• On Tuesday, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck became the first ...
    https://diasp.eu/p/14202405

    On Tuesday, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck became the first member of the German cabinet to visit Washington following Berlin’s massive foreign policy shift on Russia. He was welcomed with open arms.#GermanForeignPolicy #Russia #VladimirPutin #UnitedStates #Ukraine #Germany German Foreign Policy Reversal: German Economy Minister Celebrated in Washington

  • (Re)Constructing Inequality : Community Development in Public and Private
    https://metropolitiques.eu/Re-Constructing-Inequality-Community-Development-in-Public-and-Priva

    Claire Dunning #Reviews Jeremy R. Levine’s new book, Constructing Community, an ethnographic study of community development projects in #Boston. For a book about #urban_poverty and #redevelopment, Constructing Community recounts few protests or headline-grabbing incidents. Instead, the drama unfolds slowly over the course of a decade in poorly lit community rooms, downtown board rooms, and the backseats of cars. This is a book about the banalities of bureaucracy and #governance—a fact that author Reviews

    / Boston, #Massachusetts, #United_States, #mass_transit, #rapid_transit, #transport, #public_transportation, #community-based_organizations, urban #poverty, redevelopment, poverty, governance, #local_governance, #urban_governance, (...)

    #ethnography

  • Cérémonie d’écoute païenne

    wi watt’heure #37 se fait l’écho du mouvement des théâtres occupés au printemps 2021 en France, en zoomant sur un théâtre, le Théâtre Molière de Sète, et sur une des actions proposées par son collectif d’occupation, le collectif #Occupy_Molière. L’action choisie est la #lecture_publique de la liste des 44.764 réfugié·es décédé·es sur la route pour rejoindre l’Europe. Cette liste est régulièrement mise à jour par l’association #UNITED_Against_Refugee_Deaths.

    Une lecture publique a eu lieu le 26 juin à #Sète, dans le parc Simone Veil.
    Nous avons choisi pour #wi_watt’heure de donner à entendre la première année, qui liste les réfugié·es décédé·es de mai 2021 à mai 2020. Ces noms et prénoms, ainsi que les raisons du décès, ont été relus et enregistrés le 16 septembre, dans le studio Les Ombres d’Ondes, à l’occasion de cette publication.

    L’action est définie comme une « #cérémonie_d’écoute_païenne ». Il s’agit d’un #rituel pour #nommer, faire résonner et ainsi sortir de l’oubli ces personnes qui restent toujours sous le seuil du visible et de l’audible. Ce geste de #deuil est vocalisé près de la mer méditerranée – cette frontière liquide et fluide, mais inaccessible, entre Europe et Afrique – et donné à entendre pour convoquer une #écoute_collective.

    Dans la continuité, le collectif Occupy Molière souhaite proposer à d’autres collectifs de différentes villes en Europe de le rejoindre dans une action plus large qui serait de relire cette liste, le même jour, partout dans le continent.

    https://revue-et-corrigee.net/?v=wwh&PHPSESSID=4da3fb130d85b5fda05d6f9a07ea1b7b

    Pour écouter la cérémonie :
    https://soundcloud.com/user-903371861-530658408/wi-wattheure-37

    #liste #mourir_aux_frontières #performance #lecture #morts_aux_frontières #commémoration #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #audio #son

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • List of Refugee Deaths, #2021

    –-> 44.764 documented refugee deaths

    In the ‘‘UNITED List of Refugee Deaths’’ (download pdf), UNITED has been collecting reliable data on refugee deaths related to Fortress Europe since 1993. In the period 1993-2021 at least 44.764 documented refugee deaths can be attributed to the ‘Fatal Policies of Fortress Europe’. Most probably thousands more are never found.

    http://unitedagainstrefugeedeaths.eu/about-the-campaign/about-the-united-list-of-deaths

    Pour télécharger la liste:
    unitedagainstrefugeedeaths.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ListofDeathsActual.pdf

    #décès #liste #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UNITED #statistiques #chiffres #morts

    ping @isskein @reka

    • EU ‘has blood on its hands’, say activists calling for border agency’s abolition

      Coalition of rights groups demanding Frontex be defunded claim EU policies have ‘killed over 40,555 people since 1993’.

      Activists, captains of rescue ships and about 80 human rights organisations across the world have launched an international campaign calling for the European border agency to be defunded and dismantled.

      In an open letter sent last week to the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the European parliament, the campaign coalition highlighted the “illegal and inhumane practices” of the EU border agency, Frontex, which is accused of having promoted and enforced violent policies against migrants.

      “Over 740 people have died so far this year trying to cross the Mediterranean, looking for a place of safety,” reads the letter. “The EU’s border regime forced them to take dangerous migration routes, often on unseaworthy vessels; it enlisted neighbouring countries to stop them on their way; met them with violence and pushbacks; or refused to rescue them – abandoning them to drown at sea.”

      “These are lives lost because of the European Union’s obsession with reinforcing borders instead of protecting people,” said the campaign coalition, which includes Sea-Watch, Mediterranea Saving Humans, Iuventa10, Baobab Experience and Alarm Phone. “At what cost? The policies of Fortress Europe have killed over 40,555 people since 1993. Left to die in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the desert, shot at borders, died by suicide at detention centres, tortured and killed after being deported –– The EU has blood on its hands.”

      The launch of the campaign to Abolish Frontex coincides with plans to expand the agency. Frontex has secured a €5.6bn (£4.8bn) budget until 2027, with plans to increase its armed border patrols. Its budget has grown by more than 7,500% since 2005, and the new resources will help buy equipment such as ships, helicopters and drones.

      The coalition has released a list of demands, including the abolition of the agency and the end of migrant detention by EU forces, and plan EU-wide protests, accusing Frontex of being “both avid promoter and key enforcer of Europe’s violent policies against people on the move”.

      It comes after the EU’s anti-fraud office, Olaf, launched an investigation into Frontex in January over allegations of harassment, misconduct and unlawful operations aimed at stopping asylum seekers from reaching EU shores.

      Europe has built more than 1,000km of border walls and fences.

      Carola Rackete, a German ship captain who is one of the campaign organisers, said: ‘“If we truly believe all humans are equal then we have to dismantle the systems which keep inequality in place. Frontex, as part of the border-industrial complex, has no place in our vision of a European society striving for justice and committed to repairing damages inflicted on the global south in a mindset of white supremacy.”

      Stéphanie Demblon, of Agir pour la Paix, said: “We are not asking for a better European migration policy: we are demanding the abolition of Frontex and the demilitarisation of the borders. And we are taking action to achieve this.”

      Frontex did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jun/18/eu-has-blood-on-its-hands-say-activists-calling-for-frontex-border-agen

      #Frontex

  • The refugees crescent in 2014
    https://visionscarto.net/the-refugees-crescent

    Title: The refugees crescent (2017 revision) Keywords: #War #Conflicts #Borders #Refugees #United_Nations #Human_rights #Asylum #Asylum_seekers #Peace Sources: United Nations High Commissionner for Refugees (UNHCR); United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA); United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA); Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC); Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC); United States Center for (...) #Map_collection

  • #Ku_Klux_Klan - Une #histoire américaine. Naissance d’un empire invisible (1/2)

    L’histoire méconnue du plus ancien groupe terroriste et raciste des États-Unis.

    Le Ku Klux Klan, société secrète née en 1865, a traversé les décennies et a toujours su renaître de ses cendres. Son histoire a défrayé la chronique. 150 ans de haine, de racisme et d’horreur. 150 ans d’exclusion, de violence et de fureur.

    Pour retracer en détail les quatre vies successives du Ku Klux Klan, David Korn-Brzoza a rassemblé un impressionnant fonds d’archives, alimenté en partie par celles du mouvement lui-même, et rencontré une dizaine d’interlocuteurs : un membre repenti de l’organisation, des vétérans de la lutte pour les droits civiques, le juge pugnace qui, quatorze ans après l’attentat de Birmingham, a poursuivi et condamné ses auteurs, ainsi que différents chercheurs et analystes. En montrant ainsi combien le mouvement et ses crimes incarnent une histoire et des valeurs collectives, il jette une lumière crue sur cette part d’ombre que l’Amérique blanche peine encore à reconnaître.

    https://boutique.arte.tv/detail/ku-klux-klan-une-histoire-americaine

    #film #documentaire #film_documentaire
    #USA #Etats-Unis #KKK #plantation #esclavage #afro-américains #citoyenneté #Pulaski #société_secrète #violence #White_League #meurtres #lynchages #coups_de_fouet #terrorisme #intimidation #soumission #Nathan_Bedford_Forrest #politicide #assassinats #droits_civiques #Ku-Klux_Bill #loi_martiale #ségrégation #domination_raciale #milices_armées #ordre_social #The_birth_of_a_nation (#Griffith) #William_Joseph_Simmons #Woodrow_Wilson #business #Hiram_Wesley_Evans #Harry_Truman #Truman #Immigration_bill (1924) #The_Fiery_Cross #The_Search_Light #mouvement_social #David_Stephenson #Madge_Oberholtzer #Edward_Young_Clark #Bund #racisme #Stone_Mountain #Samuel_Green #suprématie_blanche #cérémonie_de_naturalisation #superman #Stetson_Kennedy #organisation_subversive #Afro-descendants

  • Droit du travail : un chauffeur Uber requalifié en « salarié »
    http://www.bonnes-nouvelles.be/site/index.php?iddet=2849&id_surf=&idcat=305&quellePage=999&surf_lang=fr

    Je me sens comme un esclave : je travaille de longues heures chaque jour, sous les ordres d’une application, mais je n’ai pas de quoi me payer un salaire à la fin du mois. » Guillaume* est chauffeur indépendant, ou « limousine » comme on dit chez Bruxelles Mobilité, où il a obtenu sa licence il y a un peu plus de deux ans. Depuis novembre 2018, il « collabore » avec Uber, qui organise le transport rémunéré de citadins dans la capitale et un peu partout dans le monde. À ce stade, il n’a « plus rien à (...)

    #Uber #procès #législation #conducteur·trice·s #GigEconomy #travail

    • Je me sens comme un esclave : je travaille de longues heures chaque jour, sous les ordres d’une application, mais je n’ai pas de quoi me payer un salaire à la fin du mois. »

      Guillaume* est chauffeur indépendant, ou « limousine » comme on dit chez Bruxelles Mobilité, où il a obtenu sa licence il y a un peu plus de deux ans. Depuis novembre 2018, il « collabore » avec Uber, qui organise le transport rémunéré de citadins dans la capitale et un peu partout dans le monde. À ce stade, il n’a « plus rien à perdre », nous explique-t-il. « Mais peut-être, quelque chose à gagner ». À savoir : devenir salarié de la multinationale.

      Début juillet, Guillaume a introduit une demande de qualification de sa relation avec la plateforme d’origine américaine auprès de la Commission administrative de règlement de la relation de travail (CRT). Quand la nature de votre relation avec votre donneur d’ordre ou votre employeur vous apparaît comme suspecte, cet organe est là pour analyser votre cas et décider, si au regard de la législation locale, vous êtes salarié ou indépendant.

      « Je ne gagne pas ma vie décemment »

      Guillaume, sur papier, appartient à la seconde catégorie de travailleurs (les deux seules existant en droit du travail belge). Il a enregistré une société en personne physique, son véhicule lui appartient, il a obtenu seul les autorisations nécessaires pour exercer son métier. « Avec Uber, je ne connais que les inconvénients de ce statut, en aucun cas les avantages. Je ne gagne de toute façon pas ma vie décemment, donc j’ai décidé d’aller jusqu’au bout », poursuit le trentenaire.

      Une démarche concluante puisque Le Soir a appris que la CRT lui avait donné raison à travers une décision longue de 12 pages rendue le 26 octobre dernier : Uber est bien, selon la Commission qui dépend du SPF Sécurité sociale, l’employeur de Guillaume. Précisément, la CRT conclut après un examen approfondi que « les modalités d’exécution de la relation de travail sont incompatibles avec la qualification de #travail_indépendant ».

      Pour aboutir à cette conclusion – la question est épineuse et fait débat dans bon nombre de pays européens ainsi qu’aux États-Unis (lire ci-contre) –, plusieurs éléments contractuels ont été analysés. Notamment ceux qui concernent la #liberté_d’organisation_du_travail et d’organisation du #temps_de_travail de Guillaume, deux démarches inhérentes au #statut_d’indépendant. Deux leitmotivs aussi utilisés par Uber depuis son lancement : l’entreprise estime, en effet, que la #flexibilité de ses chauffeurs ainsi que leur #liberté de prester quand ils le souhaitent et pour qui ils le souhaitent est à la base de sa « philosophie ».

      « Je ne peux pas refuser une course »

      « La réalité est bien différente », détaille Guillaume. « Uber capte quasi tout le marché à Bruxelles et, si je suis connecté à l’#application, je n’ai pas le #droit_de_refuser une course. Si je le fais, Uber abaisse ma “#cotation”. Si je le fais trois fois de suite, Uber me vire », détaille Guillaume. Qui précise qu’il lui est également impossible de jongler entre plusieurs plateformes. « Si je suis sur deux applications et que j’accepte une course pour un autre opérateur et qu’Uber me demande d’être disponible, je suis obligé de refuser la course. Au final, comme expliqué, cela me porte préjudice. »

      Guillaume, en outre, ne connaît pas son itinéraire avant d’accepter de prendre en charge un client. « On peut m’envoyer à 10 kilomètres. Soit un long trajet non rémunéré pour un trajet payé de 1.500 mètres. » S’il choisit de dévier du chemin imposé par la plateforme, par bon sens ou à la demande d’un client pressé, le chauffeur se dit également régulièrement pénalisé. Chez Uber, le client est roi. Quand ce dernier commande une course, l’application lui précise une fourchette de #prix. « Évidemment, si je prends le ring pour aller jusqu’à l’aéroport, le prix de la course augmente car le trajet est plus long, mais le client peut très facilement réclamer à Uber la différence tarifaire. Même s’il m’a demandé d’aller au plus vite. » Dans ce cas de figure, la différence en euros est immédiatement déduite de la #rémunération de Guillaume.

      La CRT estime que le chauffeur ne peut pas influer sur la manière dont Uber organise un #trajet, qu’il « n’a aucune marge de manœuvre quant à la façon dont la prestation est exercée. (…) En cas de non-respect de l’#itinéraire, si le prix de la course ne correspond pas à l’estimation, il peut être ajusté a posteriori par Uber, le passager peut alors obtenir un remboursement mais le chauffeur ne sera payé que sur base du prix annoncé à ce dernier. (…) A aucun moment, un dialogue direct entre le chauffeur et le passager n’est possible. (…) De telles modalités obligent le chauffeur à fournir une prestation totalement standardisée. »

      Un chantier dans le « pipe » du gouvernement

      Guillaume n’est pas naïf, ses représentants qui l’ont accompagné dans la démarche administrative – le syndicat CSC via sa branche dédiée aux indépendants #United_Freelancers et le collectif du secteur des taxis – ne le sont pas non plus. Il sait que l’avis de la CRT est « non contraignant » pour Uber mais qu’elle a de lourdes implications pour son cas personnel. À moins d’être requalifié comme « salarié » par l’entreprise elle-même (un recommandé a été envoyé à ce titre aux différentes filiales impliquées en Belgique), il ne peut désormais plus travailler pour Uber.

      De son côté, Uber explique qu’il « n’a pas encore pas encore reçu le point de la vue de la CRT » mais qu’il « estime que la justice bruxelloise a déjà tranché en 2019 le fait que ses chauffeurs étaient indépendants » (un procès a opposé l’entreprise au secteur des #taxis et lui a donné raison, mais ce dernier a fait appel et le jugement n’a pas encore été rendu). La société américaine pourrait d’ailleurs attaquer la décision en justice. L’anglaise #Deliveroo avait opté pour cette démarche en 2018 après que le même organe a acté en 2018 qu’un de ses #coursiers indépendants était en réalité salarié de la plateforme (l’audience aura lieu en septembre de cette année).

      « Notre priorité est de faire réagir les autorités. Uber, comme d’autres plateformes, doit occuper ses travailleurs selon une qualification conforme à la réalité du travail. Soit les #prestataires sont véritablement indépendants et devraient, dès lors, pouvoir fixer leurs prix, leurs conditions d’intervention, choisir leurs clients, organiser leur service comme ils l’entendent… Soit Uber continue à organiser le service, à fixer les prix et les règles, à surveiller et contrôler les chauffeurs, et ceux-ci sont alors des travailleurs salariés », cadrent Martin Willems, qui dirige United Freelancers et Lorenzo Marredda, secrétaire exécutif de la CSC Transcom.

      Au cabinet du ministre en charge du Travail Pierre-Yves Dermagne (PS), on confirme avoir déjà analysé les conclusions de la CRT et la volonté de débuter rapidement un chantier sur le sujet avec les partenaires sociaux. « Nous allons nous attaquer à la problématique des #faux_indépendants des #plateformes_numériques, comme décidé dans l’accord de gouvernement. L’idée est bien d’adapter la loi de 2006 sur la nature des #relations_de_travail. Cela pourrait passer par une évaluation des critères nécessaires à l’exercice d’une #activité_indépendante, par un renforcement des critères également. Mais il s’agit évidemment d’une matière qui doit être concertée », précise Nicolas Gillard, porte-parole.

      * Le prénom est d’emprunt, les décisions de la CRT sont anonymisées quand elles sont publiées.

      Des pratiques désormais similaires chez les taxis

      A.C.

      Selon le collectif des Travailleurs du taxi et la #CSC-Transcom, les problèmes constatés chez Uber sont actuellement également une réalité chez d’autres acteurs du secteur, en l’occurrence les #centrales_de_taxis. « Les taxis indépendants sont très dépendants des centrales. Et depuis leur #numérisation, il y a vraiment un glissement des pratiques. Les chauffeurs de taxi indépendants ne savent pas non plus où on les envoie avant d’accepter une course », explique Michaël Zylberberg, président du collectif. « La dernière version de l’application #Taxis_Verts est un clone de celle d’Uber. Au début, il y a cette idée de #concurrence_déloyale mais, comme le problème n’a pas été réglé, les centrales tendent à copier les mauvaises habitudes des plateformes. Cela est très inquiétant pour les travailleurs, qui perdent progressivement leur #autonomie », ajoute Lorenzo Marredda, secrétaire exécutif de la CSC-Transcom.

      Des décisions dans d’autres pays

      Mis en ligne le 13/01/2021 à 05:00

      Par A.C.

      Lors de son introduction en Bourse en 2019, Uber expliquait collaborer avec 3 millions de chauffeurs indépendants dans le monde. Fatalement, face à une telle masse de main-d’œuvre, qui se plaint souvent de #conditions_de_travail et de #rémunération indécentes, procès et interventions des législateurs ponctuent régulièrement l’actualité de l’entreprise. Ces derniers mois, trois décisions retiennent particulièrement l’attention.

      En #Suisse

      Plusieurs cantons sont en plein bras de fer avec la plateforme américaine. A #Genève et à #Zurich, les chauffeurs Uber sont désormais considérés comme des salariés. Les caisses d’#assurances_sociales réclament des sommes très importantes à l’entreprise, qui refuse jusqu’à présent de payer les #cotisations_sociales employeurs réclamées.

      En #France

      La# Cour_de_cassation a confirmé en mars dernier que le lien entre un conducteur et l’entreprise est bien un « #contrat_de_travail ». Les arguments utilisés se rapprochent de ceux de la CRT : la plus haute juridiction du pays a jugé que « le chauffeur qui a recours à l’application Uber ne se constitue pas sa propre clientèle, ne fixe pas librement ses tarifs et ne détermine pas les conditions d’exécution de sa prestation de transport ». Une #jurisprudence qui permet d’appuyer les demandes de #requalification des chauffeurs indépendants de l’Hexagone.

      En #Californie

      Une loi contraint, depuis le 1er janvier 2020, Uber et #Lyft à salarier ses collaborateurs. Les deux entreprises refusant de s’y plier ont investi environ 200 millions de dollars pour mener un référendum citoyen sur la question qu’ils ont remporté en novembre dernier, avec un texte baptisé « #proposition_22 ». Qui introduit pour les dizaines de milliers de chauffeurs concernés un #revenu_minimum_garanti et une contribution à l’#assurance_santé.

      #néo-esclavage #ordres #Bruxelles_Mobilité #sous-traitance #travailleur_indépendant #salariat #salaire #Commission_administrative_de_règlement_de_la_relation_de_travail (#CRT) #Belgique #droit_du_travail

  • Le procès du Libérien Alieu Kosiah s’ouvre en Suisse
    https://www.justiceinfo.net/fr/tribunaux/tribunaux-nationaux/46154-proces-liberien-alieu-kosiah-ouvre-suisse.html

    Alieu Kosiah, ancien chef de guerre libérien, est la première personne à être jugée en Suisse pour crimes de guerre devant un tribunal civil. Son procès a été maintes fois repoussé. Il s’ouvre ce 3 décembre à Bellinzone dans une ambiance tendue, après six ans de détention préventive et dans les conditions sanitaires restrictives d’une pandémie. Un enjeu pour le parquet fédéral suisse. Et pour le Liberia.

    Près de 200 jours de retard et quatre faux départs. Attendu depuis des années, initialement prévu pour le 14 avril, reporté à juin, puis août, puis novembre, le procès d’Alieu Kosiah, ancien chef de guerre libérien de la première guerre civile des années 90, devrait enfin débuter ce jeudi 3 décembre. Des délais qui ont mis sur les nerfs le tribunal pénal fédéral de Bellinzone, en Suisse italienne, qui n’a annoncé (...)

