diritti delle persone che sono state oggetto delle condotte di cui all’articolo 6 del presente Protocollo, come riconosciuti ai sensi del diritto internazionale applicabile, in particolare il diritto alla vita e il diritto a non essere sottoposto a tortura o altri trattamenti o pene inumani o degradanti. (2) Ogni Stato Parte prende le misure opportune per fornire ai migranti un’adeguata tutela contro la violenza che può essere loro inflitta, sia da singoli individui che da
gruppi, in quanto oggetto delle condotte di cui all’articolo 6 del presente Protocollo. (3) Ogni Stato Parte fornisce un’assistenza adeguata ai migranti la cui vita, o incolumità, è in pericolo dal fatto di essere stati oggetto delle condotte di cui all’articolo 6 del presente Protocollo. (4) Nell’applicare le disposizioni del presente articolo, gli Stati Parte prendono in
considerazione le particolari esigenze delle donne e dei bambini.
Un ulteriore clausola di salvaguardia si ritrova all’art.19 del Protocollo addizionale contro il traffico: (1) Nessuna disposizione del presente Protocollo pregiudica diritti, obblighi e responsabilità degli Stati e individui ai sensi del diritto internazionale, compreso il diritto internazionale umanitario e il diritto internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo e, in particolare, laddove applicabile, la Convenzione del 1951 e il Protocollo del 1967 relativi allo Status di Rifugiati e il principio di non allontanamento”.
Per effetto degli articoli 10 e 117 della Costituzione italiana le Convenzioni internazionali che l’Italia ha sottoscritto si impongono sulle scelte dell’esecutivo e non possono essere violate da leggi interne o accordi internazionali. Dunque il diritto alla vita ed al soccorso in mare è un diritto fondamentale che non si può ponderare sulla base di altri interessi dello stato pure rilevanti, come la difesa delle frontiere o la lotta alle reti di trafficanti.
Non è dunque possibile che un ministro dell’interno proclami la sua insofferenza per il diritto internazionale, o che lo ritenga un ostacolo alle sue politiche di “chiusura dei porti”. La creazione della zona SAR libica è servita proprio per aggirare i divieti di respingimento e gli obblighi di salvataggio imposti agli stati dal Diritto internazionale. Era tutto chiaro da mesi. Non sono certo le ONG complici dei trafficanti libici, quanto piuttosto quei governi che fanno accordi con le milizie per bloccare e detenere i migranti prima che possano attraversare il Mediterraneo.
Va ricordato infine che nel caso di avvistamenti o chiamate di soccorso non seguiti da tempestivi interventi di ricerca e salvataggio potrebbero configurarsi gravi responsabilità penali. Come ricordano Caffio e Leanza (Il SAR Mediterraneo) “è da ritenersi in conclusione che responsabilità sarebbero ipotizzabili nei seguenti casi:1) non intervento di navi le quali siano a conoscenza della situazione (anche a seguito di warning emanato dalle autorità italiane) e siano in condizione di intervenire in tempo utile in ragione della distanza e della velocità sempre che non sussistano condizioni ostative attinenti la sicurezza della navigazione e delle persone che sono a bordo nonché alla tipologia di nave (si pensi alle navi gasiere) sprovviste di spazi per ospitare le persone salvate o addirittura pericolose nei loro confronti;2) mancata emissione di warning ai mercantili in transito da parte delle autorità SAR italiane”.
5. Occorre trovare al più prsto un porto sicuro di sbarco per le 47 persone soccorse ieri dalla nave SEA WATCH, per le quali nè Malta, nè Italia hanno finora indicato quanto dovuto in base alle Convenzioi internazionali. La Convenzione internazionale sulla ricerca e il soccorso in mare del 1979 (Convenzione SAR) obbliga gli Stati parte a “…garantire che sia prestata assistenza ad ogni persona in pericolo in mare… senza distinzioni relative alla nazionalità o allo status di tale persona o alle circostanze nelle quali tale persona viene trovata” (Capitolo 2.1.10) ed a “ […] fornirle le prime cure mediche o di altro genere ed a trasferirla in un luogo sicuro”. (Capitolo 1.3.2)
Per “luogo di sbarco sicuro” (Place of safety-POS) si deve intendere un luogo in cui si ritiene che le operazioni di soccorso debbano concludersi e in cui la sicurezza per la vita dei sopravvissuti non è minacciata, dove possono essere soddisfatte le necessità umane di base e possono essere definite le modalità di trasporto dei sopravvissuti verso la destinazione successiva o finale tenendo conto della protezione dei loro diritti fondamentali nel rispetto del principio di non respingimento…» (Regolamento Frontex 656/2014).
L’adempimento degli obblighi internazionali di salvaguardia della vita umana in mare e la tempestiva indicazione di un porto sicuro di sbarco non possono diventare merce di scambio per modificare le politiche dell’Unione Europea.
Gli interessi nazionali diretti alla “difesa dei confini” non possono consentire di cancellare sostanzialmente gli articoli 10 e 117 della Costituzione italiana che affermano la piena operatività, nel nostro ordinamento interno, delle Convenzioni internazionali che l’Italia ha sottoscritto e ratificato. Rimane inalterata la diretta efficacia cogente dei Regolamenti dell’Unione Europea che forniscono una definizione vincolante ( anche per i ministri dell’interno) di “luogo di sbarco sicuro”.
Qualunque trattativa per la distribuzione, pure auspicabile, di naufraghi tra diversi paesi europei può avvenire soltanto quando le persone hanno raggiunto un porto di sbarco sicuro, perché la nave soccorritrice va considerata in base al diritto internazionale come un luogo sicuro “transitorio”, e la permanenza a bordo di persone già duramente provate non può diventare arma di ricatto tra gli stati. Di certo non rileva nella individuazione del porto di sbarco sicuro la bandiera dell’unità soccorritrice, altro argomento utilizzato per impedire o ritardare lo sbarco nei porti italiani delle persone soccorse in mare.
6. Una volta che il Centro nazionale di coordinamento di soccorso marittimo della Guardia Costiera di Roma(I.M.R.C.C.)abbia comunque ricevuto la segnalazione di un’emergenza e assunto il coordinamento iniziale delle operazioni di soccorso -anche se l’emergenza si è sviluppata fuori dalla propria area di competenza SAR – questo impone alle autorità italiane di portare a compimento il salvataggio individuando il luogo sicuro di sbarco dei naufraghi. Se le autorità di Malta hanno negato il loro consenso allo sbarco in un porto di quello Stato, l’Italia non può negare lo sbarco in un proprio porto sicuro, che diventa essenziale per completare le operazioni di salvataggio. Se, come risulta dagli ultimi rapporti delle Nazioni Unite, e come riconosce persino il ministro degli esteri Moavero la Libia non garantisce “porti di sbarco sicuri”, spetta al ministero dell’interno, di concerto con la Centrale operativa della guardia costiera (IMRCC) di Roma, indicare con la massima sollecitudine un porto di sbarco sicuro, anche se l’evento SAR si è verificato nelle acque internazionali che ricadono nella pretesa SAR libica.
Se gli ordini di “chiusura dei porti ”, impartiti in modo informale dal ministro dell’interno, continueranno a produrre l’effetto di bloccare in alto mare, in acque internazionali, decine di persone particolarmente vulnerabili, come lo sono tutti coloro che provengono oggi dalla Libia, sarebbe violato l’inalienabile diritto delle persone, quale che sia il loro stato giuridico, “a non subire trattamenti inumani o degradanti”( Articolo 3 della CEDU). Trattamenti direttamente riferibili al ministero dell’interno che non indica un porto sicuro di sbarco e che potrebbero ben configurarsi qualora, a seguito di un ennesimo braccio di ferro tra gli stati europei, la permanenza a bordo dei naufraghi, malgrado il prodigarsi degli operatori umanitari, dovesse procurare ulteriori sofferenze, se non gravi rischi per la salute o per la stessa vita. Non si può ammettere che in acque internazionali ci siano persone sottratte a qualsiasi giurisdizione. Anche se non interviene direttamente con i suoi mezzi, fino a quando non intervengono direttamente unità navali o aeree, o centrali di coordinamento SAR di altri paesi, le persone che chiamano soccorso dall’alto mare si trovano sotto la giurisdizione del primo paese che riceve la chiamata di soccorso, dal cui esito tempestivo può dipendere la vita o la morte.