    #Tribunaux_nationaux

    • Crimini di guerra in Liberia ricostruiti in aula penale

      I fatti del presente procedimento si sono svolti nel contesto della prima guerra civile in Liberia (1989-1996). Questa guerra (…) è stata una delle più violente che il continente africano abbia mai conosciuto". Basta questa prima frase dell’atto d’accusa per capire che, quello che comincerà il 3 dicembre al Tribunale penale federale (Tpf) di Bellinzona, non è un processo come gli altri. Per la prima volta in Svizzera una persona sarà giudicata per crimini di guerra da un tribunale ordinario. Alieu Kosiah, ex comandante dello #United_liberation_movement_for_democracy_in_Liberia (#Ulimo) è accusato di vari crimini, tra cui l’uccisione di 20 civili tra il 1993 e il 1995.
      Dopo aver guidato le milizie dell’Ulimo, una fazione ribelle che si è macchiata di crimini abominevoli, Alieu Kosiah si è trasferito in Svizzera. Dalle parti di Losanna ha vissuto per oltre quindici anni: si è sposato, ha divorziato, senza che nessuno potesse sospettare del suo passato. Tutto tranquillo fino a quando, nel 2014, è stato arrestato. Da allora non è più uscito di prigione. Sette vittime liberiane lo accusano di aver partecipato direttamente a crimini di guerra. Nell’atto d’accusa del Ministero pubblico della Confederazione (Mpc) sono descritti venti omicidi diretti, uno stupro, il reclutamento di bambini soldato e atti di cannibalismo e saccheggio.
      Le vittime sono sostenute dall’Ong Civitas Maxima, fondata dall’avvocato ginevrino Alain Werner, profondo conoscitore dell’Africa Occidentale. «Il nostro scopo - spiega al Caffé Alain Werner - è quello di fare delle inchieste sul terreno per documentare dei crimini internazionali che, nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi restano impunite, ciò che è uno scandalo, e fare in modo che le vittime abbiano accesso alla giustizia». Nel caso di Alieu Kosiah, arrestato nel Canton Vaud, tocca alla giustizia elvetica occuparsene. Il suo avvocato, Dimitri Gianoli, contattato dal Caffè, afferma che «il mio cliente contesta tutti i fatti addotti a suo carico in relazione alla Liberia». In questi anni, a seguito delle segnalazioni di alcune Ong, l’Mpc ha aperto alcune inchieste in reazione a presunti crimini di guerra: alcune sono state abbandonate, altre sono ancora in corso. Di certo, però, il perseguimento di questi crimini non è stata una priorità tanto che la strategia messa in atto da Berna è stata da più parti criticata. Ora, si giunge infine ad un primo processo. «È un processo storico, per la Svizzera, per il Liberia e per le vittime di un conflitto atroce completamente dimenticate dalla giustizia internazionale», esclama Werner secondo cui, però, «la Svizzera può e deve fare molto di più in questo ambito».
      Complice il coronavirus e «al fine di preservare sicurezza e salute dei numerosi partecipanti provenienti dall’Africa» il Tribunale ha posticipato quattro volte i dibattimenti. Giovedì, finalmente, si comincia. Ma la Corte intende procedere solo con le questioni pregiudiziali e l’audizione dell’imputato. Il seguito dei dibattimenti avrà luogo nel 2021: la strada è quindi ancora molto lunga.

      http://www.caffe.ch/stories/Fatti/67204_crimini_di_guerra_in_liberia_ricostruiti_in_aula_penale

      #guerre #guerre_civile

    • L’inferno liberiano fa capolino a Bellinzona

      Al Tribunale penale federale è comparso un uomo accusato di crimini di guerra in Liberia negli anni ’90. Una prima in Svizzera.

      L’atteso processo di Alieu Kosiah, il cittadino liberiano accusato di crimini di guerra per le molteplici atrocità commesse in Liberia in qualità di comandante di un gruppo armato, è iniziato questa mattina al Tribunale penale federale di Bellinzona (Tpf). Il dibattimento ha però preso il via senza l’assenza di coloro che affermano di essere le vittime delle atrocità commesse nella seconda metà degli anni novanta. Ecco il punto della situazione di un processo che, comunque vada, è già stato definito «storico».

      L’assenza delle vittime, bloccate in Liberia dal coronavirus (e dai quattro rinvii del Tribunale che non hanno facilitato l’organizzazione) è stata criticata dagli avvocati delle parti civili che, in entrata, hanno subito chiesto di rimandare il processo. "Non è così che immaginavamo che sarebbe andato questo processo storico che vede convogliare a Bellinzona gli occhi di tutto il mondo” ha esclamato Alain Werner, uno degli avvocati delle parti civile e fondatore dell’Ong Civitas Maxima, all’origine dell’inchiesta contro Alieu Kosiah.

      In sostanza le vittime chiedono di potere guardare negli occhi Alieu Kosiah durante a sua deposizione: «In una causa che si basa molto sulla parola dell’altro, è particolarmente importante che i nostri clienti possano partecipare all’udienza per sentire dal vivo ciò che l’imputato ha da dire, senza passare attraverso il filtro della traduzione e delle trascrizioni con tutti i rischi di perdita di chiarezza” ha affermato Alain Warner.

      Una quindicina di inchieste in corso

      È la prima volta che in Svizzera, un tribunale ordinario, è chiamato a chinarsi su dei crimini internazionali. Già nel 1999 la Confederazione è stata il primo Stato europeo a processare un uomo per i massacri commessi in Ruanda. Il processo, però, si svolse davanti al Tribunale militare di Losanna, all’epoca l’unico competente per i crimini di guerra.

      Poi, dal 2011, sono entrate in vigore in Svizzera le nuove disposizioni dello Statuto di Roma della Corte penale internazionale, ratificato dalla Confederazione nel 2001. Questa modifica legislativa ha introdotto nel Codice penale i crimini contro l’umanità e definito in maniera più precisa i crimini di guerra. Grazie a questi nuovi ordinamenti giuridici il Ministero pubblico della Confederazione (Mpc) ha ora la competenza di giudicare e punire una persona che ha commesso atti contro l’umanità anche al di fuori del territorio elvetico.

      In questi anni, la Procura federale ha ricevuto una settantina di segnalazioni: la maggior parte dei quali ha portato ad un decreto di non entrata in materia o a un decreto d’abbandono, come nell’inchiesta che ha coinvolto la raffineria ticinese Argor-Heraeus per una vicenda legata all’oro insanguinato in Repubblica democratica del Congo. Attualmente sono aperte una quindicina di inchieste.

      Oggi si giunge infine ad un primo processo. Un processo definito da più parti come “storico”, come testimonia anche la buona presenza di giornalisti in aula e i diversi articoli apparsi sulla stampa internazionale.

      Una guerre violentissima

      “I fatti del presente procedimento si sono svolti nel contesto della prima guerra civile in Liberia (1989-1996). Questa guerra (…) è stata una delle più violente che il continente africano abbia mai conosciuto». Basta questa prima frase dell’atto d’accusa per capire che, quello iniziato oggi non è un processo come gli altri.

      Alieu Kosiah, ex comandante dello United liberation movement for democracy in Liberia (Ulimo) è il protagonista in una lista di 25 violazioni delle leggi di guerra commesse da lui stesso o dai soldati del suo gruppo Zebra, uno dei battaglioni Ulimo che si opponeva al Fronte patriottico nazionale della Liberia (Nplf) del famigerato Charles Taylor, lui stesso arrestato nel novembre 2014 e condannato da un Tribunale speciale per crimini commessi solo in Sierra Leone. Nella regione di Lofa, la principale area colpita dai presunti atti di Alieu Kosiah, i civili sono stati deliberatamente e sistematicamente presi di mira durante le ostilità. Secondo la Commissione per la verità e la riconciliazione della Liberia, solo in quella zona sono state contate più di 93.000 vittime.

      La lunga lista di crimini stilata nell’atto d’accusa firmato dal procuratore federale Andreas Müller comprende una ventina di omicidi diretti, uno stupro, il reclutamento di bambini soldato e atti di saccheggio e cannibalismo (il cuore strappato ad un cadavere e mangiato da alcuni soldati). Dopo aver guidato le milizie dell’Ulimo, Alieu Kosiah si è trasferito in Svizzera. Dalle parti di Losanna ha vissuto per oltre quindici anni: si è sposato, ha divorziato, senza che nessuno potesse sospettare del suo passato. Tutto tranquillo fino a quando, nel 2014, è stato arrestato. Da allora, accusato da sette persone, non è più uscito di prigione, come ha ribadito in aula l’imputato interropendo il discorso del suo avvocato, Dimitri Gianoli.

      Quest’ultimo, oltre ad affermare l’estraneità del su assistito nei fatti, ha attaccato in aula il doppio ruolo, e il presunto conflitto d’interessi, di Alain Werner, avvocato di alcune vittime e fondatore e direttore dell’Ong Civitas Maxima. La richiesta è stata quella di togliere l’incarico all’avvocato. L’inizio del processo è stato quindi subito intenso e battagliero. Si vedrà nei prossimi giorni cosa decideranno i giudici a proposito delle diverse richieste delle parti. Affaire à suivre.

      https://www.areaonline.ch/L-inferno-liberiano-fa-capolino-a-Bellinzona-f30a1400

  • Large DNA Study Traces Violent History of American Slavery

    Scientists from the consumer genetics company 23andMe have published the largest DNA study to date of people with African ancestry in the Americas.

    An 1823 cross-section diagram of a ship used to carry enslaved people. The illustration, which was used in abolitionist campaigns and contains several historical inaccuracies, has become one of the most famous depictions of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
    Credit...incamerastock/Alamy

    More than one and a half centuries after the trans-Atlantic slave trade ended, a new study shows how the brutal treatment of enslaved people has shaped the DNA of their descendants.

    The report, which included more than 50,000 people, 30,000 of them with African ancestry, agrees with the historical record about where people were taken from in Africa, and where they were enslaved in the Americas. But it also found some surprises.

    For example, the DNA of participants from the United States showed a significant amount of Nigerian ancestry — far more than expected based on the historical records of ships carrying enslaved people directly to the United States from Nigeria.

    At first, historians working with the researchers “couldn’t believe the amount of Nigerian ancestry in the U.S.,” said Steven Micheletti, a population geneticist at 23andMe who led the study.

    After consulting another historian, the researchers learned that enslaved people were sent from Nigeria to the British Caribbean, and then were further traded into the United States, which could explain the genetic findings, he said.

    The study illuminates one of the darkest chapters of world history, in which 12.5 million people were forcibly taken from their homelands in tens of thousands of European ships. It also shows that the historical and genetic records together tell a more layered and intimate story than either could alone.

    The study, which was published on Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics, represents “real progress in how we think that genetics contributes to telling a story about the past,” said Alondra Nelson, a professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., who was not involved in the study.

    Although the work is commendable for making use of both historical and genetic data, Dr. Nelson said, it was also “a missed opportunity to take the full step and really collaborate with historians.” The history of the different ethnic groups in Africa, for example, and how they related to modern and historical geographic boundaries, could have been explored in greater depth, she said.

    The study began as a dream project of Joanna Mountain, senior director of research at 23andMe, even before the company had any customers. Over 10 years she and her team built a genetic database. Primarily the participants were 23andMe customers whose grandparents were born in one of the geographic regions of trans-Atlantic slavery. All participants consented to have their DNA used in the research.

    In the new study, Dr. Micheletti’s team compared this genetic database with a historical one, Slave Voyages, which contains an enormous amount of information about slavery, such as ports of embarkation and disembarkation, and numbers of enslaved men, women and children.

    The researchers also consulted with some historians to identify gaps in their data, Dr. Mountain said. Historians told them, for example, that they needed representation from critical regions, like Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The team worked with academics connected to West African institutions to find that data.

    The size of the project’s dataset is “extraordinary,” said David Reich, a professor of genetics at Harvard who was not part of the project.

    Because it drew participants from a direct-to-consumer database of millions of people, the study was able to “ask and answer questions about the past and about how people are related to each other” that could not be asked by academics like himself, he said. At best, academic projects are able to study hundreds or a few thousand people, and generally that data does not also include the genealogical information that the 23andMe research participants provided.

    The findings show remarkable alignment with the historical record. Historians have estimated, for example, that 5.7 million people were taken from West Central Africa to the Americas. And the genetic record shows a very strong connection between people in West Central Africa and all people with African ancestry in the Americas.

    Historians have also noted that the people who were taken to Latin America from Africa disembarked from West Central Africa, but many were taken originally from other regions like Senegambia and the Bight of Benin. And the new genetic evidence supports this, showing that the descendants of enslaved people in Latin America generally carry genetic connections with two or three of these regions in Africa.

    Historical evidence shows that enslaved people in the United States and the British Caribbean, by contrast, were taken from a larger number of regions of Africa. Their descendants today show a genetic connection to people in six regions in Africa, the study found.

    The historical record shows that of the 10.7 million enslaved people who disembarked in the Americas (after nearly 2 million others died on the journey), more than 60 percent were men. But the genetic record shows that it was mostly enslaved women who contributed to the present-day gene pool.

    The asymmetry in the experience of enslaved men and women — and indeed, many groups of men and women in centuries past — is well understood. Enslaved men often died before they had a chance to have children. Enslaved women were often raped and forced to have children.

    The 23andMe project found this general pattern, but also uncovered a startling difference in the experience of men and women between regions in the Americas.

    The scientists calculated that enslaved women in the United States contributed 1.5 times more to the modern-day gene pool of people of African descent than enslaved men. In the Latin Caribbean, they contributed 13 times more. In Northern South America, they contributed 17 times more.

    What’s more, in the United States, European men contributed three times more to the modern-day gene pool of people of African descent than European women did. In the British Caribbean, they contributed 25 times more.

    This genetic evidence, the scientists say, may be explained by local practices. In the United States, segregation between enslaved people and the European population may have made it more likely that the child of an enslaved mother would have an enslaved father. But in other regions where enslaved men were less likely to reproduce, dangerous practices like rice farming — in which harsh conditions and muddy fields made it easier to drown, and malaria was common — may have killed many of them before they could have children.

    In some regions in Latin America, the government enacted programs that brought men from Europe to father children with enslaved women in order to intentionally diminish the African gene pool.

    The study illustrates how much physical and sexual violence were part of slavery — and how they are still built into our society, Dr. Nelson said. It confirms the “mistreatment, discrimination, sexual abuse, and violence that has persisted for generations,” she said, and that many people are protesting today.

    #DNA #American_Slavery #ancestry #trans-Atlantic_slave_trade #United_States

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/science/23andme-african-ancestry.html?referringSource=articleShare

  • Big Tech Zeros In on the Virus-Testing Market
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/technology/big-tech-google-verily-virus-testing.html

    As businesses grapple with how to safely reopen the workplace, companies like Fitbit and Verily, Google’s sister company, are rushing out new work force health-vetting and tracking tools. Verily Life Sciences, a sister company of Google, scrambled to introduce a free coronavirus-screening site for the public and set up testing locations in March after President Trump made an off-the-cuff announcement about the program. It had a rocky start, but has since helped more than 220,000 people get (...)

    #Alphabet #Fitbit #Google #Microsoft #UnitedHealthGroup #Verily #algorithme #CCTV #technologisme #température #prédiction #COVID-19 #marketing #santé (...)

    ##santé ##travail

  • Racism, Not Genetics, Explains Why Black Americans Are Dying Of COVID-19 - Scientific American Blog Network
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/racism-not-genetics-explains-why-black-americans-are-dying

    How, then, do we explain that “black” and “white” still predict biological endpoints like hypertension, diabetes or—now—COVID-19? The answer is straightforward: Human biology is more than the #genome. Our environments, experiences and exposures have profound impacts on how our bodies develop, turning genetic potential into whole beings. Most of us learned this lesson in high school—#phenotype is the product of #genotype and environment—but we tend to forget it when it comes to race. If we take the lesson seriously, it becomes clear that systemic racism is as much a part of biology as genomes are: The conditions in which we develop—including limited access to healthy food, exposure to toxic pollutants, the threat of #police #violence or the injurious stress of racial #discrimination —influence the likelihood that any one of us will suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes or serious complications from #COVID-19.

    #racisme #stigmates #environnement

  • U.S., UN Slam Russia Over Coronavirus Aid Holdup in Syria- The National Interest
    Russia had insisted in January on closing the Yarubiya border crossing into Syria, forcing the Kurdish-led autonomous entity in the northeast to rely on the Russian-backed central government in Damascus for humanitarian support. But the central government has not filled in the gap—and UN and U.S. officials are slamming Moscow for setting up a coronavirus catastrophe.

    Many medical facilities and individuals in northeast Syria who depended on medical supplies via Al Yarubiyah have not received these supplies through alternative channels.According to [the World Health Organization], continuity of health services in the northeast has already been affected, leaving people even more exposed to the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease] crisis.

    #Covid19#Syrie#Kurdes#Russie#UnitedNations#Health#Medicalsupplies#migrant
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/us-un-slam-russia-over-coronavirus-aid-holdup-syria-139462

  • #Unitedagainstyou Vs. #Notmeus: Naomi Klein Slams Cory Booker and Other Corporate Democrats for Backing Biden
    https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/unitedagainstyou-vs-notmeus-naomi-klein-slams-cory-booker-and-other-

    Author and progressive activist Naomi Klein on Monday criticized Sen. Cory Booker and other Democrats backing former Vice President Joe Biden’s bid for the White House and issued a call for...

  • Les données de santé, un trésor mondialement convoité
    https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2020/03/02/les-donnees-de-sante-un-tresor-mondialement-convoite_6031572_1650684.html

    Ces données, transcendées par l’intelligence artificielle, vont façonner la médecine de demain. Comment sont-elles protégées, partagées, monnayées ? Quelle place pour la France face aux géants du numérique ? Nous sommes tous concernés mais le phénomène est tellement discret qu’il est difficile d’en prendre la pleine mesure. La planète est devenue, en quelques années, une gigantesque chambre d’enregistrement où une multitude d’informations relatives à notre santé, que nous soyons malade ou bien portant, sont (...)

    #Apple #DeepMind #Google #Microsoft #Novartis #Otsuka #Pfizer #Sanofi #Symantec #UnitedHealthGroup #Verily #Amazon #Facebook #PatientsLikeMe #algorithme #bracelet #Fitbit #montre #smartphone #biométrie (...)

    ##[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données__RGPD_[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_ ##HealthDataHub ##prédiction ##BigData ##écoutes ##GAFAM ##InternetOfThings ##santé ##SocialNetwork ##CNIL

  • US private healthcare firm handed £7million NHS contract to rank patients - Mirror Online
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/health-firm-handed-7million-help-21556330

    EXCLUSIVE : Donald Trump once praised £184billion global giant UnitedHealth Group which divides NHS patients into high, medium and low risk groups sparking fears people could be turned down for ops because of age or weight A US healthcare firm praised by Donald Trump has been handed £7million to help the NHS identify its most “expensive” patients. It is running a nine-month programme to train managers to rank people according to their risk of illness. The move has sparked fears more could be (...)

    #BigData #bénéfices #data #santé #profiling #NationalHealthSystem-NHS #UnitedHealthGroup #Optum (...)

    ##santé ##BigPharma

  • The business of building walls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


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

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

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

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

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

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

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

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

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

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

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

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

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

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

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

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

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

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

      Frontex watches refugees drown

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #conférence #webinar

    • Le business meurtrier des frontières

      Le 21ème siècle sera-t-il celui des barrières ? Probable, au rythme où les frontières nationales se renforcent. Dans un livre riche et documenté, publié aux éditions Syllepse, le géographe Stéphane Rosière dresse un indispensable état des lieux.

      Une nuit du mois de juin, dans un centre de rétention de l’île de Rhodes, la police grecque vient chercher une vingtaine de migrant·e·s, dont deux bébés. Après un trajet en bus, elle abandonne le groupe dans un canot de sauvetage sans moteur, au milieu des eaux territoriales turques. En août, le New York Times publie une enquête révélant que cette pratique, avec la combinaison de l’arrivée aux affaires du premier ministre conservateur Kyriakos Mitsotakis et de la diffusion de la pandémie de Covid-19, est devenue courante depuis mars.

      Illégales au regard du droit international, ces expulsions illustrent surtout le durcissement constant de la politique migratoire de l’Europe depuis 20 ans. Elles témoignent aussi d’un processus mondial de « pixellisation » des frontières : celles-ci ne se réduisent pas à des lignes mais à un ensemble de points plus ou moins en amont ou en aval (ports, aéroports, eaux territoriales…), où opèrent les polices frontalières.
      La fin de la fin des frontières

      Plus largement, le récent ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière, Frontières de fer, le cloisonnement du monde, permet de prendre la mesure d’un processus en cours de « rebordering » à travers le monde. À la fois synthèse des recherches récentes sur les frontières et résultats des travaux de l’auteur sur la résurgence de barrières frontalières, le livre est une lecture incontournable sur l’évolution contemporaine des frontières nationales.

      D’autant qu’il n’y a pas si longtemps, la mondialisation semblait promettre l’affaissement des frontières, dans la foulée de la disparition de l’Union soviétique et, corollairement, de la généralisation de l’économie de marché. La Guerre froide terminée annonçait la « fin de l’histoire » et, avec elle, la disparition des limites territoriales héritées de l’époque moderne. Au point de ringardiser, rappelle Stéphane Rosière, les études sur les frontières au sein de la géographie des années 1990, parallèlement au succès d’une valorisation tous azimuts de la mobilité dans le discours politique dominant comme dans les sciences sociales.