In caso di violazione del divieto di respingimenti collettivi ( articolo 4 del Quarto Protocollo allegato alla CEDU) o del divieto di trattamenti inumani od degradanti (art.3 CEDU), imposti agli stati nei confronti di tutte le persone che ricadono nella loro giurisdizione, come sono i naufraghi soccorsi in operazioni coordinate, almeno nella fase iniziale, da una autorità statale, si potrebbero ipotizzare ricorsi in via di urgenza alla Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo. Mentre se il conflitto tra gli stati ( in particolare Italia e Malta) nella individuazione di un POS (porto sicuro di sbarco) si dovesse ripetere, dovrebbe occuparsene la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea.
▻https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/il-governo-italiano-elude-il-divieto-di-respingimenti
Tweet des gardes-côtes libyens, 30.04.2019 :
Seventy migrants have been rescued and are now on their way to take them to the receiving points of migrants, details of the operation later
▻https://twitter.com/CoastGuardLIBYA/status/1123306778748424192
Three million euro for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
The Farnesina has allocated a contribution of three million euro to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from the Africa Fund of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. It is to strengthen the reception and protection system for refugees in Niger.
The project, called “Strengthening reception conditions for persons in need of international protection in Agadez and in Niamey”, provides support for temporary reception and protection of refugees hosted in Niger, also in the context of the evacuation of vulnerable persons from Libya operated by the UNHCR. About 2,750 refugees and asylum seekers in Niger will benefit from the intervention.
The High Commissioner is committed to supporting refugees in many African countries along the main migratory routes headed for Europe, and particularly in Niger. There are over 344,000 refugees and displaced persons in Niger, plus about 1,500 particularly vulnerable individuals evacuated from Libya.
The recent Italian contribution is part of a broader Italian strategy to support the international organisations responsible for migrants and refugees. In 2017 Italy provided over 51 million dollars to the UNHCR for its activities, thus taking twelfth place among the largest donors of the Agency.
▻https://www.esteri.it/mae/en/sala_stampa/archivionotizie/comunicati/2018/09/finanziamento-di-tre-milioni-di-euro-a-favore-dell-alto-commissariato-delle-n
#Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Niger #HCR #UNHCR
–-> Cette fragile ligne entre aide aux réfugiés et #externalisation des #contrôles_frontaliers... Aidons-les au Niger pour qu’ils ne viennent pas chez nous !
cc @isskein
As the World Abandons Refugees, UNHCR’s Constraints Are Exposed
The U.N. refugee agency lacks the funding, political clout and independence to protect refugees in the way that it is supposed to, says former UNHCR official and refugee policy expert #Jeff_Crisp.
Over the past three years, the world has been confronted with a number of major new refugee emergencies – in Myanmar, Nigeria, South Sudan, Yemen and Venezuela, as well as the Central American region. In addition, existing crises in Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia and Syria have gone unresolved, making it impossible for large exiled populations to return to their own country. As a result, the global refugee population has soared to more than 25 million, the highest figure ever recorded.
This means that the role of the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, which is supposed to protect and find solutions for this growing population, is more important than ever. But is it up to the task? The proliferating crises have stretched it to the limit. Funding, most of which comes from a dozen key donor states, has not kept up with the rising numbers the agency is expected to support. In April, UNHCR said it had received just $2.3 billion of the $8.2 billion it needed for its annual program.
Things look unlikely to improve. UNHCR is losing the support of the United States, traditionally the organization’s most important government partner, whether under Republican or Democrat administrations. Since Donald Trump’s election, the country has slashed the number of refugees it admits through its resettlement program. In his final years in office, Barack Obama had raised the annual quota to 110,000 refugees. That is now down to 45,000 and may yet be reduced to 25,000.
There is also the prospect that the Trump administration will demonstrate its disdain for the U.N. and limited interest in the refugee issue by reducing its funding to the agency, as it has already done with UNRWA, a separate agency that supports Palestinian refugees. Given that the U.S. currently contributes almost 40 percent of the UNHCR budget, even a modest reduction in its support will mean serious cuts in expenditure.
The agency therefore has little choice but to look for alternative sources of funding and diplomatic support, especially from the European Union and its member states. But that may come at a price. One of the E.U.’s top priorities is to halt the arrival of refugees and asylum seekers who have transited through nearby countries such as Libya, Morocco and Turkey. Populist political parties throughout much of the E.U. are reaping the electoral benefits of taking a hard line on the issue of refugees and migration. Several European governments have shown little hesitation in violating the international refugee laws they have signed in their desperation to seal Europe’s borders.