      Trente ans après, le monde se réveille avec 25 000 kilomètres de barrières frontalières – record pour l’Inde, avec plus de 3 000 kilomètres de clôtures pour prévenir l’immigration depuis le Bangladesh. Barbelés, murs de briques, caméras, détecteurs de mouvements, grilles électrifiées, les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier fleurissent en continu sur les cinq continents.
      L’âge des « murs anti-pauvres »

      La contradiction n’est qu’apparente. Les barrières du 21e siècle ne ferment pas les frontières mais les cloisonnent – d’où le titre du livre. C’est-à-dire que l’objectif n’est pas de supprimer les flux mondialisés – de personnes et encore moins de marchandises ni de capitaux – mais de les contrôler. Les « teichopolitiques », terme qui recouvre, pour Stéphane Rosière, les politiques de cloisonnement de l’espace, matérialisent un « ordre mondial asymétrique et coercitif », dans lequel on valorise la mobilité des plus riches tout en assignant les populations pauvres à résidence.

      De fait, on observe que les barrières frontalières redoublent des discontinuités économiques majeures. Derrière l’argument de la sécurité, elles visent à contenir les mouvements migratoires des régions les plus pauvres vers des pays mieux lotis économiquement : du Mexique vers les États-Unis, bien sûr, ou de l’Afrique vers l’Europe, mais aussi de l’Irak vers l’Arabie Saoudite ou du Pakistan vers l’Iran.

      Les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier sont des outils parmi d’autres d’une « implacable hiérarchisation » des individus en fonction de leur nationalité. Comme l’a montré le géographe Matthew Sparke à propos de la politique migratoire nord-américaine, la population mondiale se trouve divisée entre une classe hypermobile de citoyen·ne·s « business-class » et une masse entravée de citoyen·ne·s « low-cost ». C’est le sens du « passport index » publié chaque année par le cabinet Henley : alors qu’un passeport japonais ou allemand donne accès à plus de 150 pays, ce chiffre descend en-dessous de 30 avec un passeport afghan ou syrien.
      Le business des barrières

      Si les frontières revêtent une dimension économique, c’est aussi parce qu’elles sont un marché juteux. À l’heure où les pays européens ferment des lits d’hôpital faute de moyens, on retiendra ce chiffre ahurissant : entre 2005 et 2016, le budget de Frontex, l’agence en charge du contrôle des frontières de l’Union européenne, est passé de 6,3 à 238,7 millions d’euros. À quoi s’ajoutent les budgets colossaux débloqués pour construire et entretenir les barrières – budgets entourés d’opacité et sur lesquels, témoigne l’auteur, il est particulièrement difficile d’enquêter, faute d’obtenir… des fonds publics.

      L’argent public alimente ainsi une « teichoéconomie » dont les principaux bénéficiaires sont des entreprises du BTP et de la sécurité européennes, nord-américaines, israéliennes et, de plus en plus, indiennes ou saoudiennes. Ce complexe sécuritaro-industriel, identifié par Julien Saada, commercialise des dispositifs de surveillance toujours plus sophistiqués et prospère au rythme de l’inflation de barrières entre pays, mais aussi entre quartiers urbains.

      Un business d’autant plus florissant qu’il s’auto-entretient, dès lors que les mêmes entreprises vendent des armes. On sait que les ventes d’armes, alimentant les guerres, stimulent les migrations : un « cercle vertueux » s’enclenche pour les entreprises du secteur, appelées à la rescousse pour contenir des mouvements de population qu’elles participent à encourager.
      « Mourir aux frontières »

      Bénéfices juteux, profits politiques, les barrières font des heureux. Elles tuent aussi et l’ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière se termine sur un décompte macabre. C’est, dit-il, une « guerre migratoire » qui est en cours. Guerre asymétrique, elle oppose la police armée des puissances économiques à des groupes le plus souvent désarmés, venant de périphéries dominées économiquement et dont on entend contrôler la mobilité. Au nom de la souveraineté des États, cette guerre fait plusieurs milliers de victimes par an et la moindre des choses est de « prendre la pleine mesure de la létalité contemporaine aux frontières ».

      Sur le blog :

      – Une synthèse sur les murs frontaliers : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/01/28/lamour-des-murs

      – Le compte rendu d’un autre livre incontournable sur les frontières : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/08/03/frontieres-en-mouvement

      – Une synthèse sur les barricades à l’échelle intraurbaine : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/10/21/gated-communities-le-paradis-entre-quatre-murs

      http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/11/05/le-business-meurtrier-des-frontieres

    • How Private Security Firms Profit Off the Refugee Crisis

      The UK has pumped money to corporations turning #Calais into a bleak fortress.

      Tall white fences lined with barbed wire – welcome to Calais. The city in northern France is an obligatory stop for anyone trying to reach the UK across the channel. But some travellers are more welcome than others, and in recent decades, a slew of private security companies have profited millions of pounds off a very expensive – an unattractive – operation to keep migrants from crossing.

      Every year, thousands of passengers and lorries take the ferry at the Port of Calais-Fréthun, a trading route heavily relied upon by the UK for imports. But the entrance to the port looks more like a maximum-security prison than your typical EU border. Even before Brexit, the UK was never part of the Schengen area, which allows EU residents to move freely across 26 countries. For decades, Britain has strictly controlled its southern border in an attempt to stop migrants and asylum seekers from entering.

      As early as 2000, the Port of Calais was surrounded by a 2.8 metre-high fence to prevent people from jumping into lorries waiting at the ferry departure point. In 1999, the Red Cross set up a refugee camp in the nearby town of Sangatte which quickly became overcrowded. The UK pushed for it to be closed in 2002 and then negotiated a treaty with France to regulate migration between the two countries.

      The 2003 Le Toquet Treaty allowed the UK to check travellers on French soil before their arrival, and France to do the same on UK soil. Although the deal looks fair on paper, in practice it unduly burdens French authorities, as there are more unauthorised migrants trying to reach the UK from France than vice versa.

      The treaty effectively moved the UK border onto French territory, but people still need to cross the channel to request asylum. That’s why thousands of refugees from conflict zones like Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia have found themselves stranded in Calais, waiting for a chance to cross illegally – often in search of family members who’ve already made it to the UK. Many end up paying people smugglers to hide them in lorries or help them cross by boat.

      These underlying issues came to a head during the Syrian crisis, when refugees began camping out near Calais in 2014. The so-called Calais Jungle became infamous for its squalid conditions, and at its peak, hosted more than 7,000 people. They were all relocated to other centres in France before the camp was bulldozed in 2016. That same year, the UK also decided to build a €2.7 million border wall in Calais to block access to the port from the camp, but the project wasn’t completed until after the camp was cleared, attracting a fair deal of criticism. Between 2015 and 2018, the UK spent over €110 million on border security in France, only to top it up with over €56 million more in 2018.

      But much of this public money actually flows into the accounts of private corporations, hired to build and maintain the high-tech fences and conduct security checks. According to a 2020 report by the NGO Care4Calais, there are more than 40 private security companies working in the city. One of the biggest, Eamus Cork Solutions (ECS), was founded by a former Calais police officer in 2004 and is reported to have benefited at least €30 million from various contracts as of 2016.

      Stéphane Rosière, a geography professor at the University of Reims, wrote his book Iron Borders (only available in French) about the many border walls erected around the world. Rosière calls this the “security-industrial” complex – private firms that have largely replaced the traditional military-industrial sector in Europe since WW2.

      “These companies are getting rich by making security systems adaptable to all types of customers – individuals, companies or states,” he said. According to Rosière, three-quarters of the world’s border security barriers were built in the 21st century.

      Brigitte, a pensioner living close to the former site of the Calais Jungle, has seen her town change drastically over the past two decades. “Everything is cordoned off with wire mesh," she said. "I have the before and after photos, and it’s not a pretty sight. It’s just wire, wire, wire.” For the past 15 years, Brigitte has been opening her garage door for asylum seekers to stop by for a cup of tea and charge their phones and laptops, earning her the nickname "Mama Charge”.

      “For a while, the purpose of these fences and barriers was to stop people from crossing,” said François Guennoc, president of L’Auberge des Migrants, an NGO helping displaced migrants in Calais.

      Migrants have still been desperate enough to try their luck. “They risked a lot to get into the port area, and many of them came back bruised and battered,” Guennoc said. Today, walls and fences are mainly being built to deter people from settling in new camps near Calais after being evicted.

      In the city centre, all public squares have been fenced off. The city’s bridges have been fitted with blue lights and even with randomly-placed bike racks, so people won’t sleep under them.

      “They’ve also been cutting down trees for some time now,” said Brigitte, pointing to a patch near her home that was once woods. Guennoc said the authorities are now placing large rocks in areas where NGOs distribute meals and warm clothes, to prevent displaced people from receiving the donations. “The objective of the measures now is also to make the NGOs’ work more difficult,” he said.

      According to the NGO Refugee Rights Europe, about 1,500 men, women and minors were living in makeshift camps in and around Calais as of April 2020. In July 2020, French police raided a camp of over 500 people, destroying residents’ tents and belongings, in the largest operation since the Calais Jungle was cleared. An investigation by Slate found that smaller camps are cleared almost every day by the French police, even in the middle of winter. NGOs keep providing new tents and basic necessities to displaced residents, but they are frustrated by the waste of resources. The organisations are also concerned about COVID-19 outbreaks in the camps.

      As VICE World News has previously reported, the crackdown is only pushing people to take more desperate measures to get into the UK. Boat crossings reached record-highs in 2020, and four people have died since August 2020 while trying to cross, by land and sea. “When you create an obstacle, people find a way to get around it,” Guennoc said. “If they build a wall all the way along the coast to prevent boat departures, people will go to Normandy – and that has already started.” Crossing the open sea puts migrants at even greater risk.

      Rosière agrees security measures are only further endangering migrants.“All locks eventually open, no matter how complex they may be. It’s just a matter of time.”

      He believes the only parties who stand to profit from the status quo are criminal organisations and private security firms: “At the end of the day, this a messed-up use of public money.”

      https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8yax/how-private-security-firms-profit-off-the-refugee-crisis

      En français:
      À Calais, la ville s’emmure
      https://www.vice.com/fr/article/wx8yax/a-calais-la-ville-semmure

    • Financing Border Wars. The border industry, its financiers and human rights

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.

      Executive summary

      Migration will be one of the defining human rights issues of the 21st century. The growing pressures to migrate combined with the increasingly militarised state security response will only exacerbate an already desperate situation for refugees and migrants. Refugees already live in a world where human rights are systematically denied. So as the climate crisis deepens and intersects with other economic and political crises, forcing more people from their homes, and as states retreat to ever more authoritarian security-based responses, the situation for upholding and supporting migrants’ rights looks ever bleaker.

      States, most of all those in the richest countries, bear the ultimate responsibility to uphold the human rights of refugees and migrants recognised under International Human Rights Law. Yet corporations are also deeply implicated. It is their finance, their products, their services, their infrastructure that underpins the structures of state migration and border control. In some cases, they are directly involved in human rights violations themselves; in other cases they are indirectly involved as they facilitate the system that systematically denies refugees and migrants their rights. Most of all, through their lobbying, involvement in government ‘expert’ groups, revolving doors with state agencies, it becomes clear that corporations are not just accidental beneficiaries of the militarisation of borders. Rather they actively shape the policies from which they profit and therefore share responsibility for the human rights violations that result.

      This state-corporate fusion is best described as a Border Industrial Complex, drawing on former US President Eisenhower’s warning of the dangers of a Military-Industrial Complex. Indeed it is noticeable that many of the leading border industries today are also military companies, seeking to diversify their security products to a rapidly expanding new market.

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.
      A booming industry

      The border industry is experiencing spectacular growth, seemingly immune to austerity or economic downturns. Market research agencies predict annual growth of the border security market of between 7.2% and 8.6%, reaching a total of $65–68 billion by 2025. The largest expansion is in the global Biometrics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) markets. Markets and Markets forecasts the biometric systems market to double from $33 billion in 2019 to $65.3 billion by 2024—of which biometrics for migration purposes will be a significant sector. It says that the AI market will equal US$190.61 billion by 2025.

      The report investigates five key sectors of the expanding industry: border security (including monitoring, surveillance, walls and fences), biometrics and smart borders, migrant detention, deportation, and audit and consultancy services. From these sectors, it profiles 23 corporations as significant actors: Accenture, Airbus, Booz Allen Hamilton, Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Deloitte, Elbit, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, IBM, IDEMIA, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Mitie, Palantir, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Serco, Sopra Steria, Thales, Thomson Reuters, Unisys.

      – The border security and control field, the technological infrastructure of security and surveillance at the border, is led by US, Australian, European and Israeli firms including Airbus, Elbit, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Leonardo and Thales— all of which are among the world’s major arms sellers. They benefit not only from border contracts within the EU, US, and Australia but also increasingly from border externalisation programmes funded by these same countries. Jean Pierre Talamoni, head of sales and marketing at Airbus Defence and Space (ADS), said in 2016 that he estimates that two thirds of new military market opportunities over the next 10 years will be in Asia and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Companies are also trying to muscle in on providing the personnel to staff these walls, including border guards.

      - The Smart Borders sector encompasses the use of a broad range of (newer) technologies, including biometrics (such as fingerprints and iris-scans), AI and phone and social media tracking. The goal is to speed up processes for national citizens and other acceptable travellers and stop or deport unwanted migrants through the use of more sophisticated IT and biometric systems. Key corporations include large IT companies, such as IBM and Unisys, and multinational services company Accenture for whom migration is part of their extensive portfolio, as well as small firms, such as IDEMIA and Palantir Technologies, for whom migration-related work is central. The French public–private company Civipol, co-owned by the state and several large French arms companies, is another key player, selected to set up fingerprint databases of the whole population of Mali and Senegal.

      – Deportation. With the exception of the UK and the US, it is uncommon to privatise deportation. The UK has hired British company Mitie for its whole deportation process, while Classic Air Charter dominates in the US. Almost all major commercial airlines, however, are also involved in deportations. Newsweek reported, for example, that in the US, 93% of the 1,386 ICE deportation flights to Latin American countries on commercial airlines in 2019 were facilitated by United Airlines (677), American Airlines (345) and Delta Airlines (266).

      - Detention. The Global Detention Project lists over 1,350 migrant detention centres worldwide, of which over 400 are located in Europe, almost 200 in the US and nine in Australia. In many EU countries, the state manages detention centres, while in other countries (e.g. Australia, UK, USA) there are completely privatised prisons. Many other countries have a mix of public and private involvement, such as state facilities with private guards. Australia outsourced refugee detention to camps outside its territories. Australian service companies Broadspectrum and Canstruct International managed the detention centres, while the private security companies G4S, Paladin Solutions and Wilson Security were contracted for security services, including providing guards. Migrant detention in third countries is also an increasingly important part of EU migration policy, with the EU funding construction of migrant detention centres in ten non-EU countries.

      - Advisory and audit services are a more hidden part of public policies and practices, but can be influential in shaping new policies. A striking example is Civipol, which in 2003 wrote a study on maritime borders for the European Commission, which adopted its key policy recommendations in October 2003 and in later policy documents despite its derogatory language against refugees. Civipol’s study also laid foundations for later measures on border externalisation, including elements of the migration deal with Turkey and the EU’s Operation Sophia. Since 2003 Civipol has received funding for a large number of migration-related projects, especially in African countries. Between 2015 and 2017, it was the fourth most-funded organisation under the EU Trust Fund. Other prominent corporations in this sector include Eurasylum, as well as major international consultancy firms, particularly Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers, for which migration-related work is part of their expansive portfolio.

      Financing the industry

      The markets for military and border control procurement are characterized by massively capital intensive investments and contracts, which would not be possible without the involvement of financial actors. Using data from marketscreener.com, the report shows that the world’s largest investment companies are also among the major shareholders in the border industry.

      – The Vanguard Group owns shares in 15 of the 17 companies, including over 15% of the shares of CoreCivic and GEO Group that manage private prisons and detention facilities.

      - Other important investors are Blackrock, which is a major shareholder in 11 companies, Capital Research and Management (part of the Capital Group), with shares in arms giants Airbus and Lockheed Martin, and State Street Global Advisors (SsgA), which owns over 15% of Lockheed Martin shares and is also a major shareholder in six other companies.

      - Although these giant asset management firms dominate, two of the profiled companies, Cobham and IDEMIA, are currently owned by the private equity firm Advent International. Advent specialises in buyouts and restructuring, and it seems likely that it will attempt to split up Cobham in the hope of making a profit by selling on the component companies to other owners.

      - In addition, three large European arms companies, Airbus, Thales and Leonardo, active in the border security market, are partly owned by the governments of the countries where they are headquartered.

      In all cases, therefore, the financing depends on our money. In the case of state ownership, through our taxes, and in terms of asset management funds, through the way individual savings, pension funds, insurance companies and university endowments are directly invested in these companies via the giant Asset Management Funds. This financing means that the border industry survives on at least the tacit approved use of the public’s funds which makes it vulnerable to social pressure as the human rights costs of the industry become ever more clear.
      Human rights and the border industry

      Universal human rights apply to every single human being, including refugees and migrants. While the International Bill of Human Rights provides the foundation, including defining universal rights that are important in the context of migration, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to freedom from torture or cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and freedom from discrimination, there are other instruments such as the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention or Geneva Convention) of 1951 that are also relevant. There are also regional agreements, including the Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that play a role relevant to the countries that have ratified them.

      Yet despite these important and legally binding human rights agreements, the human rights situation for refugees and migrants has become ever more desperate. States frequently deny their rights under international law, such as the right to seek asylum or non-refoulement principles, or more general rights such as the freedom from torture, cruel or inhumane treatment. There is a gap with regard to effective legal means or grievance mechanisms to counter this or to legally enforce or hold to account states that fail to implement instruments such as the UDHR and the Refugee Convention of 1951. A Permanent Peoples Tribunal in 2019 even concluded that ‘taken together, the immigration and asylum policies and practices of the EU and its Member States constitute a total denial of the fundamental rights of people and migrants, and are veritable crimes against humanity’. A similar conclusion can be made of the US and Australian border and immigration regime.

      The increased militarisation of border security worldwide and state-sanctioned hostility toward migrants has had a deeply detrimental impact on the human rights of refugees and migrants.

      – Increased border security has led to direct violence against refugees, pushbacks with the risk of returning people to unsafe countries and inhumane circumstances (contravening the principle of non-refoulement), and a disturbing rise in avoidable deaths, as countries close off certain migration routes, forcing migrants to look for other, often more dangerous, alternatives and pushing them into the arms of criminal smuggling networks.

      – The increased use of autonomous systems of border security such as drones threaten new dangers related to human rights. There is already evidence that they push migrants to take more dangerous routes, but there is also concern that there is a gradual trend towards weaponized systems that will further threaten migrants’ lives.

      – The rise in deportations has threatened fundamental human rights including the right to family unity, the right to seek asylum, the right to humane treatment in detention, the right to due process, and the rights of children’. There have been many instances of violence in the course of deportations, sometimes resulting in death or permanent harm, against desperate people who try to do everything to prevent being deported. Moreover, deportations often return refugees to unsafe countries, where they face violence, persecution, discrimination and poverty.

      - The widespread detention of migrants also fundamentally undermines their human rights . There have been many reports of violence and neglect by guards and prison authorities, limited access to adequate legal and medical support, a lack of decent food, overcrowding and poor and unhealthy conditions. Privatisation of detention exacerbates these problems, because companies benefit from locking up a growing number of migrants and minimising costs.

      – The building of major migration databases such as EU’s Eurodac and SIS II, VIS gives rise to a range of human rights concerns, including issues of privacy, civil liberties, bias leading to discrimination—worsened by AI processes -, and misuse of collected information. Migrants are already subject to unprecedented levels of surveillance, and are often now treated as guinea pigs where even more intrusive technologies such as facial recognition and social media tracking are tried out without migrants consent.

      The trend towards externalisation of migration policies raises new concerns as it seeks to put the human costs of border militarisation beyond the border and out of public sight. This has led to the EU, US and Australia all cooperating with authoritarian regimes to try and prevent migrants from even getting close to their borders. Moreover as countries donate money, equipment or training to security forces in authoritarian regimes, they end up expanding and strengthening their capacities which leads to a rise in human rights violations more broadly. Nowhere are the human rights consequences of border externalisation policies clearer than in the case of Libya, where the EU and individual member states (in particular Italy and Malta) funding, training and cooperation with security forces and militias have led to violence at the borders, murder, disappearances, rape, enslavement and abuse of migrants in the country and torture in detention centres.

      The 23 corporations profiled in this report have all been involved in or connected to policies and practices that have come under fire because of violations of the human rights of refugees and migrants. As mentioned earlier, sometimes the companies are directly responsible for human rights violations or concerns. In other cases, they are indirectly responsible through their contribution to a border infrastructure that denies human rights and through lobbying to influence policy-making to prioritize militarized responses to migration. 11 of the companies profiled publicly proclaim their commitment to human rights as signatories to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), but as these are weak voluntary codes this has not led to noticeable changes in their business operations related to migration.

      The most prominent examples of direct human rights abuses come from the corporations involved in detention and deportation. Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, Mitie and Serco all have faced allegations of violence and abuse by their staff towards migrants. G4S has been one of the companies most often in the spotlight. In 2017, not only were assaults by its staff on migrants at the Brook House immigration removal centre in the UK broadcast by the BBC, but it was also hit with a class suit in Australia by almost 2,000 people who are or were detained at the externalised detention centre on Manus Island, because of physical and psychological injuries as a result of harsh treatment and dangerous conditions. The company eventually settled the case for A$70 million (about $53 million) in the largest-ever human rights class-action settlement. G4S has also faced allegations related to its involvement in deportations.

      The other companies listed all play a pivotal role in the border infrastructure that denies refugees’ human rights. Airbus P-3 Orion surveillance planes of the Australian Air Force, for example, play a part in the highly controversial maritime wall that prevents migrants arriving by boat and leads to their detention in terrible conditions offshore. Lockheed Martin is a leading supplier of border security on the US-Mexico border. Leonardo is one of the main suppliers of drones for Europe’s borders. Thales produces the radar and sensor systems, critical to patrolling the Mediterrean. Elbit Systems provides surveillance technologies to both the EU and US, marketed on their success as technologies used in the separation wall in the Palestinian occupied territories. Accenture, IDEMIA and Sopra Steria manage many border biometric projects. Deloitte has been one of the key consulting companies to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency since 2003, while PriceWaterhouseCoopers provides similar consultancy services to Frontex and the Australian border forces. IBM, Palantir and UNISYS provide the IT infrastructure that underpins the border and immigration apparatus.
      Time to divest

      The report concludes by calling for campaigns to divest from the border industry. There is a long history of campaigns and movements that call for divestment from industries that support human rights violations—from the campaigns to divest from Apartheid South Africa to more recent campaigns to divest from the fossil fuel industry. The border industry has become an equally morally toxic asset for any financial institution, given the litany of human rights abuses tied to it and the likelihood they will intensify in years to come.

      There are already examples of existing campaigns targeting particular border industries that have borne fruit. A spotlight on US migrant detention, as part of former President Trump’s anti- immigration policies, contributed to six large US banks (Bank of America, BNP Paribas, Fifth Third Bancorp, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust, and Wells Fargo) publicly announcing that they would not provide new financing to the private prison industry. The two largest public US pension funds, CalSTRS and CalPERS, also decided to divest from the same two companies. Geo Group acknowledged that these acts of ‘public resistance’ hit the company financially, criticising the banks as ‘clearly bow[ing] down to a small group of activists protesting and conducting targeted social media campaigns’.

      Every company involved or accused of human rights violations either denies them or says that they are atypical exceptions to corporate behavior. This report shows however that a militarised border regime built on exclusion will always be a violent apparatus that perpetuates human rights violations. It is a regime that every day locks up refugees in intolerable conditions, separates families causing untold trauma and heartbreak, and causes a devastating death toll as refugees are forced to take unimaginable dangerous journeys because the alternatives are worse. However well-intentioned, any industry that provides services and products for this border regime will bear responsibility for its human consequences and its human rights violations, and over time will suffer their own serious reputational costs for their involvement in this immoral industry. On the other hand, a widespread exodus of the leading corporations on which the border regime depends could force states to change course, and to embrace a politics that protects and upholds the rights of refugees and migrants. Worldwide, social movements and the public are starting to wake up to the human costs of border militarisation and demanding a fundamental change. It is time now for the border industry and their financiers to make a choice.

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

      #TNI #rapport
      #industrie_frontalière #militarisation_des_frontières #biométrie #Intelligence_artificielle #AI #IA

      #Accenture #Airbus #Booz_Allen_Hamilton #Classic_Air_Charter #Cobham #CoreCivic #Deloitte #Elbit #Eurasylum #G4S #GEO_Group #IBM #IDEMIA #Leonardo #Lockheed_Martin #Mitie #Palantir #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Serco #Sopra_Steria #Thales #Thomson_Reuters #Unisys
      #contrôles_frontaliers #surveillance #technologie #Jean-Pierre_Talamoni #Airbus_Defence_and_Space (#ADS) #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes #iris #empreintes_digitales #réseaux_sociaux #IT #Civipol #Mali #Sénégal #renvois #expulsions #déportations #Mitie #Classic_Air_Charter #compagnies_aériennes #United_Airlines #ICE #American_Airlines #Delta_Airlines #rétention #détention_administrative #privatisation #Broadspectrum #Canstruct_International #Paladin_Solutions #Wilson_Security #Operation_Sophia #EU_Trust_Fund #Trust_Fund #externalisation #Eurasylum #Deloitte #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Vanguard_Group #CoreCivic #Blackrock #investisseurs #investissement #Capital_Research_and_Management #Capital_Group #Lockheed_Martin #State_Street_Global_Advisors (#SsgA) #Cobham #IDEMIA #Advent_International #droits_humains #VIS #SIS_II #P-3_Orion #Accenture #Sopra_Steria #Frontex #Australie

    • Outsourcing oppression. How Europe externalises migrant detention beyond its shores

      This report seeks to address the gap and join the dots between Europe’s outsourcing of migrant detention to third countries and the notorious conditions within the migrant detention centres. In a nutshell, Europe calls the shots on migrant detention beyond its shores but is rarely held to account for the deeply oppressive consequences, including arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearance, violence, sexual violence, and death.

      Key findings

      – The European Union (EU), and its member states, externalise detention to third countries as part of a strategy to keep migrants out at all costs. This leads to migrants being detained and subjected to gross human rights violations in transit countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, West Asia and Africa.

      – Candidate countries wishing to join the EU are obligated to detain migrants and stop them from crossing into the EU as a prerequisite for accession to the Union. Funding is made available through pre-accession agreements specifically for the purpose of detaining migrants.

      – Beyond EU candidate countries, this report identifies 22 countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and West Asia where the EU and its member states fund the construction of detention centres, detention related activities such as trainings, or advocate for detention in other ways such as through aggressively pushing for detention legislation or agreeing to relax visa requirements for nationals of these countries in exchange for increased migrant detention.

      - The main goal of detention externalisation is to pre-empt migrants from reaching the external borders of the EU by turning third countries into border outposts. In many cases this involves the EU and its member states propping up and maintaining authoritarian regimes.

      – Europe is in effect following the ‘Australian model’ that has been highly criticised by UN experts and human rights organisations for the torturous conditions inside detention centres. Nevertheless, Europe continues to advance a system that mirrors Australia’s outsourced model, focusing not on guaranteeing the rights of migrants, but instead on deterring and pushing back would-be asylum seekers at all costs.

      - Human rights are systematically violated in detention centres directly and indirectly funded by the EU and its member states, including cases of torture, arbitrary and prolonged detention, sexual violence, no access to legal recourse, humanitarian assistance, or asylum procedures, the detention of victims of trafficking, and many other serious violations in which Europe is implicated.

      - Particularly horrendous is the case of Libya, which continues to receive financial and political support from Europe despite mounting evidence of brutality, enslavement, torture, forced disappearance and death. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), implement EU policies in Libya and, according to aid officials, actively whitewash the consequences of European policies to safeguard substantial EU funding.

      - Not only does the EU deport and push back migrants to unsafe third countries, it actively finances and coercively pushes for their detention in these countries. Often they have no choice but to sign ‘voluntary’ agreements to be returned to their countries of origin as the only means of getting out of torturous detention facilities.

      - The EU implements a carrot and stick approach, in particular in its dealings with Africa, prolonging colonialist dynamics and uneven power structures – in Niger, for example, the EU pushed for legislation on detention, in exchange for development aid funding.

      – The EU envisages a greater role for migrant detention in third countries going forward, as was evidenced in the European Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      - The EU acts on the premise of containment and deterrence, namely, that if migrants seeking to reach Europe are intercepted and detained along that journey, they will be deterred from making the journey in the first place. This approach completely misses the point that people migrate to survive, often fleeing war and other forms of violence. The EU continues to overlook the structural reasons behind why people flee and the EU’s own role in provoking such migration.

      – The border industrial complex profits from the increased securitisation of borders. Far from being passive spectators, the military and security industry is actively involved in shaping EU border policies by positioning themselves as experts on the issue. We can already see a trend of privatising migrant detention, paralleling what is happening in prison systems worldwide.

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

      pour télécharger le rapport :
      https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/outsourcingoppression-report-tni.pdf

      #externalisation #rétention #détention #détention_arbitraire #violence #disparitions #disparitions_forcées #violence #violence_sexuelle #morts #mort #décès #Afrique #Europe_de_l'Est #Balkans #Asie #modèle_australien #EU #UE #Union_européenne #torture #Libye #droits_humains #droits_fondamentaux #HCR #UNHCR #OIM #IOM #dissuasion #privatisation

    • Fortress Europe: the millions spent on military-grade tech to deter refugees

      We map out the rising number of #high-tech surveillance and deterrent systems facing asylum seekers along EU borders.

      From military-grade drones to sensor systems and experimental technology, the EU and its members have spent hundreds of millions of euros over the past decade on technologies to track down and keep at bay the refugees on its borders.

      Poland’s border with Belarus is becoming the latest frontline for this technology, with the country approving last month a €350m (£300m) wall with advanced cameras and motion sensors.

      The Guardian has mapped out the result of the EU’s investment: a digital wall on the harsh sea, forest and mountain frontiers, and a technological playground for military and tech companies repurposing products for new markets.

      The EU is central to the push towards using technology on its borders, whether it has been bought by the EU’s border force, Frontex, or financed for member states through EU sources, such as its internal security fund or Horizon 2020, a project to drive innovation.

      In 2018, the EU predicted that the European security market would grow to €128bn (£108bn) by 2020. Beneficiaries are arms and tech companies who heavily courted the EU, raising the concerns of campaigners and MEPs.

      “In effect, none of this stops people from crossing; having drones or helicopters doesn’t stop people from crossing, you just see people taking more risky ways,” says Jack Sapoch, formerly with Border Violence Monitoring Network. “This is a history that’s so long, as security increases on one section of the border, movement continues in another section.”

      Petra Molnar, who runs the migration and technology monitor at Refugee Law Lab, says the EU’s reliance on these companies to develop “hare-brained ideas” into tech for use on its borders is inappropriate.

      “They rely on the private sector to create these toys for them. But there’s very little regulation,” she says. “Some sort of tech bro is having a field day with this.”

      “For me, what’s really sad is that it’s almost a done deal that all this money is being spent on camps, enclosures, surveillance, drones.”

      Air Surveillance

      Refugees and migrants trying to enter the EU by land or sea are watched from the air. Border officers use drones and helicopters in the Balkans, while Greece has airships on its border with Turkey. The most expensive tool is the long-endurance Heron drone operating over the Mediterranean.

      Frontex awarded a €100m (£91m) contract last year for the Heron and Hermes drones made by two Israeli arms companies, both of which had been used by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip. Capable of flying for more than 30 hours and at heights of 10,000 metres (30,000 feet), the drones beam almost real-time feeds back to Frontex’s HQ in Warsaw.

      Missions mostly start from Malta, focusing on the Libyan search and rescue zone – where the Libyan coastguard will perform “pull backs” when informed by EU forces of boats trying to cross the Mediterranean.

      German MEP Özlem Demirel is campaigning against the EU’s use of drones and links to arms companies, which she says has turned migration into a security issue.

      “The arms industries are saying: ‘This is a security problem, so buy my weapons, buy my drones, buy my surveillance system,’” says Demirel.

      “The EU is always talking about values like human rights, [speaking out] against violations but … week-by-week we see more people dying and we have to question if the EU is breaking its values,” she says.

      Sensors and cameras

      EU air assets are accompanied on the ground by sensors and specialised cameras that border authorities throughout Europe use to spot movement and find people in hiding. They include mobile radars and thermal cameras mounted on vehicles, as well as heartbeat detectors and CO2 monitors used to detect signs of people concealed inside vehicles.

      Greece deploys thermal cameras and sensors along its land border with Turkey, monitoring the feeds from operations centres, such as in Nea Vyssa, near the meeting of the Greek, Turkish and Bulgarian borders. Along the same stretch, in June, Greece deployed a vehicle-mounted sound cannon that blasts “deafening” bursts of up to 162 decibels to force people to turn back.

      Poland is hoping to emulate Greece in response to the crisis on its border with Belarus. In October, its parliament approved a €350m wall that will stretch along half the border and reach up to 5.5 metres (18 feet), equipped with motion detectors and thermal cameras.

      Surveillance centres

      In September, Greece opened a refugee camp on the island of Samos that has been described as prison-like. The €38m (£32m) facility for 3,000 asylum seekers has military-grade fencing and #CCTV to track people’s movements. Access is controlled by fingerprint, turnstiles and X-rays. A private security company and 50 uniformed officers monitor the camp. It is the first of five that Greece has planned; two more opened in November.

      https://twitter.com/_PMolnar/status/1465224733771939841

      At the same time, Greece opened a new surveillance centre on Samos, capable of viewing video feeds from the country’s 35 refugee camps from a wall of monitors. Greece says the “smart” software helps to alert camps of emergencies.

      Artificial intelligence

      The EU spent €4.5m (£3.8m) on a three-year trial of artificial intelligence-powered lie detectors in Greece, Hungary and Latvia. A machine scans refugees and migrants’ facial expressions as they answer questions it poses, deciding whether they have lied and passing the information on to a border officer.

      The last trial finished in late 2019 and was hailed as a success by the EU but academics have called it pseudoscience, arguing that the “micro-expressions” the software analyses cannot be reliably used to judge whether someone is lying. The software is the subject of a court case taken by MEP Patrick Breyer to the European court of justice in Luxembourg, arguing that there should be more public scrutiny of such technology. A decision is expected on 15 December.

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/dec/06/fortress-europe-the-millions-spent-on-military-grade-tech-to-deter-refu

    • EDUCATION THAT LEADS TO LEGISLATION

      ‘Segregated By Design’ examines the forgotten history of how our federal, state and local governments unconstitutionally segregated every major metropolitan area in America through law and policy.

      Prejudice can be birthed from a lack of understanding the historically accurate details of the past. Without being aware of the unconstitutional residential policies the United States government enacted during the middle of the twentieth century, one might have a negative view today of neighborhoods where African Americans live or even of African Americans themselves.

      We can compensate for this unlawful segregation through a national political consensus that leads to legislation. And this will only happen if the majority of Americans understand how we got here. Like Jay-Z said in a recent New York Times interview, “you can’t have a solution until you start dealing with the problem: What you reveal, you heal.” This is the major challenge at hand: to educate fellow citizens of the unconstitutional inequality that we’ve woven and, on behalf of our government, accept responsibility to fix it.

      https://www.segregatedbydesign.com

    • The Color of Law

      This “powerful and disturbing history” exposes how American governments deliberately imposed racial segregation on metropolitan areas nationwide (New York Times Book Review).

      Widely heralded as a “masterful” (Washington Post) and “essential” (Slate) history of the modern American metropolis, Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law offers “the most forceful argument ever published on how federal, state, and local governments gave rise to and reinforced neighborhood segregation” (William Julius Wilson). Exploding the myth of de facto segregation arising from private prejudice or the unintended consequences of economic forces, Rothstein describes how the American government systematically imposed residential segregation: with undisguised racial zoning; public housing that purposefully segregated previously mixed communities; subsidies for builders to create whites-only suburbs; tax exemptions for institutions that enforced segregation; and support for violent resistance to African Americans in white neighborhoods. A groundbreaking, “virtually indispensable” study that has already transformed our understanding of twentieth-century urban history (Chicago Daily Observer), The Color of Law forces us to face the obligation to remedy our unconstitutional past.


      https://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?id=4294995609&LangType=1033
      #livre

  • Lyft Is Not Your Friend
    http://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/the-myth-of-the-woke-brand-uber-lyft-capitalism

    10.25.2018 BY MEAGAN DAY #UNITED_STATES #CAPITAL #CONJECTURES #LIBERALISM

    Lyft is the latest brand trying to build market share by posing as a “progressive” corporation. But the fight can’t be good corporations against bad ones — it’s working people against capitalism.
    In early 2017, liberals hit on a new strategy to resist the nascent Trump administration: #DeleteUber.

    It started when New York City’s taxi drivers refused to service JFK airport to protest Trump’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, and Uber was spotted leveraging the ensuing crisis for profit. Then Uber CEO Travis Kalanick came under fire for accepting an appointment to Trump’s economic advisory council. He announced his resignation from the council, but only weeks later a video leaked of Kalanick reprimanding a driver for his company.

    Amid various ensuing scandals, Kalanick stepped down as CEO of Uber, but by then millions of consumers had turned on the brand in protest, deleting the Uber app from their phone and opting instead for the rideshare giant’s rival Lyft.

    Lyft leaned in, eagerly branding itself as the progressive alternative to Uber by pledging a $1 million donation to the ACLU and trotting out celebrities to promote it as a company committed to “doing things for the right reasons.” Lyft, of course, operates on the same labor model as Uber — its drivers are not employees but independent contractors, and are therefore denied all the benefits and protections that workers receive under more ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, a new refrain rang out across liberaldom: “I don’t use Uber, I use Lyft.”

    What socialists understand that liberals don’t is that brands are corporate enterprises, and corporate enterprises are fundamentally motivated by the pursuit of profit — even in their ostentatious acts of charity and wokeness.

    Three surefire ways to maximize profit are: suppressing labor costs by paying workers as little as you can get away with, lobbying the state for deregulation and lower taxes, and opening new markets by finding new things to commodify and sell. Businesses will always pursue these avenues of profit maximization where they can. It’s not a matter of ethics but of market discipline: if they don’t, they run the risk of losing out to the competition and eventually capsizing.

    Sometimes corporations do things for publicity that make it seem like their interests are not fundamentally misaligned with those of the working-class majority, who rely on decent wages and well-funded public services. But those efforts are meant to sustain public confidence in a given corporation’s brand, which is occasionally necessary for keeping up profits, as Uber’s losses in 2017 demonstrate. When corporate profits come into direct conflict with active measures to improve people’s wellbeing, corporations will always select the former. Case in point: Lyft just donated $100k to the campaign against a ballot measure that would create a tax fund to house the homeless in San Francisco, where the company is based.

    Why did the progressive alternative to Uber do this? Well, because the company doesn’t want to pay higher taxes. Because high taxes imperil profits, and profits are the point. Another likely rationale is to build stronger bonds with pro-business advocacy groups in San Francisco, so that the company will have allies if the city decides to implement regulations against ride-sharing services, which is rumored to be a possibility.

    Lyft has already mastered the art of suppressing labor costs and opening new markets. Next on the wish list, low taxes and deregulation. It’s pretty formulaic when you get down to it.

    San Francisco is home to an estimated 7,500 homeless people. Proposition C would tap the large corporations that benefit from the city’s public infrastructure to double the city’s homelessness budget in an attempt to resolve the crisis. The corporations opposing Proposition C say that the move would imperil jobs. This is not an analysis, it’s a threat. What they’re saying is that if the city reaches too far into their pockets, they’ll take their business elsewhere, draining the region of jobs and revenue as punishment for government overreach. It’s a mobster’s insinuation: Nice economy, shame if something happened to it. Meanwhile thousands of people sleep in the streets, even though the money to shelter them is within the city’s borders.

    Of course, in every struggle over taxes and industry regulation there may be a few canny corporate outliers looking to ingratiate their brand to the public by bucking the trend. In the case of Proposition C, it’s Salesforce, whose CEO Marc Benioff has made a public display of support for the ballot measure. But before you rush to praise Benioff, consider that only two months ago he lauded Trump’s tax cuts for fueling “aggressive spending” and injecting life into the economy.

    You could spend your life as an engaged consumer hopping from brand to brand, as liberals often do, pledging allegiance to this one and protesting that one to the beat of the new cycle drum. You could delete Lyft from your phone the same way you did with Uber, and find another rideshare app that you deem more ethical, until that one inevitably disappoints you too.

    Or you could press pause, stop scrambling for some superior consumption choice to ease your conscience, and entertain the socialist notion that deep down all corporations are objectively the same. They all exist to maximize return on investment for the people who own them. They are all in competition with each other to plunder our commons most effectively, with the lowest overhead, which means compensating the least for employees’ work. And when the rubber meets the road, they will all prioritize private profits over the wellbeing of those who own no productive assets, which is the vast majority of the people on the planet. They will demonstrate these priorities on a case-by-case basis, and on a massive global scale so long as capitalism prevails.

    “We’re woke,” said Lyft CEO John Zimmerman at the height of the Uber scandal. It was horseshit — it always is. And until liberals stop believing than any brand can be truly “woke,” or can offer a genuine alternative to the predatory behavior they observe in other “unwoke” brands, they’ll be unable to mount a meaningful resistance to anything.

    Whether we want to ensure clean drinking water for the residents of Flint or to shelter the homeless of San Francisco, we have to draw clear battle lines that are up to the challenge. The fight can’t be good corporations against bad corporations. It has to be working people against capitalism.

    #USA #transport #disruption #Lyft

  • CE FIL DE DISCUSSION COMPLÈTE CELUI COMMENCÉ ICI :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/724156

    v. aussi la métaliste sur les ONG et les sauvetages en Méditerranée :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/706177

    –-----------

    Un bateau de pêche espagnol « coincé » en mer Méditerranée après avoir secouru 12 migrants

    Un navire de pêche espagnol est « coincé » en mer Méditerranée depuis plusieurs jours avec 12 migrants à son bord. Aucun pays n’a en effet accepté de les accueillir depuis leur sauvetage la semaine dernière, a indiqué mardi 27 novembre le capitaine du bateau.

    « Nous sommes coincés en mer, nous ne pouvons aller nulle part », a déclaré à l’AFP Pascual Durá, capitaine du « #Nuestra_Madre_Loreto ». Depuis jeudi dernier, les 13 membres de l’équipage du navire cohabitent avec 12 migrants originaires du Niger, de Somalie, du Soudan, du Sénégal et d’Egypte. Ils ont été secourus après le naufrage de leur bateau pneumatique en provenance de Libye.

    « Renvoyés vers l’endroit qu’ils fuient »

    L’Italie et Malte leur ont refusé l’entrée dans leurs ports. Quant aux services espagnols de sauvetage maritime, avec lesquels les marins sont en contact, ils ont seulement offert la possibilité de les renvoyer en Libye. ""Si nous allons vers la Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie", a indiqué le capitaine, précisant que « dès qu’ils entendent le mot ’Libye’, ils deviennent très nerveux et hystériques, il est difficile de les rassurer »."