The E.U. thus looks to UNHCR for two things: first, the expertise and operational capacity of an organization that has years of experience in responding to mass movements of people; and second, the legitimacy that E.U. policies can acquire by means of close association with an agency deemed by its founding statute to be “entirely non-political and humanitarian.” In this context, it should come as no surprise that E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini has been at pains to point out that the E.U. and UNHCR “work together” and have a “close partnership” – and that the E.U. remains “the strongest supporter of UNHCR.”
But this partnership (which involved $436 million in funding from Brussels alone in 2017) also involves an important element of compromise on the part of UNHCR. In the Mediterranean, for example, the E.U. is funding the Libyan coast guard to intercept and return any refugees who try to leave the country by boat. Those people are subsequently confined to detention centers where, according to Amnesty International, they are at risk of torture, forced labor, extortion and murder at the hand of smugglers, bandits or the Libyan authorities.
The U.N. high commissioner for human rights has publicly chastised the E.U. for its failure to improve the situation of migrants in Libya. By contrast, UNHCR has kept very quiet about the E.U.’s role in the process of interception, return and detention, despite the fact that these actions violate a fundamental principle of refugee protection: that no one should be returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.
This reveals a fundamental tension in the organization’s character. Ostensibly, UNHCR enjoys a high degree of independence and moral authority. As part of the U.N. system, it is treated with more respect by states and other actors than NGOs doing similar work. It has regular access to heads of state, government leaders, regional organizations, the U.N. security council and the secretary-general himself (who was previously UNHCR chief).
But in practice, the autonomy enjoyed by UNHCR is at best a relative one. Almost 90 percent of the agency’s funding is provided by states, much of it earmarked for specific programs, projects and countries. UNHCR’s governing board consists entirely of states.
The organization can operate in a country only if it has the agreement of the government, which also has the ability to shape the scope of UNHCR’s operational activities, as well as the partners it works with. In countries such as Ethiopia, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria, for example, the organization is obliged to work with government departments whose priorities may well be different from those of UNHCR.
Almost 90 percent of the agency’s funding is provided by states, much of it earmarked for specific programs, projects and countries. UNHCR’s governing board consists entirely of states.
The tensions at the heart of UNHCR seem unlikely to diminish. Throughout the world, governments are closing their borders to refugees and depriving them of basic rights. Exiled populations are being induced to repatriate against their will and to countries that are not safe. As epitomized by the E.U.’s deal with Turkey, asylum seekers have become bargaining chips in interstate relations, used by political leaders to extract financial, political and even military concessions from each other.
Given the constitutional constraints imposed on the organization, UNHCR’s options are now limited. It can try (as it has done for many years) to diversify its funding base. It could assume a more assertive stance with states that violate refugee protection principles – and in doing so risk the loss of its already diminished degree of diplomatic support. And it can hope that the recently completed Global Compact on Refugees, a nonbinding declaration of principles that most U.N. member states are expected to sign, will have some effect on the way that governments actually treat refugees.
A final option available to UNHCR is to be more transparent about its limitations, to moderate the relentless self-promotion of its branding and marketing campaign and give greater recognition to the efforts that refugees are making to improve their own lives. In that respect, UNHCR’s favourite hashtag, “We Stand #WithRefugees,” could usefully be changed to “Refugees Are #StandingUpForThemselves.”
#UN #ONU #HCR #UNHCR #crise #indépendance #fonds #financement #it_has_begun
Immigration : l’UE veut intensifier sa coopération avec l’Egypte et l’Afrique du Nord
Les dirigeants européens sont convenus d’engager des négociations avec l’Egypte et d’autres pays d’Afrique du Nord pour lutter contre les départs clandestins de migrants vers l’Europe, a annoncé jeudi le chancelier autrichien Sebastian Kurz au second jour d’un sommet de l’UE à Salzbourg.
« L’Egypte est prête à approfondir son dialogue avec nous », s’est félicité M. Kurz, saluant « une nouvelle étape importante » dans la lutte contre l’immigration en Europe.
Depuis le pic de la crise migratoire en 2015, l’UE a déjà conclu avec la Turquie et la Libye des accords qui ont contribué à une forte baisse des arrivées sur le continent via la Méditerranée.