    « Nous ne voulons pas renvoyer ces pauvres gens en Libye. Après ce qu’ils ont accompli pour venir jusqu’ici, nous ne voulons pas les renvoyer vers l’endroit qu’ils fuient », a-t-il ajouté. Le capitaine du navire assure qu’il ne dispose plus que de six ou sept jours de provisions et qu’une tempête approche.

    Depuis le début de l’année, plus de 106.000 migrants sont arrivés en Europe par la mer, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations, qui a enregistré 2.119 décès pendant cette période.

    https://www.nouvelobs.com/monde/migrants/20181128.OBS6155/un-bateau-de-peche-espagnol-coince-en-mer-mediterranee-apres-avoir-secour
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #sauvetage #Méditerranée #frontières

    • #Nuestra_Madre_de_Loreto”: appello urgente dei parlamentari europei per l’apertura di porti sicuri.

      “NUESTRA MADRE DE LORETO”. APPELLO URGENTE DEI PARLAMENTARI EUROPEI PER L’APERTURA DI PORTI SICURI.

      RICHIESTA URGENTE ALL´UE ED AI GOVERNI EUROPEI PER CONSENTIRE AL PESCHERECCIO “NUESTRA MADRE LORETO” DI SBARCARE IN UN PORTO SICURO.

      Stiamo rischiando di essere testimoni di un’altra tragedia nel Mar Mediterraneo. Un peschereccio spagnolo, “Nuestra Madre de Loreto”, è bloccato da giorni in mare dopo aver salvato 12 persone che tentavano di raggiungere la costa Europea dalla Libia a bordo di un gommone.

      Nessun Paese Europeo ha consentito all’imbarcazione spagnola di attraccare e probabilmente sono in corso negoziati per riportare questi migranti, che potrebbero avere diritto di protezione internazionale, in Libia.

      Secondo l’UNHCR e la Commissione Europea la Libia non è un Paese sicuro. Per cui non può essere considerato un porto sicuro per lo sbarco. Non ha mai sottoscritto la Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati, mentre media e organizzazioni internazionali riportano violazioni sistematiche dei diritti umani nei centri di detenzione per migranti.

      Mentre si attende l’autorizzazione allo sbarco, le condizioni metereologiche stanno peggiorando e l’imbarcazione scarseggia beni essenziali, cibo e carburante. Si sta esaurendo il tempo a disposizione: abbiamo urgentemente bisogno di una soluzione sensata, nel pieno rispetto delle leggi internazionali ed Europee, inclusa la Convenzione SAR. I governi Europei non possono chiedere all’imbarcazione spagnola di violare il principio di “non-respingimento”.

      Chiediamo ai governi Europei di rispettare pienamente la legge internazionale e la Convenzione SAR e di offrire un porto sicuro alla “Nuestra Madre de Loreto”, evitando così un’altra tragedia nel Mediterraneo. Chiediamo alla Commissione Europea di prendere una posizione chiara e di facilitare una soluzione rapida.

      Questo è un appello aperto, chiediamo a ciascuno di condividerlo e di chiedere ai nostri governi di rispettare i diritti umani e di dimostrare solidarietà alle persone in pericolo in mare.

      Marina Albiol, Sergio Cofferati, Eleonora Forenza, Ska Keller, Elly Schlein, Miguel Urban Crespo, Ernest Urtasun, Gabriele Zimmer (Parlamentari Europei)

      https://mediterranearescue.org/news/nuestra-madre-de-loreto-appello-urgente-dei-parlamentari-europei

    • Faute de port d’accueil, un bateau espagnol erre toujours en Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à bord

      Le Nuestra Madre Loreto, un navire espagnol, erre depuis une semaine en Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à son bord. Les rescapés refusent d’être renvoyés en Libye. Le navire demande à l’Europe l’autorisation de débarquer dans l’un de ses ports.

      Le gouvernement espagnol a indiqué mercredi 28 novembre être en contact avec l’Italie et Malte en vue de trouver un port d’accueil pour un bateau de pêche espagnol errant en mer Méditerranée avec 12 migrants à bord.

      Depuis jeudi dernier, les 13 membres de l’équipage du « Nuestra Madre Loreto » cohabitent avec 12 migrants originaires du Niger, de Somalie, du Soudan, du Sénégal et d’Egypte rescapés d’un bateau pneumatique en provenance de Libye.

      « Nous sommes coincés en mer, nous ne pouvons aller nulle part », a déclaré Pascual Durá, le capitaine du bateau.

      Le gouvernement espagnol a dans un premier temps demandé à la Libye de prendre les réfugiés en charge, comme le prévoit le droit international. Les embarcations de migrants secourues dans la SAR zone (zone de détresse en Méditerranée où ont lieu les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage) relèvent en effet de l’autorité de Tripoli depuis le mois de juin 2018.

      Les migrants refusent d’être ramenés en Libye. Face à leur refus, le navire espagnol « fait des démarches auprès des gouvernements de l’Italie et de Malte, dont les côtes sont proches du lieu où se trouve le bateau, dans le but de favoriser une solution alternative, rapide et satisfaisante » pour les accueillir, a indiqué la vice-présidente de l’exécutif Carmen Calvo dans un communiqué.

      « En aucune circonstance, [les migrants] ne devraient être renvoyées en Libye, où elles risquent d’être victimes de détention arbitraire, de torture et d’autres violences. Toute instruction donnée au capitaine du Nuestra Madre de Loreto de transférer les survivants en Libye serait contraire au droit international », s’est alarmé de son côté Matteo de Bellis, chercheur sur l’asile et les migrations à Amnesty International.

      « Si nous allons en Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie »

      Face à l’aggravation des conditions météorologiques, le bateau a pris mardi la direction de l’île italienne de Lampedusa, selon le gouvernement espagnol.

      Le capitaine du « Nuestra Madre Loreto », avait indiqué de son côté mardi que l’Italie, dont le ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini (Ligue, extrême droite) s’oppose à l’arrivée de nouveaux migrants dans son pays, et Malte lui avaient refusé l’entrée dans leurs ports.

      Il avait également souligné que les services espagnols de sauvetage maritime lui avaient seulement offert la possibilité de les renvoyer en Libye.

      Selon le capitaine, les migrants à bord de son bateau « deviennent très nerveux et hystériques dès qu’ils entendent le mot ‘Libye’ ». « Si nous allons vers la Libye, nous risquons une mutinerie », avait-il averti.

      Depuis l’arrivée du socialiste Pedro Sanchez au pouvoir, l’Espagne a accueilli un navire humanitaire, l’Aquarius, refusé par l’Italie et Malte et à trois reprises un bateau de l’ONG Open Arms. Mais elle a refusé un retour de l’Aquarius, préférant négocier avec d’autres États européens la répartition des migrants qu’il avait à bord.


      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/13639/faute-de-port-d-accueil-un-bateau-espagnol-erre-toujours-en-mediterran

    • #Sophia mission will cease unless rules changed - Salvini

      The EU’s anti-human trafficking Sophia naval mission in the Mediterranean will stop when its current mandate expires at the end of the year unless the rules of the operation are changed, Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said on Wednesday. The government says the operation currently puts too much of the burden of rescued migrants on Italy.

      “We are staying firm in our unwillingness to accept landing procedures that involve dockings only in Italian ports,” Salvini told a Schengen committee hearing.

      “Unless there is convergence on our positions, we do not consider it opportune to continue the mission”.

      http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2018/12/05/sophia-mission-will-cease-unless-rules-changed-salvini_05836d11-3f8c-474c-
      #Opération_Sophia #EUNAVFOR_MED

      #Salvini (encore lui)

    • MSF et SOS Méditerranée mettent un terme aux opérations de sauvetage de l’« Aquarius »

      Déplorant les « attaques » répétées, les ONG étudient des options pour un nouveau navire et un futur pavillon. Depuis février 2016, le bateau a secouru 30 000 personnes.

      L’Aquarius est devenu le symbole de la crise politique autour de l’accueil des migrants. Il ne sera bientôt plus. Médecins sans frontières (MSF) et SOS Méditerranée ont annoncé, jeudi 6 décembre, devoir « mettre un terme » aux opérations de sauvetage de leur navire humanitaire, privé de pavillon depuis deux mois.

      « Renoncer à l’Aquarius a été une décision extrêmement difficile à prendre », a déclaré dans un communiqué Frédéric Penard, directeur des opérations de SOS Méditerranée, en déplorant « les attaques incessantes dont le navire et ses équipes ont fait l’objet ». Mais l’ONG basée à Marseille « explore déjà activement les options pour un nouveau navire et un nouveau pavillon », et « étudie sérieusement toutes les propositions d’armateurs qui lui permettraient de poursuivre sa mission de sauvetage ». « Nous refusons de rester les bras croisés sur le rivage alors que des gens continuent de mourir en mer », a assuré M. Penard.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2018/12/07/msf-et-sos-mediterranee-mettent-un-terme-aux-operations-de-sauvetage-de-l-aq

    • MSF forced to terminate search and rescue operations as Europe condemns people to drown

      As men, women and children continue to die in the Mediterranean Sea, international medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and its partner SOS Méditerranée have been forced to terminate the lifesaving operations of their search and rescue vessel, Aquarius.

      Over the last two months as people have continued to flee by sea on the world’s deadliest migration route, the Aquarius has remained in port, unable to carry out its vital humanitarian work.

      This is due to a sustained smear campaign, spearheaded by the Italian government and backed by other European countries to delegitimise, slander and obstruct aid organisations trying to save the lives of vulnerable people in the Mediterranean.

      Coupled with ill-conceived policies aimed at trapping people outside Europe’s borders, this campaign has undermined international law and humanitarian principles.

      With no immediate solution to these attacks, MSF and SOS Méditerranée have no option but to end the operations of the Aquarius.

      https://www.msf.org.uk/article/msf-forced-terminate-search-and-rescue-operations-europe-condemns-people-dro

    • « Aquarius » : « La #non-assistance_à_personnes_en_danger est revenue en force en Méditerranée »

      Mego Terzian, président de MSF-France et Michaël Neuman, directeur d’études à MSF expliquent dans une tribune au « Monde » pourquoi leur ONG et SOS Méditerranée, l’Association européenne de sauvetage en mer, mettent un terme aux opérations de sauvetage de l’« Aquarius ».

      « Dont acte, la politique de harcèlement judiciaire, administratif, politique aura eu raison de l’“Aquarius”, déployé entre 2015 et le milieu de l’année 2018 en mer Méditerranée. » usage worldwide/DPA / Photononstop

      Tribune. Dont acte, la politique de harcèlement judiciaire, administratif, politique aura eu raison de l’« Aquarius », déployé entre 2015 et le milieu de l’année 2018 en mer Méditerranée.
      En 2014, l’opération « Mare Nostrum », mise en place par les autorités italiennes inaugurait pourtant une séquence pendant laquelle le sauvetage d’embarcations de migrants en détresse fut pourtant considéré comme légitime.

      Ce qui est d’abord, rappelons-le, une obligation légale était alors politiquement et publiquement acceptable. En 2018, les Italiens furent de nouveau à la manœuvre, signifiant cette fois-ci qu’ils ne sauraient accepter davantage que se poursuivent ces interventions : dès le début de l’été, Matteo Salvini, tout récent ministre de l’intérieur, œuvra pour fermer ses ports aux bateaux de secours, accélérant une politique de dissuasion largement entamée par Marco Minniti, son prédécesseur, qui aboutit, in fine, à la liquidation des moyens destinés à secourir les personnes fuyant la Libye.

      Bien sûr, des organisations de la société civile tentent vaille que vaille et, avec une
      remarquable ténacité, de maintenir leurs activités de secours en mer : Sea Watch, Mare Jonio, Proactiva Open Arms sont de celles-là. Les pilotes volontaires du Moonbird et du Colibri poursuivent leurs survols, tentant de déceler entre les vagues des embarcations à la dérive et d’éviter ainsi que la longue liste des décès – plus de 17 000 depuis 2014 – ne s’allonge davantage.

      Pressions italiennes

      Mais toutes le font avec d’extrêmes difficultés : ennuis administratifs récurrents, obstacles posés aux escales techniques, interdiction d’accoster en Europe, et poursuites judiciaires, comme c’est le cas de l’« Aquarius », navire de secours affrété en partenariat avec SOS Méditerranée. Celui-ci, déjà privé de pavillon sous pressions italiennes, est maintenant menacé d’une mise sous séquestre à la suite des accusations grotesques de crime organisé, de nouveau, en Italie.

      Une partie de l’équipage et des membres des équipes de MSF sont mis en cause : leur activité de secours est criminalisée. Force est de constater que ce dispositif de secours en mer, auquel nous avons participé depuis 2015 avec cinq navires différents, quelquefois en partenariat avec d’autres organisations, est mis hors-la-loi.

      Les victimes de ce combat à armes inégales sont évidemment ces personnes migrantes, demandeuses d’asiles ou réfugiées, dont plus grand monde ne semble désormais se soucier. D’ailleurs combien sont-elles, ces victimes ? Aujourd’hui, sans témoin en mer, personne ne le sait, tandis que le piège libyen se referme, un piège dont la maintenance est assurément l’œuvre d’autorités libyennes disparates mais dont la mécanique est bien due à l’ingéniosité européenne.

      Des milliers de personnes sont condamnées à tenter de survivre dans l’entrelacs de centres de détention dits « officiels » et de prisons clandestines en Libye. On ne saurait suffisamment conseiller à nos décideurs d’aller visiter ces geôles pour se faire une idée de l’avenir qu’ils promettent à leurs frères humains. Beaucoup d’autres personnes, enfin, prises dans les mailles serrées d’un dispositif militaro-technique de pointe, meurent plus en amont sur les routes dans la vaste région sahélienne.

      Absence de l’Europe

      S’il est beaucoup question d’Italie, il ne faudrait pas négliger l’unanimisme européen dans lequel cette dynamique mortifère s’est mise en place : ni la France, ni l’Espagne, ni aucun Etat ou institution européenne ne s’est réellement opposé à la mise en coupe réglée de la politique européenne de gestion des frontières par des dirigeants aux pratiques racistes et violentes. Rien de surprenant puisque la manœuvre était en cours depuis quelque temps déjà.

      Ainsi, on ne trouva personne ou presque, pour se résoudre à accueillir quelques centaines de personnes qui, par une chance inouïe, bénéficiaient ça et là du programme de relocalisation du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR). Depuis longtemps, le refoulement des indésirables aux frontières, notamment franco-italienne, était acté, tout comme l’abandon de 15 000 personnes sur les îles grecques dans des conditions épouvantables, laissés-pour-compte d’une mise en scène sordide de la frontière.

      L’errance durant plus d’une semaine du Nuestra Madre de Loreto, en est le dernier avatar : ayant secouru douze personnes, ce chalutier espagnol s’est vu refuser l’autorisation de débarquer dans les ports européens, y compris de l’Espagne, jusque-là bonne élève dans l’accueil des rescapés de la mer mais qui là prôna leur retour dans l’univers carcéral libyen. Ce n’est qu’après la décision du capitaine de faire, malgré tout, route vers l’Espagne, que le navire obtint le transfert des rescapés vers Malte.

      Non-assistance généralisée

      Aujourd’hui s’ouvre une séquence bien plus lourde de menaces. Aux côtés de la délégation du secours en mer aux gardes-côtes libyens, la généralisation de la non-assistance à personnes en danger est revenue en force en Méditerranée. On se souvient, en effet, qu’en 2011, en pleine intervention militaire occidentale en Libye, des dizaines de migrants étaient morts noyés, au terme d’une dérive de plusieurs jours, malgré les survols et observations d’un nombre important d’avions et de bateaux de l’OTAN.

      Ces pratiques de non-assistance ressurgissent : par crainte de ne pas savoir où débarquer leurs rescapés, les navires commerciaux se détournent de leurs routes habituelles, ou s’écartent lorsqu’ils aperçoivent l’embarcation redoutée. Telle est, en tout cas, la teneur des témoignages que nos équipes travaillant en Libye ont recueillis auprès des rescapés du Nivin, un porte-véhicules dont l’histoire raconte l’ensemble des lâchetés des responsables politiques européens et des agences internationales.

      Tous ceux-là avaient, pourtant, affirmé, à un moment ou à un autre, que les migrants interceptés ne sauraient être ramenés en Libye contre leur gré. Ce fut pourtant exactement ce qu’il s’est passé avec le Nivin, duquel les quatre-vingt-quinze rescapés qu’il transportait refusèrent de débarquer au port de Misrata, à l’est de Tripoli. L’occupation du navire se poursuivit une dizaine jours pendant lesquels nos équipes apportèrent de l’aide médicale à bord et constatèrent qu’aucune solution alternative à la remise en détention ne fut sérieusement examinée.

      Elle prit fin lorsque les forces libyennes lancèrent un assaut, au cours duquel une dizaine de personnes furent blessées, dont certaines grièvement. Certains sont aujourd’hui poursuivis par la justice libyenne pour crimes de piraterie. Telle est donc l’alternative pour les migrants de Libye : la folie, la torture, ou la mort. Et pour les marins, fuir leurs obligations ou subir les persécutions européennes.

      Alors que, de part et d’autre de la Méditerranée, les Etats s’arrogent le droit de vie et de mort sur des gens n’ayant pour motivation que celle de rendre leur vie meilleure, nous ne renonçons pas pour autant à porter secours là où nous le pouvons encore, à soutenir les initiatives de secours en mer et participer à en renouveler le modèle. Spectateurs et acteurs lucides, nous ne renonçons pas à contester ces logiques de sacrifice.

      Mego Terzian (Médecin, président de Médecins sans frontières (MSF)) et Michaël Neuman(Directeur d’études à MSF)

      https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/12/07/aquarius-la-non-assistance-a-personnes-en-danger-est-revenue-en-force-en-med

    • Le accuse a Open Arms, ovvero il mondo capovolto.

      Proactiva Open Arms è compagna di viaggio di Mediterranea fin dall’inizio. Insieme noi e a Sea Watch è parte dell’alleanza United4Med: una piattaforma aperta per un’Europa solidale in mare e in terra.
      Ma le ipotesi di reato contenute nell’avviso di conclusione delle indagini preliminari depositate dalla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Ragusa non ci lasciano sgomenti solo perché colpiscono ancora una volta delle persone di cui conosciamo direttamente l’integrità, e perché rilanciano la criminalizzazione del salvataggio della vita umana in mare e del rispetto della dignità delle persone salvate.

      L’accusa di violenza privata, unita a quella del favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione illegale, rappresenta un pericolosissimo uso del diritto che estende all’inverosimile il concetto di violenza, e, rispetto al soggetto offeso che in questo caso sarebbe il Ministero dell’Interno come Istituzione, rappresenta un precedente particolarmente inquietante che potrebbe estendersi praticamente ad ogni azione giuridicamente rilevante. Rimandando per i dettagli all’articolata e preziosa analisi elaborata in merito dal Giudice del Tribunale di Torino Andrea Natale, quello che emerge sempre più chiaramente è che davvero il mondo per come lo conoscevamo appare capovolto.
      Il comandante della nave Proactiva Open Arms, Marc Reig Creus, e la capo missione Ana Isabel Montes avrebbero esercitato violenza privata, disattendendo gli ordini dell’Italia e poi delle autorità libiche di non intervenire, per avere salvato centinaia di persone che stavano rischiando di annegare in mare. Successivamente, quando la cosiddetta guardia libica si è presentata sul posto, la violenza privata sarebbe consistita nel rifiuto di riconsegnare le persone salvate ai libici, ovvero nel fatto di non restituire 216 donne, bambini e giovani uomini alle sevizie e alle torture già subite nei campi della Libia.
      Anabel e Marc avrebbero poi esercitato violenza privata per non aver chiesto a Malta di fornire un porto sicuro, cosa che Malta negli anni precedenti aveva rifiutato sistematicamente di fare, ed essersi diretti verso l’Italia. Il culmine della violenza privata sarebbe stato quindi quello di avere obbligato l’Italia a fornire un porto sicuro di approdo, e quindi di avere costretto il nostro governo a non avere anche questi profughi sulla propria coscienza.
      Cosa ci sia di violento e di privato in tutti questi accadimenti, e come possa un Ministero dell’Interno in quanto Istituzione essere soggetto a violenza privata è qualcosa che davvero appare ad oggi circondata da un alone di mistero, a meno che non si guardi a queste accuse come a ipotesi di reato fortemente ideologiche e orientate da una precisa visione politica.
      Appare già distintamente, a prescindere da quello che accadrà in sede processuale, che il diritto rischia sempre di più di diventare uno strumento di potere che colpisce in maniera arbitraria, paradossalmente, il rispetto del diritto stesso, proprio mentre la violazione dei diritti diventa normale maniera di procedere dei decisori politici europei e italiani innanzitutto. E questa riflessione andrebbe estesa ad ogni ambito e non solo alle politiche migratorie che colpendo le persone rese più vulnerabili sono, come sempre, un campanello d’allarme che ci dice fino a che punto le garanzie di libertà e i diritti di ogni persona siano sempre più messi in discussione.
      Rispettare i diritti umani è un reato, violarli è un merito: c’è ancora qualcuno che crede che questo capovolgimento del mondo vada arrestato prima che travolga tutti? La storia di Mediterranea, la sua comunità di mare e quella sempre più grande di terra ci racconta di sì. E si stringe intorno a Open Arms, Marc e Anabel, ringraziandoli profondamente per ogni singola vita sottratta alla morte e portata in salvo, per tutto il coraggio, per avere difeso da anni la nostra possibilità di essere umani e di immaginare una società più giusta.

      https://mediterranearescue.org/news/accuse-open-arms

    • L’Italie ferme ses ports à un navire d’une ONG et 300 migrants à bord

      Les ports italiens seront fermés aux quelque 310 migrants sauvés en Méditerranée par l’ONG espagnole, Proactiva Open Arms, a déclaré samedi le ministre italien de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, après un premier refus des autorités de Malte.

      « Ma réponse est claire : les ports italiens sont fermés ! », a twitté le ministre d’extrême droite. « Pour les trafiquants d’êtres humains et pour ceux qui les aident, la fête est terminée ».

      M. Salvini a précisé que la demande de l’ONG de permettre l’accès au territoire italien des hommes, femmes, enfants et bébés sauvés vendredi, avait été déposée après une réponse négative de Malte.

      L’ONG a précisé que parmi les migrants, une femme et son bébé, né sur une plage libyenne, ont été emmenés à Malte par un hélicoptère des gardes-côtes.

      « Nous restons avec 311 personnes à bord, sans port où accoster, et avec des besoins », a twitté l’ONG de son côté.

      Proactiva Open Arms a annoncé vendredi avoir secouru près de 300 migrants au large de la Libye, dont des femmes enceintes, qui se trouvaient à bord de trois embarcations.

      L’ONG a posté en ligne une vidéo de certains des migrants secourus « d’une mort certaine en mer ». « Si vous pouviez aussi ressentir le froid, il serait plus facile de comprendre l’urgence. Aucun port pour débarquer, et refus de Malte de nous donner de la nourriture. Ceci n’est pas Noël ».

      Le navire avait repris fin novembre, avec deux autres bateaux d’ONG, ses missions de sauvetage en Méditerranée centrale, au large de la Libye.

      Cet itinéraire de l’immigration clandestine est le plus mortel, avec plus de 1.300 migrants morts en tentant de gagner l’Italie ou Malte depuis le début de l’année, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les Migrations (OIM).

      Les navires humanitaires opèrent dans cette zone malgré l’opposition farouche de M. Salvini, qui leur ferme les ports en les accusant de favoriser les affaires des passeurs, et les réticences de Malte.

      Une autre ONG, l’allemande Sea-Eye, a annoncé vendredi soir le départ, depuis Algésiras dans le sud de l’Espagne, d’un nouveau bateau vers le large des côtes libyennes, le « Professor Albrecht-Penck ».

      Une partie des 18 membres de son équipage sont d’anciens volontaires de l’Aquarius, ce bateau qui avait déclenché l’été dernier une crise diplomatique entre les États européens et mis définitivement à l’arrêt début décembre.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/depeche/litalie-ferme-ses-ports-un-navire-dune-ong-et-300-migrants-bo

    • Sea Watch 3 e Sea Eye: le due navi che nessuno vuole far attraccare

      Le navi delle due Ong vagano da giorni nel Mediterraneo con decine di migranti a bordo, senza un porto sicuro dove approdare e in condizioni sempre più complicate. I sogni delle persone salvate

      32 esseri umani, tra cui 3 minori non accompagnati, 2 bambini piccoli e un neonato, sono da 10 giorni in mare. Sono stati salvati dalla Ong tedesca Sea Watch. A questi si sono aggiunti altre 17 persone salvati da un’altra Ong tedesca, Sea Eye.
      Nessuno li vuole, nessun Paese europeo vuol farsi carico del destino di queste persone. L’Agenzia delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati ha chiesto agli Stati Ue di garantire lo sbarco delle due navi.

      «Non vogliamo che le persone che ci hanno salvato la vita, i nostri fratelli, passino dei guai per averci soccorso in mare», dice Youssef. «Siamo sfuggiti a torture e violenze. Quando abbiamo lasciato la nostra casa abbiamo perso i nostri affetti più cari, e proprio per questi motivi la nostra vita in futuro non potrà che essere migliore», aggiunge Lamin.

      Nonostante tutto, in queste parole c’è speranza. Se i loro nomi sono di fantasia, per proteggerne le identità, i loro sogni, ma anche le loro paure e le loro attese sono autentiche: così come lo sono le loro vite sottratte alla morte dal coraggio dei volontari della nave Sea Watch 3. Da dieci giorni è con queste 32 persone salvate dai marosi che l’equipaggio del comandante Anne Paul Lancet condivide umanità, cibo e riparo: «Durante la notte stiamo stretti sotto coperta, in questo modo tutti quanti possiamo stare all’asciutto ed evitare che qualcuno debba dormire sul ponte esposto alle intemperie», racconta Ayla, uno dei medici a bordo della nave della Ong tedesca.
      «Stamattina ho quasi pianto - aggiunge l’altro medico a bordo - perché tante persone mi pregavano solo di poter contattare le loro famiglie almeno per dire loro che erano al sicuro e stavano arrivando in Europa: volevano solo sentire le voci dei loro cari per qualche secondo. E noi non possiamo far nulla: e se io mi trovassi al loro posto, e se io avessi quegli stessi bisogni e desideri?», si chiede ancora il medico tedesco, guardando fuori l’orizzonte.
      L’inverno e il mare alto non perdonano, le temperature sono rigide e i rischi per l’incolumità delle 54 persone che si trovano sulla nave Sea Watch non dovrebbero venire sottovalutati. Al tavolo della politica europea, però, lontano dalle onde alte due metri, non si è ancora presa alcuna decisione sulla sicurezza di queste persone, tenute in “ostaggio” senza l’indicazione di un porto sicuro di approdo.
      Malta, Italia, Spagna, Germania e Olanda hanno rifiutato nei giorni scorsi di aiutarli e a bordo della Sea Watch 3 così come della Sea Eye si sta vivendo un’altra odissea umanitaria: molto simile nelle modalità alle crisi che avevano tenuto in scacco in estate le navi Aquarius, Open Arms e Lifeline delle ong internazionali, e i pescherecci Sarost5 e Nuestra Madre de Loreto che dovettero attendere giorni e giorni prima di potersi mettere al riparo in porto. E perfino della Diciotti, la nave della Guardia Costiera Italiana, costretta a navigare da Lampedusa a Catania e infine rimasta bloccata nel porto etneo in attesa che dal Viminale arrivasse l’ok allo sbarco dei migranti, in gran parte profughi di guerra dal Corno d’Africa.

      La situazione a bordo della Sea Watch inizia a farsi proibitiva, anche a causa del peggioramento delle condizioni meteo: «Non abbiamo problemi con il carburante - rassicura il capitano - ma lentamente stiamo esaurendo le provviste di cibo fresco e di sicuro nelle prossime settimane, pur cercando a bordo di sprecare meno acqua possibile, avremo problemi ad avere acqua a disposizione a causa del nostro sistema di filtraggio».
      «Ma perché non ci permettono di entrare in Europa?», chiede Amina che ha 31 anni e viene dal Sudan: lei è la portavoce dei sogni di tanti dei suoi compagni di sventura, ma riesce anche a dare voce all’interrogativo di tantissimi soccorritori che in mare hanno speso le loro vite per salvarne altre. «Oramai è diventato sempre più difficile spiegare alle persone che abbiamo tratto in salvo e con cui stiamo condividendo tantissime emozioni contrastanti e ore infinite di attesa, che dobbiamo restare in mare un giorno in più, perché dall’Europa non riceviamo indicazioni per un porto sicuro», spiega ancora Ayla, la dottoressa olandese, convinta che «i Paesi europei abbiano scelto finora di non assumersi la responsabilità delle vite delle persone in gioco sul confine mortale dell’Europa».
      Come abbiamo raccontato su Avvenire, Amina e le altre 31 persone sono state salvate dalla Sea Watch 3 lo scorso 22 dicembre grazie alla collaborazione con la ong Pilotes Volontaires che sorvola i cieli con l’obiettivo di avvistare gommoni e imbarcazioni in emergenza. Da allora e in attesa di ricevere indicazioni per approdare sulla terraferma l’equipaggio del capitano Lancet non si è arreso e - sostenuto anche dalle persone salvate «Sono qui per aiutare», ha detto subito Youssef mettendosi a disposizione del comandante - ha continuato a pattugliare la zona di search and rescue (Sar) libica, rispondendo alle chiamate di soccorso. Così era accaduto per le 75 persone che erano a bordo di un gommone pochi giorni fa, ma di cui non si sono più avuto notizie, probabilmente perché ingoiati dal mare o ripresi da una motovedetta libica che li ha riportati nei campi di detenzione.

      «Ho davvero paura di tornare in Libia, ho provato a scappare due volte senza riuscirci - ha raccontato ancora Amina lasciando uscire le parole con lentezza -. Quello che ho passato è stato terribile», così tanto da non riuscire quasi più a parlarne, come accade spesso con i traumi più violenti. «Avevamo molta paura quando eravamo sul gommone. Non abbiamo usato il telefono satellitare per il terrore di essere localizzati e ripresi dai libici - ha aggiunto Youssef -. Grazie a Dio siamo stati molto fortunati e i nostri fratelli ci hanno salvati. E ora possiamo prepararci a scoprire quello che sarà il nostro futuro in Europa».

      I bambini provano a raccontare i loro giorni più tristi e le paure attraverso i disegni. Uno di loro ha riportato su carta tre momenti: la vista del barcone su cui sarebbero saltati per lasciarsi alla spalle l’inferno libico, poi il gommone che si sgonfia, mentre i 32 temevano di perdere la vita, e infine la visione della Sea Watch 3, l’unico soggetto disegnato completamente a colori. Un passaggio, dal bianco e nero del gommone alla vivacità della nave di salvataggio, che da solo spiega i timori e le speranze di chi adesso, finalmente al sicuro, non si spiega il perché delle porte chiuse.
      Un sogno e un desiderio, quello dell’Europa, che emerge ancora dalle parole straziate dal dolore di Amina: «Noi donne dobbiamo essere forti – si lascia andare la donna, mentre i medici di bordo le prestano le cure –. Soprattutto possiamo essere libere in Europa. Lì possiamo vivere la nostra vita, ecco perché voglio raggiungerla». Quell’Europa che però sembra aver voltato loro le spalle.

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-migranti-bloccati-in-mare

    • E LA NAVE VA… È piena di naufraghi nessun porto la vuole

      Da dieci giorni in mare decine di profughi e nessuno li vuole

      C’è un bambino appena nato che ha trascorso la notte di Capodanno in mezzo al mare. Al largo di Malta. Le autorità europee hanno deciso che è bene così. Che se l’è meritata. Insieme a quel bambino ci sono due ragazzini un po’ più grandi, tre quattr’anni, altri tre adolescenti senza genitori, e poi ancora 26 adulti, tutti africani, tutti in fuga dalla guerra, scappati dai campi di prigionia in Libia. Stavano su un gommone il 22 dicembre, volevano arrivare in Sicilia, ma il gommone ha iniziato a sgonfiarsi, le onde erano alte, il vento gelido, e loro pensavano di essere a pochi minuti dalla morte. Poi li ha avvistati un piccolo aereo da ricognizione di una Ong tedesca, Dio lo benedica, ed ha lanciato la esseoesse ad una imbarcazione sempre della stessa Ong tedesca, la Sea Watch. L’aereo ha fornito al comandante della Sea Watch le coordinate del gommone, e la Sea Watch ha raggiunto i naufraghi in tempo. Li hanno fatti salire a bordo, li hanno asciugati, riscaldati, hanno dato loro da mangiare. Il bimbo neonato ha smesso di piangere. I 31 naufraghi hanno ringraziato il personale tedesco e olandese a bordo, erano commossi, non si aspettavano più di poter sopravvivere.

      Hanno raccontato a Ilaria Solaini, che è una giornalista inviata dell’Avvenire, i loro sentimenti, il terrore di morire o di finire nel lager libici. Hanno detto che avrebbero voluto poter parlare un minuto solo, al telefono, con i loro cari lasciati a casa. Ma non hanno potuto. Hanno chiesto di poter sbarcare in un porto europeo. Malta, Spagna e poi Italia hanno risposto con un no secco. Hanno detto che loro devono difendere i confini. Anche Germania e Olanda – che non dispongono di porti ( né di confini) nel Mediterraneo – hanno detto di no. Le onde da qualche ora si sono fatte più alte. Il meteo dice che da stanotte si va sottozero. Di acqua non ce n’è tantissima. Di cibo poco. I medici a bordo della nave temono che possano apparire delle malattie. I marinai temono che il mare possa alzarsi molto. Gli ausiliari temono il freddo. Fin qui sono riusciti a far dormire tutti, di notte, sottocoperta. Anche sottocoperta però, se si va sottozero, diventa dura. Intanto un’altra imbarcazione di una Ong tedesca, la See Eye, ha raccolto altri 17 naufraghi. Anche loro sono stati rifiutati da tutti i porti europei. Qui non c’è posto, hanno detto. Tornate in Libia. Buona Fortuna.

      L’altro giorno la Sea Watch ha ricevuto una richiesta di soccorso di un altro gommone ancora. Lo ha avvistato sempre l’aereo di ricognizione. Dall’aereo hanno detto che a bordo c’erano circa 75 persone. E hanno fornito alla Sea Watch, di nuovo, le coordinate. La Sea Watch però non ha trovato il gommone. Neanche l’aereo lo ha più visto. Spariti. Nella migliore delle ipotesi sono stati catturati dai libici, e portati in un lager sulla costa. Nella peggiore se li è mangiati il mare.

      E’ vero, i confini ora sono ben difesi. E i caduti tra le fila dei nemici aumentano a vista d’occhio. La vittoria è vicina. Vabbè, diciamo che comunque 32, più 17, più una ventina di persone di equipaggio, tra marinai, medici e ausiliari, in tutto fa un po’ meno di settanta persone. Cosa volete che sia se 70 persone passano il Capodanno in mare per decisione delle autorità europee. Con tutto quello che succede nel mondo volete scandalizzarvi per così poco?

      Facevo un po’ di conti. Se non calcoliamo i soccorritori, che comunque poi se ne torneranno a casa loro, si tratta di 48 persone più un neonato di un paio di chili. L’Europa comunitaria, secondo le statistiche ufficiali, ha 503 milioni, 679 mila e 730 abitanti. Voi dite che se ospita anche questi 48, più un neonato, scoppia? O dite che i suoi 15 mila 326 miliardi di Pil annuo potrebbero andare dispersi nel soccorrere questi 49 disperati?

      Eppure è così. Talvolta la politica è esattamente così. Succede che sia la ragion di Stato a prevalere sul senso di umanità. Succede spesso. Stavolta la ragion di stato non c’entra niente. C’entrano solo i calcoli politici dei leader europei. Quanto potranno costare 49 naufraghi? Qualche migliaia di euro, che sono niente per gli Stati. E diverse migliaia, o centinaia di migliaia di voti: che sono molto, molto per i partiti.

      P. S. Inizia così la dichiarazione dei diritti universali dell’uomo, redatta dall’Onu 70 anni fa: «Considerato che il riconoscimento della dignità inerente a tutti i membri della famiglia umana e dei loro diritti, uguali ed inalienabili, costituisce il fondamento della libertà, della giustizia e della pace nel mondo; Considerato che il disconoscimento e il disprezzo dei diritti umani hanno portato ad atti di barbarie che offendono la coscienza dell’umanità…» . Poi c’è l’articolo 13 che dice così: «Ogni individuo ha diritto alla libertà di movimento e di residenza entro i confini di ogni Stato. Ogni individuo ha diritto di lasciare qualsiasi paese, incluso il proprio, e di ritornare nel proprio paese».

      E infine l’articolo 14, che si potrebbe anche imparare a memoria, perché è molto breve: «Ogni individuo ha il diritto di cercare e di godere in altri paesi asilo dalle persecuzioni». Chissà se i governanti di Germania, Olanda, Spagna, Malta e Italia hanno mai letto questi articoli. Si potrebbe proporre agli Stati europei di chiedere a chiunque entri in un governo della Ue di superare un esamino nel quale dimostra di conoscere la dichiarazione dei diritti dell’Uomo…

      http://ildubbio.news/ildubbio/2019/01/02/e-la-nave-va-e-piena-di-naufraghi-nessun-porto-la-vuole

    • Le Sea Watch 3, avec à bord 32 migrants depuis le 22 décembre, a été autorisé par les autorités maltaises à pénétrer dans ses eaux territoriales, pour s’abriter de la très menaçante météo. Mais ni accostage, ni soins ni accueil

      Un bateau de l’alliance #United4Med (Sea Watch et Mediterranea) a rejoint aujourd’hui (4/1/19) SeaWatch3. A bord le témoignage d’Alessandra Sciurba (Mediterranea) :
      https://www.instagram.com/p/BsNom3NCA1X

    • Un nouveau bateau de sauvetage affrété par la société civile basque et andalouse

      Le 14 ou le 15 janvier, partira de Pasaia, port basque, l’ex-chalutier l’#Aita_Mari, pour secourir en Méditerranée les personnes fuyant la Libye.
      Il fera escale le 16 janvier à Bilbao, passera par Barcelone puis par Majorque - avant de rejoindre les eaux au large de la Libye.
      Ce bateau a été acheté, dans cet objectif, par le gouvernement basque et remis en état par la société civile.
      Le projet est soutenu par deux associations, une basque et une andalouse.
      Les rescapés à bord, le bateau tentera d’accoster à Malte ou en Italie, mais aura toujours la possibilité, en cas de refus, de faire route vers un port espagnol, puisqu’il navigue sous pavillon espagnol.
      A son bord, sept bénévoles, 5 secouristes, 2 médecins.
      Il y aussi un mécanicien et un cuisinier.
      Et les deux capitaines, celui du bateau, et celui des secours.
      Une cabine est prévue pour un.e journaliste.
      L’équipe communiquera régulièrement et aura besoin de relai.

      Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • EU nations deadlocked on rescued migrants

      Nearly 50 migrants rescued in the Mediterranean by two ships run by rights groups are still looking for countries to take them in, one of the groups told AFP Saturday.

      “The situation is still the same,” a spokeswoman for one of the groups, Sea Watch, said.

      Their vessel, Sea Watch 3, was sheltering from stormy weather off the coast of Malta, which like Italy, has refused to allow the boat into port.

      It has had 32 migrants on board, three of them children, since rescuing them on December 22.

      A one-year-old baby and two children, aged six and seven, “are vomiting continuously and are at risk of hypothermia and dehydration,” Alessandro Metz of rights group Mediterranean wrote on Twitter Friday.

      The German NGO Sea-Eye also has a ship stranded in the Mediterranean with 17 migrants on board.


      https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-nations-deadlocked-on-rescued-migrants-1.809725

    • Ecco la diffida al governo per accogliere i 49 migranti bloccati in mare

      Azione di cittadinanza attiva in almeno 90 Province italiane: «Abbiamo consegnato in Prefettura un documento che obbliga le autorità ad adempiere alle leggi di soccorso di mare», spiega Antonio Nigro del movimento Move to resist, che ha mutuato il testo diffuso da Possibile

      http://www.vita.it/it/article/2019/01/07/ecco-la-diffida-al-governo-per-accogliere-i-49-migranti-bloccati-in-ma/150262

    • “La Chiesa accoglierà i migranti della Sea Watch”

      L’annuncio di Nosiglia durante la festa dei Popoli: un gesto simbolico ma concreto.
      «Voglio dichiarare la disponibilità della Chiesa torinese ad accogliere alcune delle famiglie che si trovano a bordo delle navi Sea Watch 3 e Sea Eye». Lo ha annunciato l’arcivescovo di Torino, monsignor Cesare Nosiglia, oggi alla chiesa del Santo Volto, durante l’omelia nella Festa dei Popoli. «La nostra Chiesa, come si ricorderà - ha aggiunto Nosiglia - aveva già offerto questa disponibilità per i profughi della nave Diciotti, nel settembre scorso».


      https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/06/cronaca/la-chiesa-accoglier-i-migranti-della-sea-watch-8uxIAoytx33U6r7hjA65UN/pagina.html

    • #Diaconia_Valdese e #FCEI pronti all’accompagnamento dei profughi della Sea-Watch
      Chiese evangeliche. “Il nostro sostegno alle ONG perché il soccorso in mare e l’accoglienza a terra sono un dovere umanitario. Per noi è anche la testimonianza dell’amore di Cristo”. FCEI e Diaconia valdese pronti all’accompagnamento e all’accoglienza dei 49 profughi della Sea-Watch e della Sea eye.

      “Confermiamo il nostro sostegno alle ONG che svolgono azioni di soccorso in mare e ci rendiamo disponibili a sostenere il trasferimento e l’accoglienza dei migranti salvati dalla Sea-Watch e dalla Sea eye”. Lo affermano congiuntamente il Presidente della Federazione delle chiese evangeliche in Italia, past. Luca M. Negro, e il Presidente della Diaconia Valdese, Giovanni Comba. “Come FCEI siamo impegnati in un partenariato con Open Arms, la ONG che nei giorni scorsi ha salvato oltre trecento persone in mare – aggiunge Negro – e oggi sentiamo nostro dovere esprimere il sostegno attivo alla altre navi impegnate in azioni di soccorso che da giorni aspettano un porto sicuro in cui attraccare”. E infatti la vicepresidente della FCEI, Christiane Groeben, oggi 4 gennaio parteciperà alla delegazione di politici, esponenti della società civile e del volontariato che saliranno a bordo della Sea-Watch per chiedere con forza una rapida soluzione a quella che rischia di diventare una drammatica violazione del diritto alla protezione internazionale. “Stiamo lavorando con i nostri partner per costruire un corridoio europeo e la città di Heidelberg e le sue chiese hanno già manifestato la loro disponibilità all’accoglienza. Siamo pronti a farci carico del trasporto dei migranti nella loro destinazione finale e a collaborare per la loro accoglienza" aggiunge il presidente Comba.

      https://www.diaconiavaldese.org/csd/news/diaconia-valdese-e-fcei-pronti-all-accompagnamento-e-all-accoglienz

    • #Malte profite de l’urgence pour se délester de 220 migrants

      Le Premier ministre maltais a annoncé un accord pour le débarquement des 49 migrants bloqués sur deux navires d’ONG allemandes et leur répartition dans huit pays européens. Il se débarrasse en passant de 220 migrants déjà accueillis à Malte.