Mais les Européens veulent étendre ces partenariats à tous les pays d’Afrique du Nord à la faveur notamment d’un sommet avec la Ligue arabe (basée au Caire) que le Conseil européen (représentant les Etats membres) espère organiser en février.
Pays fondateur de la Ligue arabe, l’Egypte joue un rôle modèle dans la lutte contre les embarquements clandestins à destination de l’Europe, a souligné M. Kurz, dont le pays assume jusqu’à la fin de l’année la présidence tournante de l’UE.
« L’Egypte est le seul pays (d’Afrique du Nord) qui a réussi depuis 2016 à empêcher tout départ de migrants » par voie de mer, a souligné le chancelier autrichien, saluant l’"efficacité" du Caire.
Le ministère égyptien des Affaires étrangères a confirmé la proposition d’un sommet UE-Ligue arabe en Egypte, en ajoutant toutefois que l’immigration ne saurait figurer seule au menu.
« Le sommet proposé aborde toutes les questions de coopération arabo-européenne et ne se limite pas au sujet de l’immigration comme cela se dit », a insisté le ministère égyptien.
Malgré la chute des arrivées en Europe à des niveaux inférieurs à ceux d’avant 2015, la question migratoire reste une des priorités des Vingt-Huit, qui en ont fait l’un des deux principaux sujets à l’ordre du jour du sommet informel de Salzbourg, avec le Brexit.
« Nous avons une crise politique, pas une crise migratoire. Les chiffres (d’arrivées) sont même inférieurs à ceux qu’ils étaient en 2007. Mais il faut répondre aux préoccupations des citoyens européens, on ne peut pas les ignorer et attendre la prochaine crise », a reconnu le Premier ministre libéral luxembourgeois Xavier Bettel, à quelques mois de l’échéance électorale européenne (mai 2019).
Pour autant, quand on évoque les sujets migratoires, « on parle de gens », a-t-il relevé, appelant les pays européens à faire preuve de « davantage de solidarité » au sein de l’UE.
M. Kurz, un tenant d’une ligne dure dans ce dossier, a toutefois souligné que « la question migratoire ne se résoudra pas par la répartition (des migrants au sein des pays de l’UE), mais par la défense des frontières extérieures », telle que la souhaite la Commission européenne avec un renfort des moyens de l’Agence européenne des gardes-frontières et des gardes-côtes (Frontex).
Répondant aux critiques de Vienne, qui avait accusé jeudi les capitales du sud de l’Europe d’aborder avec réticence le renforcement de la mission Frontex, une source diplomatique espagnole a assuré jeudi que son pays ne voyait « pas d’inconvénient » à une telle mesure. « Mais nous le considérons comme un mécanisme flexible et complémentaire », a ajouté cette source.
Craignant une atteinte à la souveraineté hongroise, le Premier ministre Viktor Orban a indiqué jeudi avoir proposé à la présidence européenne de garantir « le droit des pays à défendre » eux-mêmes leurs frontières.
Une source proche de la présidence française a jugé que la question de la souveraineté était un « faux débat », car « personne n’a jamais dit qu’un garde-frontière étranger imposerait sa décision dans le pays où il est posté ».
▻https://www.voaafrique.com/a/migrants-l-ue-veut-intensifier-sa-cooperation-avec-l-egypte-et-l-afrique-du-nord-/4579509.html
#asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #frontières #Egypte #UE #EU #politique_migratoire
Egypt
Introduction
Egypt is a destination country along the central Mediterranean refugee route with people arriving from both the Middle East and east Africa. A growing population of concern is stranded in the most overcrowded and poorest neighbourhoods of its largest cities such as Cairo and Alexandria as a result of an upward trend of new arrivals and tightened control measures aimed at curbing irregular outflows towards Europe.
Of the more than 247 000 refugees registered by the UNHCR, around 133 000 are from Syria with the remainder from East Africa or Iraq.
What are the needs?
Egypt continues to see a steady increase of refugees and migrants. Almost 31 000 were registered in 2018, more than 30 percent of them Syrians.
Newly-arrived refugees and asylum seekers mix with an urban refugee population as well as with stranded migrants, and are heavily reliant on humanitarian assistance. Refugees reside in overcrowded and impoverished urban centres, where local communities already struggle with difficult living conditions, high unemployment rates and poor access to critical services such as healthcare and education. According to the UN, 85 percent of registered Syrian refugees in Egypt are unable to meet their basic needs.
This coincides with Egypt’s worst economic recession in decades, which has seen dramatic price hikes in food and utilities. In addition, refugees from African countries have no or limited access to formal education and suffer linguistic barriers and discrimination, further contributing to their marginalisation.
How are we helping?
European Union assistance targets Syrian refugees and the most vulnerable among other refugees groups and their hosting communities. The EU funds humanitarian projects that focus on three main priorities: protection, healthcare, and education in emergency (EiE).
Given the upward trend for new arrivals and, amongst them, the sharp increase of unaccompanied and separated children, strengthening core protection activities for the most vulnerable remains the paramount objective.
While refugees in Egypt are legally entitled to access public health services, several structural causes (e.g. poor quality of services), calling for developmental investments, limit their capacity to benefit from them.
The EU’s humanitarian aid efforts aim to facilitate access to emergency health services, particularly maternal and reproductive health, for those refugees without financial means to afford health fees, as well as for victims of discrimination and marginalisation. The most vulnerable groups or individuals in the hosting communities may also benefit from these interventions.
In the area of education, the EU’s humanitarian aid funding intends to provide access to formal schooling and reduce related barriers for the most vulnerable refugee children. Barriers to education may be academic, financial, institutional or social and emotional, as well as any other obstacles children face as refugees. The support for educational activities focuses on primary and secondary school levels.
The EU also provides multipurpose cash assistance to address the basic expenditures of those most in need among the registered refugees through cash transfers. The value of the transfer is normally based on a minimum expenditure basket (MEB, or what a household needs on a regular or seasonal basis and its average cost over time), while taking into account the contribution made by households, and available resources.
▻https://ec.europa.eu/echo/where/middle-east/egypt_en
#Egypte
Avec ce commentaire de Marie Martin via la liste Migreurop :
Pour celles et ceux pour qui ce serait pas clair, l’Union européenne considère désormais l’Egypte comme un pays de « destination » pour les personnes réfugiées, alors que les années précédentes les documents officiels parlaient de pays de « transit et de destination ». L’appel du HCR fait ainsi étrangement écho à une réalité qui ressemblerait presque à une #prophétie_auto-réalisatrice.
–-> Appel du #HCR :
Le HCR appelle à un « soutien crucial » en faveur de l’Egypte, débordée par le nombre de réfugiés
Près de 250 000 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile sont présents dans le pays, principalement des Syriens, des Soudanais et des Ethiopiens.
Le nombre de réfugiés arrivant en Egypte est en hausse, a signalé l’ONU, jeudi 28 février, appelant à un « soutien crucial » face aux « ressources insuffisantes » du pays, partenaire clé dans le contrôle des migrations en Méditerranée. « Les conflits en cours au Yémen et en Afrique subsaharienne ont forcé davantage de personnes à fuir en Egypte », a indiqué dans un communiqué le Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR).
Le nombre de réfugiés et de demandeurs d’asile enregistrés dans le pays au cours des deux dernières années a augmenté de 24 %, selon cette organisation internationale spécialisée. Au total, près de 250 000 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile sont enregistrés par le HCR en Egypte, principalement des Syriens, des Soudanais et des Ethiopiens, selon des chiffres publiés en février par l’agence de l’ONU.
« Des conditions humanitaires épouvantables »
La capacité d’accueil de l’Egypte « est sous forte pression en raison de cette hausse d’arrivées et de ressources insuffisantes », a averti le HCR. « Huit réfugiés sur dix en Egypte vivent dans des conditions humanitaires épouvantables, estime dans ce communiqué le Haut Commissaire des Nations unies pour les réfugiés, Filippo Grandi. Ils ne peuvent même pas satisfaire leurs besoins les plus élémentaires. Mettre du pain sur la table est un défi quotidien. Or nous ne sommes pas en mesure de leur fournir le strict nécessaire ni de maintenir nos principaux programmes de protection des réfugiés dans ce pays. » Le HCR appelle ainsi à un « soutien crucial ».