      Les 49 migrants coincés depuis parfois plus de deux semaines en mer avaient été secourus dans les eaux internationales au large de la Libye, le 22 décembre par l’ONG Sea-Watch pour 32 d’entre eux, et le 29 décembre par l’ONG Sea-Eye pour les 17 autres.

      Les pays européens se sont finalement mis d’accord pour les secourir. Ils doivent être transférés « dès que possible » sur des vedettes de la marine maltaise, qui les conduiront à La Valette. Ensuite, Malte a prié les navires des deux ONG de s’éloigner « immédiatement ».

      Les deux navires avaient été autorisés il y a une semaine à s’abriter du mauvais temps dans les eaux maltaises, mais l’accord en vue d’un débarquement des migrants a pris du temps parce que Malte exigeait d’y inclure 249 autres migrants que ce petit pays méditerranéen avait secourus et accueillis ces derniers jours.

      « Un accord ad hoc a été trouvé. Sur les 249 (migrants) présents à Malte et les 49 à bord (des navires de) Sea-Watch and Sea-Eye, 220 personnes seront redistribuées dans d’autres pays membres ou rentreront dans leur pays d’origine », a déclaré Joseph Muscat au cours d’une conférence de presse à Malte.

      Les migrants seront répartis entre l’Allemagne, la France, le Portugal, l’Irlande, la Roumanie, le Luxembourg, les Pays-Bas et l’Italie, a précisé Joseph Muscat.

      Parallèlement, 44 Bangladais du groupe des migrants déjà présents à Malte seront renvoyés dans leur pays, La Valette estimant qu’ils n’ont pas de raison d’y demander l’asile. Au final, 78 des migrants du premier groupe resteront à Malte, le plus petit pays de l’UE avec 450 000 habitants.

      « Malte n’a jamais fermé ses ports et reste un port sûr. Nous voulons simplement que tous respectent les règles internationales que nous n’avons pas créées, nous », a assuré le Premier ministre, malgré l’interdiction jusqu’ici exprimée.

      « Un signe de faiblesse »

      « Nous voulions faire passer un message politique fort, à savoir que le fardeau devait être partagé car il s’agit d’un problème européen. Il ne s’agit pas d’un discours contre les ONG, nous voulons simplement que tous suivent les règles », a insisté le Maltais.

      « Chaque heure passée sans règlement n’était pas une heure dont j’étais fier », a-t-il ajouté, en regrettant que la solution n’implique que quelques pays et non l’ensemble de l’UE.

      Redoutant de voir les arrivées dans ses eaux se multiplier à l’avenir maintenant que les navires de secours plus au sud se sont raréfiés, Malte avait plaidé pour une solution « complète et globale ».

      « Malte est un très petit pays et il est dans notre nature d’aider les personnes en détresse, mais en tant que Premier ministre, je ne peux pas me soustraire à la responsabilité de préserver notre sécurité et nos intérêts nationaux », a expliqué Joseph Muscat, répétant que le présent accord ne constituait pas « un précédent ».

      Le commissaire européen chargé des migrations, Dimitris Avramopoulos, s’est réjoui qu’une solution ait été trouvée pour permettre aux migrants de débarquer et a salué le geste de solidarité de Malte et des États membres.

      En Italie, la question faisait encore débat : le ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini s’oppose farouchement à tout débarquement, mais le chef du gouvernement Giuseppe Conte s’est dit prêt à aller chercher les migrants « en avion ».

      « À Bruxelles, ils font semblant de ne rien comprendre et facilitent le travail des passeurs et des ONG. Je suis et je resterai absolument opposé à de nouvelles arrivées en Italie », a réagi Matteo Salvini, également patron de la Ligue (extrême droite), dans un communiqué.

      « Céder aux pressions et aux menaces de l’Europe et des ONG est un signe de faiblesse que les Italiens ne mérite pas », a ajouté le ministre, qui a lancé mardi soir sur Twitter le mot d’ordre #SalviniNonMollare (« Salvini tiens bon »), parmi les plus partagés depuis en Italie.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/malte-profite-de-lurgence-pour-se-delester-de-220-migrants

    • Migranti, anche in Spagna stretta sulle Ong: Open Arms bloccata a Barcellona

      Dopo aver fatto sbarcare ad #Algeciras 311 migranti il 28 dicembre scorso, la nave sarebbe dovuta ripartire l’8 gennaio per una nuova missione. Ma le autorità hanno negato l’autorizzazione: così nel Mediterraneo centrale non ci sono più imbarcazioni delle organizzazioni per il salvataggio

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/01/14/news/migranti_open_arms_bloccata_in_spagna-216523058

    • "Je ne pourrai bientôt plus parler, je gèle" : faute de secours, 100 migrants ont passé plus de 12 heures en mer

      Pendant plus de 12h, la plateforme téléphonique Alarm Phone a alerté dimanche les autorités italiennes, maltaises et libyennes sur une embarcation en détresse au large de la Libye. Rome et La Valette ont, toute la journée, renvoyé la responsabilité à Tripoli qui a finalement coordonné le secours de ce canot en envoyant un navire marchand, plus de 12h après la première alerte.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/14641/je-ne-pourrai-bientot-plus-parler-je-gele-faute-de-secours-100-migrant

    • Navire Sea-Watch bloqué en Méditerranée : « La mer est agitée et certains migrants sont malades »

      Après avoir été bloqué deux semaines début janvier en Méditerranée dans l’attente d’être accepté par un port européen, le navire humanitaire Sea-Watch erre une nouvelle fois en mer depuis son dernier sauvetage. Cinq jours se sont déjà écoulés, avec 47 migrants rescapés à bord dont huit enfants, et aucun signe encourageant de la part des pays européens.

      L’histoire se répète. L’ONG allemande Sea Watch, dont le navire humanitaire a secouru le 19 janvier dernier 47 personnes qui se trouvaient à bord d’un bateau pneumatique, attend depuis maintenant cinq jours l’autorisation d’accoster en Europe. Lors d’une précédente opération de sauvetage, le même navire avait erré deux semaines en mer avant d’être autorisé à débarquer ses rescapés à Malte le 9 janvier dernier. Un épisode qualifié de “record de la honte” par plusieurs ONG.

      L’équipage et les passagers actuellement à bord sont “assez stressés”, confie une porte-parole de Sea Watch contactée par InfoMigrants. “La nuit a été difficile. La mer est agitée et certains sont malades”, poursuit-elle, précisant que le groupe compte huit mineurs non-accompagnés et neuf nationalités différentes : Guinée, Sénégal, Guinée-Bissau, Mali, Sierra Leone, Centrafrique, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambie et Soudan.

      "Une fois de plus, nous sommes à la merci des autorités"

      “Aucun État n’a encore répondu à nos requêtes pour un port sûr”, déplore l’ONG sur Twitter, estimant que “l’Union européenne empêche le dernier navire humanitaire de travailler, alors que des centaines de personnes meurent en Méditerranée”.

      Les 47 migrants actuellement à bord du Sea-Watch ont été pris en charge après qu’Alarm Phone et l’avion de repérage Moonbird ont donné l’alerte. “Juste après le sauvetage, nous avons informé le MRCC de Rome puisque le port sûr le plus proche de notre position était celui de Lampedusa. Ils nous ont renvoyés vers les garde-côtes libyens. Nous avons essayé de les joindre, en vain. Nous ne savons même pas s’ils lisent nos emails”, explique la porte-parole de l’ONG jointe par InfoMigrants.

      Dans l’impasse, l’équipage du Sea-Watch s’est donc tourné vers le MRCC de Malte puis celui de Den Helder, au Pays-Bas puisque le navire humanitaire bat pavillon néerlandais. “Tous les deux ont décliné toute responsabilité. Nous avons demandé un port sûr à plusieurs reprises à tous ces interlocuteurs, mais nous sommes une fois de plus à la merci des autorités, dans l’attente d’un ordre de leur part”, affirme-t-elle.

      "La détresse des migrants comme outil de chantage politique"

      Dix jours avant ce nouveau sauvetage, le Sea-Watch et un autre navire humanitaire, le Sea-Eye, avaient finalement pu débarquer 49 migrants à Malte après plus de deux semaines d’errance en Méditerranée. Une période particulièrement difficile, les installations à bord des navires humanitaires ne permettant pas d’héberger durablement autant de personnes et les conditions météorologiques rendant la vie à bord très pénible.

      Malgré les demandes répétées des ONG, pendant 19 jours, le gouvernement maltais avait refusé de laisser débarquer dans son port ces 49 migrants : 32 secourus au large de la Libye le 22 décembre par le Sea-Watch et 17 autres sauvés le 29 décembre par le Sea-Eye.

      Redoutant de voir les arrivées dans ses eaux se multiplier et de devenir la principale porte d’entrée des migrants en Europe – l’Italie ayant fermé ses ports aux navires humanitaires – Malte a finalement négocié avec plusieurs pays européens un accord de répartition des 49 migrants ainsi que 249 autres recueillis quelques jours plus tôt par les autorités maltaises.

      "Nous voulions faire passer un message politique fort, à savoir que le fardeau devait être partagé car il s’agit d’un problème européen. Il ne s’agit pas d’un discours contre les ONG, nous voulons simplement que tous suivent les règles", avait déclaré le Premier ministre maltais Joseph Muscat au moment où l’accord a été trouvé.

      Mais Sea Watch ne l’entend pas de la sorte. “Nous ne pouvons pas nous retrouver encore dans cette impasse, c’était trop difficile la dernière fois pour notre équipage comme pour les rescapés. Il est inacceptable que les gouvernements européens utilisent des personnes en détresse comme outils de chantage dans leurs luttes de pouvoir”, conclut la porte-parole.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/14700/navire-sea-watch-bloque-en-mediterranee-la-mer-est-agitee-et-certains-

    • Dutch refuse Italian request to accept 47 migrants on rescue ship: government

      The Netherlands refused on Monday an Italian request to take in 47 migrants on a humanitarian ship that is being blocked from Italian ports, saying there was a need to distinguish between genuine refugees and economic migrants.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-italy-netherlands/dutch-refuse-italian-request-to-accept-47-migrants-on-rescue-ship-governmen
      #Pays-Bas #tri #catégorisation

      Dans l’article on parle de:
      #genuine_refugees and #economic_migrants
      #terminologie #mots #vocabulaire

      v. aussi le tweet de Sea Watch:
      Le comunicazioni intercorse tra #SeaWatch e l’Olanda per la richiesta di porto rifugio (POR).
      https://twitter.com/SeaWatchItaly/status/1089815346113069057

    • Caso Sea Watch. Il Garante, Mauro Palma: “E’ illecita detenzione”

      Inviata informativa alla Procura di Siracusa e richiesto al Ministro dei trasporti Toninelli di consentire urgentemente lo sbarco: «Le persone sono la nostra giurisdizione, anche se con bandiera straniera». Intanto 50 organizzazioni scrivono al premier Conte: «Sbarco Immediato». E il Cnca si dice disponibile ad accogliere i migranti nelle sue strutture

      http://www.agenzia.redattoresociale.it/Notiziario/Articolo/617603/Caso-Sea-Watch-Il-Garante-Mauro-Palma-E-illecita-detenzione

    • Les migrants du Sea-Watch 3 vont pouvoir débarquer grâce à un accord entre sept pays européens

      L’Italie a annoncé un accord avec six autres pays européens pour répartir les 47 migrants bloqués depuis 12 jours en mer sur le Sea-Watch. Le navire est attendu dans la nuit au port de Catane, dans l’est de la Sicile.

      Les 47 migrants bloqués depuis près de deux semaines à bord du Sea-Watch 3 au large de la Sicile vont pouvoir débarquer grâce à un accord conclu mercredi 30 janvier entre l’Italie et six autres pays européens pour répartir les migrants.

      Le Sea-Watch 3, qui se trouvait depuis vendredi au large du port sicilien de Syracuse pour s’abriter du mauvais temps, « a reçu l’instruction de se diriger vers le port de Catane », environ 70 km plus au nord, où il est attendu dans la nuit, a annoncé une source ministérielle italienne.

      A la mi-journée, le chef du gouvernement italien, Giuseppe Conte, avait annoncé que les opérations de débarquement allaient débuter « dans les prochaines heures ». Les six pays avec laquelle l’Italie a conclu un accord sont la France, le Portugal, l’Allemagne, Malte, le Luxembourg et la Roumanie. Il n’était pas clair si l’Italie elle-même garderait une partie des migrants. Giuseppe Conte l’a laissé entendre mais son ministre de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, qui s’y est toujours opposé de manière catégorique, ne l’a pas confirmé.

      « Prise d’otages européenne »

      « Nous sommes heureux que cette prise d’otages européenne prenne fin », a déclaré le porte-parole de Sea-Watch, Ruben Neugebauer. « En même temps, c’est un mauvais jour pour l’Europe car les droits humains ont une fois de plus été subordonnés à des négociations au sein de l’UE. Encore un jour amer », a-t-il ajouté.

      Depuis des mois, diplomates européens et humanitaires réclament un mécanisme permanent de répartition des migrants secourus en mer pour leur épargner les interminables discussions au cas par cas.

      Mais les cas pourraient devenir de plus en plus rares avec le blocage progressif des navires humanitaires privés, comme l’Aquarius de SOS Méditerranée et Médecins sans frontières (MSF) ou l’Open Arms de l’ONG espagnole Proactiva Open Arms.

      Le choix d’envoyer à Catane le Sea-Watch 3, affrété par l’ONG allemande Sea-Watch et battant pavillon néerlandais, semble répondre au souhait formulé par M. Salvini de voir la justice enquêter sur les activités de l’équipage.

      Le gouvernement italien lui reproche de ne pas avoir laissé les garde-côtes libyens se charger des migrants, puis de s’être précipité vers l’Italie plutôt que de chercher refuge sur la côte tunisienne, qui était beaucoup plus proche. Mais l’ONG assure n’avoir jamais reçu de réponse de Tripoli ni de Tunis.

      Le procureur de Syracuse, Fabio Scavone, a estimé lundi que le commandant du Sea-Watch n’avait « commis aucun délit » et avait seulement « sauvé les migrants et choisi la route qui semblait la plus sûre sur le moment ».

      Mais à Catane, le procureur Carmelo Zuccaro s’est montré particulièrement incisif contre les ONG depuis deux ans. En mars 2018, il avait obtenu le placement sous séquestre de l’Open Arms dans le cadre d’une enquête pour aide à l’immigration clandestine contre les responsables du bateau qui avaient refusé de remettre des migrants secourus aux garde-côtes libyens.

      La source au ministère de l’Intérieur a expliqué que Catane avait été choisie parce qu’elle compte des centres pour l’accueil des 13 adolescents du groupe. Les migrants majeurs seront conduits dans un centre d’identification et de premier accueil à Messine, également en Sicile.

      « Mission accomplie ! », s’est réjoui M. Salvini mercredi. « Encore une fois (...), l’Europe a été contrainte à intervenir et à prendre ses responsabilités ».

      https://www.france24.com/fr/20190130-migrants-sea-watch-italie-catane-salvini-accord-europeen

    • No more civilian rescue boats off Libyan coast

      The civilian rescue vessel Sea Watch 3, which was detained in Italy on Friday, is the latest of such boats to stop operations in the central Mediterranean. Now, only the Libyan Coast Guard is able to save migrants risking their lives at sea in an attempt to reach Europe from North Africa.

      The main non-government organizations rescuing migrants off the coast of Libya stopped their efforts in mid-2017, mainly because of increased threats from the Libyan Coast Guard. The news agency AFP compiled this update on migrant rescue organizations and their activities:

      The Maltese aid group MOAS, which was the first to carry out migrant rescue operations in 2014 and had deployed two vessels, transferred its activities to helping the Rohingya in Bangladesh in September 2017.

      At about the same time, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) ended its operations with the Vos Prudence, the biggest private boat deployed off Libya with a record 1,500 people rescued at the same time.

      Save the Children ended its search and rescue operations with the Vos Hestia in October 2017.

      In August 2017, Italian authorities impounded the Juventa, operated by small German aid group Jugend Rettet, after it was accused of helping Libyan human traffickers. Jugend Rettet has denied the charge.

      The Lifeline rescue vessel, operated by a German aid group of the same name, was impounded on arrival in Valletta, Malta, in June 2018, for alleged registration issues.

      The aid groups SOS Mediterranee and MSF stopped search and rescue operations with the Aquarius in December 2018 after it was stuck in a French port for two months following the revocation of its registration.

      In January 2019, Spanish authorities refused to allow the Open Arms ship to leave Barcelona harbor. In early 2018 the boat, operated by the Spanish NGO Proactiva Open Arms, was impounded for a month by Italy. It was then forced to take rescued migrants to Spain several times after Malta and Italy refused to allow them to disembark.

      The Sea Eye charity from Germany had several vessels impounded during 2018 but deployed another ship, the Professor Albrecht Penck, in December, rescuing 12 migrants. The boat is currently in Majorca and plans to set sail again in around two weeks, according to AFP.

      SOS Mediterranee has said it is looking for another boat and flag so it can continue search and rescue operations.

      In Italy a collective of associations launched the Mediterranea, flying an Italian flag, mainly to witness the situation for migrants off Libya.

      There are also two light aircraft which overfly the Mediterranean trying to identify and locate boats in trouble: the Colibri operated by French aid group Pilotes Volontaires, and the Moonbird operated by Sea Watch.


      http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/14966/no-more-civilian-rescue-boats-off-libyan-coast
      #the_end

    • Sea Watch 3 still held in Catania, despite rescue vessel vacuum in the Mediterranean

      The crew of the migrant rescue vessel Sea Watch 3 are ready to continue life saving operations in the central Mediterranean but the vessel remains without permission to leave from Catania harbour, the NGO said yesterday.

      With NGO vessels being barred from leaving ports and coast guard and navy ships withdrawn from the area, it is not known how many attempted crossings there have been over the past week.

      The Sea-Watch 3 vessel remains unable to leave Catania under orders of the port authority and is barred from performing essential search and rescue activities in the Central Mediterranean Sea.

      The vessel was recently caught up in another migrant stand-off between Malta and Sicily and was eventually allowed to disembark the migrants it had rescued in Catania.

      However, the vessel has not been allowed to leave, in what is reminiscent of the time it spent impounded in Malta during the summer of 2018.

      Earlier this year, the vessel, along with another ship operated by the Sea-Eye NGO, was left stranded off the coast of Malta for over two weeks.

      The rescued migrants were eventually disembarked in Malta after an agreement was reached between several member states. The vessels were then ordered to leave Maltese waters, with permission for a crew change reportedly denied.

      Maltese national Danny Mainwaring is among the crew members currently stuck on the Sea Watch in the port of Catania.

      In comments to The Malta Independent, Sea Watch said: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Catania stated that Sea-Watch and the crew of its last mission have committed no criminal offence and that all their actions in the rescue of 19 January were justified, as the vessel and her crew saved the lives of 47 people whose boat was bound to sink.

      “That mission culminated in a stand-off that saw vulnerable people stranded at sea on the coast of Syracuse as European leaders failed to provide a port of safety in a timely manner. Despite the public acknowledgement that Sea-Watch conducted itself within the law, the vessel remains barred from departing on technical grounds and awaits a visit from the Dutch flag state requested by the Italian Coast Guard.

      “The Sea-Watch 3 passed a flag state inspection in the summer of 2018, which also confirmed its correct registration. We find ourselves in a scenario reminiscent to that which unfolded in Malta that same summer, when the vessel was kept from leaving port for over four months while a record number of people drowned at sea.

      “EU governments have unanimously adopted a policy of attempting to criminalize sea rescue NGOs and instead finance, train and provide logistical support to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard.

      “Despite the fact that Libya remains in a state of civil war and migrants and refugees face well documented human rights abuses in its detention facilities, the EU is outsourcing a policy of forced return to the so-called Libyan Coast Guard in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

      “This principle, enshrined in international law, prohibits governments from returning asylum seekers to a country in which they face a well-founded fear of persecution, and inhumane and degrading treatment.

      “With many national coast guard and navy assets withdrawn from the Central Mediterranean and no NGO vessels currently at sea, it is not known how many attempted crossings there have been over the past week. With absolute numbers of crossings declining but the death rate rising, one can only conclude that Europe has strayed from the spirit of cooperation and respect for human rights that it was founded on; the same spirit that breathed life into Operation Sophia when mass drownings alarmed the continent and the world in May 2015.

      “The Sea-Watch 3 and her crew are ready to sail and perform the essential life saving duties for which the organisation has been lauded across the world.

      “European governments must meet their responsibilities towards those in distress both at sea and on land. Rather than criminalize rescue NGOs, who are upholding this responsibility in Europe’s stead, governments must seek sustainable solutions while cooperating with NGOs and opening their ports to people rescued at sea.”


      http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2019-02-11/local-news/Sea-Watch-3-still-held-in-Catania-despite-rescue-vessel-vacuum-in-th

    • When commercial ships tell migrants rescued at sea they are going to bring them to Europe

      Some commercial ships that have rescued people in danger have lied about their destination, according to a telephone hotline that helps migrants lost at sea. Alarm Phone says the crews of several ships led migrants to believe they would be dropped off in Europe, but instead returned them to Libya.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15194/when-commercial-ships-tell-migrants-rescued-at-sea-they-are-going-to-b

    • When rescue is capture: kidnapping and dividing migrants in the Mediterranean

      EU member states are holding migrants hostage while playing pass the parcel with their fates. It’s a strategy that is as cruel as it is deliberate.