Du 24 au 26 février, l’Egypte a accueilli un sommet entre la Ligue arabe et l’Union européenne, dont la lutte contre l’immigration illégale était l’un des thèmes principaux au menu des discussions, sans aboutir à des annonces concrètes. Dans ses relations avec les chancelleries européennes, Le Caire se présente régulièrement comme un champion de la lutte contre l’immigration illégale et un modèle pour l’intégration des réfugiés sur son sol.
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2019/03/01/le-hcr-appelle-a-un-soutien-crucial-en-faveur-de-l-egypte-debordee-par-le-no
#UNHCR
https://i.imgur.com/VAmG4km.png 
https://i.imgur.com/xqfb8d9.png 
https://i.imgur.com/3cfBvr8.png 
https://i.imgur.com/w8saL9V.png #playmobil #réfugiés #asile #migrations #campagne #poster #préjugés #UNHCR #HCR #différences #discriminations #skills #compétences
#Tunisie : les #réfugiés de #Choucha à la Marsa - leur situation toujours en question.
Arrivés de Choucha en juin 2017, ils devaient être hébergés pour quelques jours seulement à la Marsa en attendant de résoudre leur situation. Pourtant ils y sont toujours aujourd’hui. Après avoir fui la Libye en 2011, leurs demandes d’asile avaient été rejetées en 2012 par le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Réfugiés (UNHCR). Ils ont espéré un réexamen de leurs dossiers pendant 6 ans, dans le camp de Choucha. Huit mois après leur arrivée à la maison des jeunes de La Marsa, les conditions de vie des 34 réfugiés et déboutés se sont gravement détériorées et les autorités compétentes ont abandonné le dossier.
▻https://nawaat.org/portail/2018/03/14/refugies-de-choucha-a-la-marsa-abandonnes-par-les-autorites-tunisiennes-et-l
Juin 2017 : A La Marsa, les réfugiés expulsés de Choucha en grève de la faim depuis 12 jours
▻https://youtu.be/euRL373OcPg
▻https://nawaat.org/portail/2017/08/30/marsa-refugies-expulses-choucha-greve-faim
#vidéo #documentaire
Tunisie : du camp de réfugiés de Choucha à La Marsa, des migrants de nouveau dans l’impasse
Coincés dans le pays depuis huit ans, plusieurs dizaines de demandeurs d’asile attendent désespérément un statut de réfugiés.
Une prison à ciel ouvert. C’est ainsi qu’ils résument leur situation dans cette maison des jeunes à La Marsa, une banlieue balnéaire située à une vingtaine de kilomètres au nord-est de Tunis. Soudanais, Libériens, Egyptiens, Ghanéens, Ivoiriens ou encore Nigérians, cela fait huit ans qu’ils sont coincés en Tunisie, sans statut, sans travail, souvent sans papiers. « Je me lève le matin, je vais regarder la mer, puis je fais le tour du jardin. Je discute un peu avec mes camarades et ensuite je vais dormir. Parfois, je vais en centre-ville pour parler avec des associations de notre situation, mais rien ne change », se désespère Mohamed, originaire de Côte d’Ivoire.
Avant d’arriver là, tous ont connu un long parcours en Tunisie. Ils ont passé six ans dans le camp de Choucha, au sud du pays, ouvert en 2011 face à l’afflux de déplacés et de réfugiés qui fuyaient la guerre en Libye. Au total, quelque 300 000 personnes avaient été accueillies en Tunisie et près de 18 000 avaient transité par le camp. Celui-ci a été officiellement fermé en 2013 puis démantelé en 2017, avant de laisser place à des campements de fortune pour les quelques centaines de personnes qui s’y trouvaient encore. Certains ont obtenu le statut de réfugiés et ont été réinstallés dans des pays tiers. Mais, pour d’autres, rien n’est réglé.
Aucune loi sur l’asile
C’est le cas de la trentaine de personnes résidant à La Marsa. « Nous n’avons jamais choisi d’être en Tunisie, nous avons été forcés à partir de nos pays. Nous demandons à être considérés comme des réfugiés à partir du moment où nous avons fui la guerre en Libye », explique Mohamed. La majorité d’entre eux se sont vus déboutés de leur demande par le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (UNHCR) en Tunisie, la seule instance habilitée à donner ce statut.
En effet, si la Constitution tunisienne garantit bien dans son article 26 le droit d’asile politique, le pays ne possède aucune loi sur l’asile. Il y aurait pourtant 1 843 réfugiés en Tunisie, en majorité syriens, selon les chiffres du HCR de 2019 (contre 771 en 2017). Un projet de loi sur l’asile a été élaboré depuis 2015, mais il n’a jamais été discuté au Parlement. Parmi les raisons de ce vide juridique : le refus de la Tunisie de servir de zone d’accueil ou « hotspot » pour la migration tournée vers l’Union européenne.
A La Marsa, les ressortissants subsahariens refusent « l’intégration locale » proposée par les autorités et demandent le réexamen de leur dossier par le HCR. Mais la réponse de l’organisation est sans appel. « Ces personnes ne sont pas éligibles au statut de réfugié selon les conventions internationales en vigueur. Plusieurs alternatives ont été offertes à ce groupe, voire le retour volontaire dans leur pays d’origine ou bien une intégration locale. Deux individus seulement ont accepté le retour volontaire, alors que les autres refusent toute option », indique-t-elle par courriel. « Les entretiens ont été mal faits à l’époque, nous n’avions pas forcément l’interprète adéquat », réplique Mohamed, qui avait fait la traduction en 2011 pour certains de ses collègues.
Mendier ou travailler au noir
D’autres migrants comme Ibrahim Issaka, 58 ans, qui a fui le Darfour il y a plus de vingt ans, sont devenus quasiment apatrides. Lui est sans nouvelles de sa famille et n’a plus de pays, seulement des souvenirs de traumatismes liés à la fuite et à la guerre en Libye. Benjamin Kingsley, originaire du Liberia, se souvient juste d’avoir fui la guerre quand il avait 4 ans. Elevé en Libye, il ne connaît ni son âge, ni sa famille. « C’est un certain Monsieur Francis qui m’a élevé, j’ai perdu contact avec lui quand le conflit a commencé », dit-il. Aujourd’hui, il ne dort pas la nuit et ne veut plus raconter sa douloureuse histoire. L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) déclare comprendre la situation de ces personnes, mais sans pouvoir faire plus que fournir une assistance.
Dans l’attente d’un changement, les résidents vivotent. Ils ont un toit où dormir mais doivent mendier ou travailler au noir pour gagner de quoi manger, l’aide d’urgence des premiers mois s’étant arrêtée. « Ce n’est plus possible à gérer, et ce n’est pas notre responsabilité », déclare Slim Meherzi, maire de La Marsa. « L’ironie, c’est que nous vivons en face de la résidence de l’ambassadeur de France, ce pays qui est en partie responsable de la situation en Libye et donc de notre situation, et nous n’avons jamais eu de contacts avec eux », dénonce Ibrahim.
« Oublier un peu notre situation »
Du côté des associations locales, on connaît le sort de ces résidents précaires, mais on n’a pas de solution. « Nous savons qu’il y a un risque que les traumatismes s’accentuent avec leur situation actuelle. Nous proposons une assistance psychologique, mais c’est difficile pour eux de venir car il y a encore un tabou autour de la prise en charge », raconte Blamassi Touré, coordinateur du pôle développement au sein de France terre d’asile Tunisie. L’association avait réalisé une étude avec Médecins du monde en 2017 sur la santé mentale des migrants en Tunisie, dans laquelle elle mettait en exergue les facteurs aggravants liés à la vie dans le pays, le racisme, les difficultés d’obtention de titre de séjour et les obstacles à l’intégration.
« Nous allons essayer de saisir le HCR, de prouver que les entretiens n’ont pas été correctement faits à l’époque et qu’il y a bien eu des erreurs. Nous essayons aussi de reparler à certaines ambassades pour voir s’il y a des possibilités de réinstallation », témoigne Halim Meddeb, un avocat qui s’est joint bénévolement à leur cause.
A La Marsa, certains passent le temps en tentant de renouer avec ce qui les rattache à leur vie d’avant comme Adam Traoré, un footballeur de 27 ans. Il avait 17 ans quand il a quitté la Côte d’Ivoire pour la Libye en 2009. Aujourd’hui, il joue au foot avec des migrants dans un centre de formation ouvert en 2017. « On m’a donné des responsabilités et j’en entraîne quelques-uns, mais cela reste du bénévolat. Ça me permet juste d’oublier un peu notre situation », précise-t-il.
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2019/06/10/tunisie-du-camp-de-refugies-de-choucha-a-la-marsa-des-migrants-de-nouveau-da