      The Italian minister of the interior, Matteo Salvini, is currently under investigation for abuse of power and the kidnapping of 177 migrants. These migrants were, on Salvini’s orders, confined to the coast guard vessel Diciotti for more than one week in late August last year. While this case received international media attention, it was not an isolated event. Over the last several years Italian ministers and politicians have repeatedly violated international and domestic law as they have sought to prevent individuals from migrating over the Mediterranean Sea. The disembarkation of rescued migrants has been denied or delayed many times. On a few occasions, Italy has arbitrarily closed its ports entirely.

      While the closure of ports and the kidnapping of migrants triggered a strong reaction from some citizens and municipalities, many seemingly do not care. They do not care about the kidnapping of people by the state, nor about an interior minister who violates the law. They just do not want the migrants to land in Italy. Yet, far from being an exclusive Italian affair, the above mentioned legal and political controversies are part of a European battle, in which member states compete to not take care of a few dozen people on a boat seeking asylum. In fact, the recurrent strategy of taking migrants hostage is a sign of how deep Europe’s crisis has become.

      Kidnapping migrants is a strategy designed to deter and exhaust migrants while putting pressure on other member states.
      Migrants as hostages of European politics

      31 January 2019: after being held on a ship of the NGO Sea Watch for 13 days by the Italian authorities, the 47 migrants who were rescued in central Mediterranean were finally authorised to disembark in Sicily, or to put it better they had been liberated. During the period of their captivity the Italian government had argued that the Netherlands should receive them, due to the Dutch flag on the Sea Watch vessel. The Dutch authorities refused to do so. The standoff resulted in a meeting at the European Commission in Brussels to discuss how to deal with the 47 migrants nobody wanted to take. After days of negotiations, the Vatican offered to host the minors while eight member states (France, Germany, Romania, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg and Italy) agreed to take a few migrants each. Meanwhile, the NGO Sea Watch was defending itself against a cynical smear campaign in which the Italian government accused it of “putting migrants’ lives at risk”.

      This case is only the latest in a series of episodes that took place in central Mediterranean. The kidnapping of migrants has been repeatedly enacted by the Italian government and by Malta over the last year. It’s a strategy designed to deter and exhaust migrants, on the one hand, and to put pressure on the EU and on other member states, on the other. It is worth highlighting the continuity of this tactic. Among other episodes, in July 2018 the coast guard vessel Diciotti was prevented from disembarking rescued migrants in the port of Catania until the Italian president at the time successfully intervened. One month later, the Diciotti was again blocked for more than one week, this time with 177 migrants on board. In both these cases the rescue vessel was Italian. In more recent episodes the vessels have belonged to NGOs registered to other member states. In the closing days of 2018, 49 migrants had to wait 19 days after being rescued by the Sea Eye and Sea Watch vessels. They were finally disembarked in Malta on 9 January, and then relocated to other EU countries.

      The strategy of migrant kidnapping on the northern shore of the Mediterranean is part of a broader politics of migration containment. Together with the protracted detention of migrants on rescue vessels, the Libyan Coast Guard intercepts and rescues migrants in distress and takes them back to detention centres in Libya as a result of the 2017 Italy-Libya Memorandum of Understanding. International organisations like UNHCR and the IOM are involved in their containment in Libya once they arrive. In both cases – the confinement of migrants on rescue ships and the return of migrants to Libya – rescue at sea turns out to be a mode of capture.

      We might have been pulled out of the sea, the argument goes, but we are no less human and we are not to be bartered and haggled over.
      The European battle over numbers

      The migrants at the centre of these intra-European diplomatic battles are actually very few in number. Meetings, internal political crises, and struggles between states and non-state actors have resulted from a few dozen migrants seeking entry into Europe despite already being within European territory; confined to their rescue ships either in or just off European harbours for no other reason than member states’ refusal to take them. It is noticeable that the dispute among European countries was also predicated on migrants’ vulnerability: some member states have declared that they would welcome women and minors only. In this way, the right to protection and to mobility appear as a sort of “privilege” of those deemed to be the most vulnerable.

      The “fear of the small numbers”, as the anthropologist Ariun Appadurai calls it, has rarely been so evident. With just a few dozen migrants at issue, Salvini is by no means staving off a ‘crisis’ of quantity. Yet that is what makes recent events so troubling. They show that public sentiment does not soften when the counterargument focuses on how small the numbers are, as it has done so far. Both citizens’ active consensus and passive acceptance of migration containment has proved immoveable. The European front against migrants ultimately remains solid.

      At the same time, the anti-migrant front does not monopolise the field. Thousands of citizens mobilised across Europe and in Italy to demand the liberation of the detained migrants. Their solidaric reaction was not primarily driven by the fact that there were only a ‘few’ migrants to host, but by a conviction that those kidnapped – like with any other kidnapping – must be unconditionally released. As such, during the protests that haven taken place we have seen many more banners with the words “let them disembark!” than with more Italy-centric slogans like “not in my name”. In short, it’s not about Italy, it’s about the people on the ship.

      That central point is further enshrined in the “We are not fish” campaign, launched in Rome on 28 January 2019. We might have been pulled out of the sea, the argument goes, but we are no less human and we are not to be bartered and haggled over. The “We are not fish” campaign demands that Italian harbours remain open and that migrants are allowed to disembark. It opposes the fundamental inequality of lives that sustain the politics of migration, which is premised on the suggestion that migrants are not truly humans.

      The widespread citizen reaction against migrants’ seizure at sea and against deaths in the Mediterranean constitutes not only a fundamental ethical response, but also potentially a catalyst for actively refusing the leave-to-die politics playing out in the Mediterranean. Indeed, the ongoing civic mobilisation should be seized as an opportunity for moving beyond the horizon of a politics of rescue and the current debate that pivots around the question, should we rescue or not rescue the migrants?

      Indeed, a left-wing discourse on migration would require fighting the politics of migration containment as a whole, including the most recent bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya that the previous government led by the Democratic Party signed. It would also require challenging the racialisation and inequalities of lives enforced by the global visa regime, which forces many people across the world to become shipwrecked lives to be rescued. Neither the trial of Salvini nor the acceptance of the terms of the current debate centred around leave-to-die politics will liberate migrants from being held hostage to European politics. “We are not fish”. This motto is circulating widely. It posits the existence of a ‘we’, a common ground, between migrants and European citizens that refuses the reproduction of the asymmetries between ‘rescuers’ and ‘rescued’.

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/martina-tazzioli/when-rescue-is-capture-kidnapping-and-dividing-migrants-in-mediterran

    • Un seul navire humanitaire est actuellement présent au large de la Libye

      Près de 17 000 personnes sont mortes en mer Méditerranée ces quatre dernières années. Pour tenter d’enrayer la tragédie, des navires humanitaires se sont relayés dans la zone de détresse, au large des côtes libyennes pour les secourir. Mais actuellement, un seul patrouille dans cette zone.

      Actuellement, seul le bateau Aylan Kurdi (anciennement appelé Professor Albrecht Penck) est actuellement au large de la Libye. Il appartient à l’ONG allemande Sea Eye.

      Où sont les autres bateaux d’ONG ? InfoMigrants fait le point.

      Les navires humanitaires qui sont bloqués dans des ports européens :

      – Le Sea-Watch 3 de l’ONG Sea Watch est en escale dans le port de Marseille pour un problème administratif relatif à son pavillon néerlandais (et effectuer sa maintenance). Il devrait repartir en mer mi-mars.

      – Depuis un débarquement en juin 2018 à Malte, le Lifeline de l’ONG allemande eponyme est bloqué au port de La Valette, à Malte, où les autorités contestent sa situation administrative.

      – Depuis le mois de janvier 2019, l’Open Arms de l’ONG espagnole Proactiva Open Arms est bloqué à Barcelone par les autorités espagnoles. Au printemps 2018, ce navire avait été placé un mois sous séquestre en Italie avant d’être autorisé à repartir.

      – Début août 2017, la justice italienne a saisi le Juventa de l’ONG allemande Jugend Rettet, accusée de complicité avec les passeurs libyens mais qui clame depuis son innocence.

      Les ONG qui résistent :

      –Dans les airs, les petits avions Colibri de l’ONG française Pilotes volontaires et Moonbird de Sea-Watch mènent régulièrement des patrouilles pour tenter de repérer les embarcations en difficulté.

      –L’Astral, le voilier de l’ONG Open Arms, est actuellement à Barcelone.

      –En Italie, un collectif d’associations a lancé le Mare Jonio, un navire battant pavillon italien qui entend avant tout témoigner de la situation en mer. Il est actuellement à Palerme.

      Les navires humanitaires qui ont renoncé :

      Des ONG engagées au large des côtes libyennes ont suspendu leurs activités, face à la chute des départs de Libye et face à une intensification des menaces des garde-côtes libyens, qui considèrent les ONG comme complices des passeurs.

      – Suite aux pressions politiques, privé de pavillon, l’Aquarius de l’ONG SOS Méditerranée – qui a secouru près de 20 000 personnes en deux ans et demi - a mis fin à ses missions en décembre 2018. L’ONG espère toutefois trouver un nouveau bateau pour repartir rapidement en mer au printemps 2019.

      – Médecins sans frontières (MSF) a mis fin au même moment aux activités du Vos Prudence, le plus gros navire humanitaire privé actif au large de la Libye avec un record de de 1 500 personnes secourues en même temps.

      – Save the Children a également mis fin aux activités de sauvetage du navire Vos Hestia.

      – L’ONG maltaise Moas, la première à s’engager dans les opérations de secours en 2014 et qui a compté jusqu’à deux navires dans la zone, a transféré ses activités auprès des Rohingyas au Bangladesh.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/15426/un-seul-navire-humanitaire-est-actuellement-present-au-large-de-la-lib

    • Sea Watch segreto di Stato. Viminale e Infrastrutture: no accesso agli atti

      Non è possibile sapere da chi e come fu bloccata la nave. Ed è giallo anche sull’omesso sbarco dei minori. Cortocircuito tra Prefettura, Comune e Tribunale di minori

      Nel Paese dei misteri irrisolti anche la sorte dei migranti rischia di diventare un “segreto di Stato”. Non sarà infatti possibile sapere chi, nello scorso gennaio, ha dato l’ordine di bloccare a Siracusa la nave umanitaria Sea Watch, né chi e perché ha impedito lo sbarco immediato dei 15 minorenni, dirottando poi il vascello verso il porto di Catania.

      La conferma dello stato di riservatezza degli atti arriva dal Viminale, che ha respinto la richiesta di divulgazione dei documenti depositati presso il ministero delle Infrastrutture. Intorno al caso, dopo che Avvenire aveva documentato la smentita del ministero che esclude sia mai stato dato l’ordine di «porti chiusi», è stato eretto un muro di gomma. Nei giorni scorsi il Viminale aveva assicurato che da Salvini, contrariamente alle reiterate dichiarazioni pubbliche, non era mai partito alcun ordine di stop alle navi umanitarie né alcun «divieto di sbarco».

      Non restava che interpellare il dicastero guidato da Danilo Toninelli, competente per la Guardia costiera e i porti. Ma la nuova richiesta di accesso ai documenti è stata respinta. Motivo? «La tipologia di atti richiesti non è soggetta a pubblicazione obbligatoria». Così il capo di gabinetto del ministro Salvini ha risposto all’istanza «indirizzata – viene precisato nella risposta – anche al ministero delle Infrastrutture», a cui era stata originariamente rivolta. Nella missiva, che reca la data del 26 febbraio, viene escluso per il caso Sea Watch l’obbligo di divulgazione delle informazioni.

      Secondo la legge richiamata nello scambio di documenti tra l’avvocato Alessandra Ballerini, che aveva chiesto trasparenza per contro di Adif (Associazione Diritti e Frontiere), e il prefetto a capo del gabinetto del ministro, viene invocata la norma che giustifica il rifiuto alla conoscibilità per «la sicurezza pubblica e l’ordine pubblico; la sicurezza nazionale; la difesa e le questioni militari; le relazioni internazionali; la politica e la stabilità finanziaria ed economica dello Stato; la conduzione di indagini sui reati e il loro perseguimento; il regolare svolgimento di attività ispettive». In quale di queste categorie rientri il caso della Sea Watch e dei minorenni bloccati a bordo per 13 giorni non è dato da sapere.

      Indirettamente, però, una cosa il Viminale la conferma. Se nei giorni scorsi era stata negata l’esistenza di deliberazioni riconducibili al ministro Matteo Salvini, adesso viene implicitamente riconosciuto che le decisioni furono prese formalmente dal ministero delle Infrastrutture. Una circostanza che di fatto esenta Salvini, che aveva dato “indicazioni politiche”, da responsabilità che eventualmente ricadrebbero su Toninelli.

      La gestione dei 15 minori non accompagnati e l’omissione dello sbarco immediato (come previsto dalle norme per i minorenni non accompagnati) potrebbe avere seguiti giudiziari. Da uno scambio di comunicazioni tra la prefettura di Siracusa, il Tribunale dei minori di Catania e il Comune di Siracusa risulta, infatti, che la scelta di trasferire la nave al porto di Catania, dopo giorni alla fonda davanti al “Porto rifugio” siracusano, sarebbe stata assunta dal Comando generale delle Capitanerie di porto, che dipende dal ministero delle Infrastrutture. Disposizione necessaria «in ragione della presenza di minori a bordo».

      A scriverlo è proprio la prefettura aretusea in una nota trasmessa il 31 gennaio (giorno dello sbarco) al Tribunale per i minorenni di Catania. Eppure ventiquattr’ore prima lo stesso tribunale aveva inviato i decreti di affido dei 15 minori ai Servizi sociali del Comune di Siracusa, che immediatamente aveva individuato e messo a disposizione 4 strutture del circondario. Invece, nessuno viene fatto sbarcare e in serata la Sea Watch, dopo una settimana di attesa in Sicilia, riceve l’ordine di procedere verso Catania. Una decisione, come sostiene il prefetto Luigi Pizzi in uno dei documenti ottenuti da Avvenire, dovuta alla mancanza di strutture di prima accoglienza idonee. Una carenza che però non risulta, vista la disponibilità certificata dal Comune e che sorprende anche il Tribunale che proprio dall’ente locale aveva ricevuto l’elenco dei centri di accoglienza.

      «Non c’era nessun bisogno che intervenisse il tribunale per far sbarcare i minori. La legge è chiara: andavano fatti sbarcare subito», dice Sandra Zampa, ex parlamentare del Pd e autrice della legge sui minori non accompagnati votata nella precedente legislatura con il sostegno del M5s. L’intervento del tribunale dei minorenni ha confermato l’efficacia delle norme, «interrompendo – spiega Zampa – l’omissione che si stava compiendo».

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-segreto-di-stato

    • Sea Watch, inchieste sugli atti «top secret». Si muovono le procure

      Dopo che il Viminale si è rifiutato di rendere pubblici gli ordini, i pm accendono un faro. Il sindaco di Siracusa: «Anomalie, abbiamo le prove. Fare chiarezza». E accusa: «Ci furono ordini politici»

      Il caso Sea Watch, con lo stallo davanti al porto di Siracusa e poi il trasferimento nello scalo di Catania, avrà seguiti giudiziari. Sono almeno due le procure che stanno esaminando i fatti riguardanti l’omesso sbarco immediato dei 15 minorenni e le modalità con cui le autorità politiche hanno eretto un muro intorno alla catena di comando. Una barriera contro cui è disposta a fare breccia la giunta di Siracusa, che si dichiara pronta ad andare davanti ai magistrati per riferire tutte le anomalie registrate a fine gennaio.
      Le inchieste, a quanto trapela, riguardano non solo Sea Watch, ma anche altri sbarchi con le navi umanitarie costrette al largo per giorni prima di poter mettere al sicuro, sulla terraferma, i naufraghi scampati ai lager libici e alle tempeste. Vari esposti erano da tempo sui tavoli della procura di Roma e di alcune procure siciliane, che hanno acquisito quanto rivelato da «Avvenire» giovedì scorso. A cominciare dalla massima riservatezza apposta dal ministero dell’Interno sugli atti relativi alla Sea Watch, mentre il dicastero guidato da Danilo Toninelli ha lasciato trascorrere i 30 giorni previsti dalle norme per rispondere alle richieste di accesso civico agli atti presentata dall’Associazione Diritti e frontiere. Uniche spiegazioni sono arrivate dal Viminale con due risposte in apparente contraddizione. La prima, firmata dal Dipartimento Immigrazione, escludeva che fosse mai stato dato l’ordine di porti chiusi e divieto di sbarco. La seconda, siglata dal capo di gabinetto del ministro, precisava che «la tipologia di atti richiesti non è soggetta a pubblicazione obbligatoria». Da qualche parte, dunque, ci sono documenti che non si vuole rendere noti. Perché?
      Quanto all’ipotetico cavillo usato per trasferire la Sea Watch copn i suoi 47 naufraghi improvvisamente da Siracusa a Catania, emerge un dettaglio da un documento della prefettura di Siracusa, che come è noto risponde al Viminale. La lettera, visionata da “Avvenire”, è del 31 gennaio 2019, giorno in cui la nave ricevette l’ordine di lasciare le acque antistanti il “Porto Rifugio” di Siracusa per recarsi, scortata da Guardia costiera e Guardia di finanza, verso Catania. La missiva, indirizzata al presidente e al procuratore del Tribunale dei minorenni, rivela che la nave è stata dirottata «proprio in ragione della presenza di minori a bordo che in quella sede saranno immediatamente accolti in idonee strutture. Diversamente da quanto sarebbe avvenuto in questa provincia, ove non si dispone di centri destinati ai minori in argomento». Sarebbe questo, dunque, uno dei grimaldelli adottati per sottrarre la Sea Watch alla procura di Siracusa - che aveva escluso irregolarità commesse in mare dall’equipaggio - consegnando la nave umanitaria alla procura di Catania, mai stata tenera con le Ong. Il procuratore Zuccaro (Catania) ha però dato ragione alle indagini del collega Scavone (Siracusa) non ravvisando comportamenti illeciti dell’equipaggio.

      I fatti emersi in questi giorni hanno provocato la reazione del Comune di Siracusa, accusato di non avere a disposizione luoghi di accoglienza per minori non accompagnati. «Bisognerà far chiarezza su come si sono svolti i fatti», afferma Alessandra Furnari, assessore alle Pari opportunità sociali. Su richiesta del Tribunale dei minorenni erano invece state individuate strutture adeguate presenti nel comprensorio. «Sul trasferimento dei minori a Catania – prosegue l’assessore Furnari - non abbiamo mai avuto notizie ufficiali, ma solo colloqui telefonici con la prefettura». Scambi verbali senza che mai «la prefettura – insiste l’assessore - desse riscontro per iscritto». Una costante durante quei giorni ad alta tensione. «Ciò che ha caratterizzato tutta la vicenda - osserva il sindaco di Siracusa, Francesco Italia – è stata proprio l’assenza di risposte formali». Come se si avesse il timore di lasciare tracce. «In tutti gli sbarchi avvenuti a Siracusa precedentemente – ricorda Italia – i minori sono sempre stati accolti nelle strutture di II livello (le stesse predisposte per la Sea Watch, in linea con l’ordine del tribunale), senza che ciò creasse alcun problema». Per il primo cittadino c’è una sola spiegazione: «Si è trattato di decisioni di tipo politico».
      Ora a Siracusa attendono solo una convocazione da parte dei magistrati inquirenti. «Non abbiamo alcun problema a raccontare quello che è successo», ribadisce l’assessore Alessandra Furnari. E a differenza del muro di gomma eretto nei ministeri, le accuse della giunta possono essere «documentalmente provate, perché molti rapporti con il tribunale e con la prefettura, almeno da parte nostra, sono avvenuti per iscritto».

      https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/sea-watch-inchiesta-su-atti-top-secret

    • Migrants on hunger strike in Malta after stuck for 2 months

      Many of the 49 people rescued in December by the #Sea_Watch and #Sea_Eye ships are engaged in a hunger strike, the platform Mediterranea Saving Humans reports. The migrants have been in a Malta center for two months and are protesting “against the de facto detention that they are illegally subjected to.”

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15616/migrants-on-hunger-strike-in-malta-after-stuck-for-2-months
      #Malte #grève_de_la_faim #attente #limbe #détention #Marsa

    • Migranti, la nave ong Alan Kurdi diretta a Malta. Esposto di Mediterranea contro il governo

      Dopo il rifiuto delle madri con figli di sbarcare a Lampedusa senza i loro mariti. La Procura di Agrigento dovrà aprire un fascicolo sulla mancata autorizzazione a entrare in acque italiane e la non assegnazione di un porto sicuro. E il capitano De Falco andrà sulla nave che partirà verso la Libia per soccorrere naufraghi

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/04/06/news/migranti-223409223

    • Italy’s prime minister and Matteo Salvini under investigation over detention of migrants

      Far-right politician Matteo Salvini and Italy’s prime minister Giuseppe Conte have been placed under investigation over the detention of 47 migrants.

      Mr Salvini said he was once again under investigation for alleged false imprisonment on Monday after a dispute earlier this year over whether the interior minister and Lega Nord party leader should be tried over the detention of 177 asylum seekers last August.

      The current case concerns the decision to prevent migrants from leaving a Sea-Watch ship, which rescued them off the coast of Libya on 19 January.

      Deputy prime minister Luigi Di Maio and infrastructure minister Danilo Toninelli, also face charges with Mr Salvini and Mr Conte.

      The 47 migrants were forced to wait off the coast of Sicily for more than a week after the ship was denied the right to dock in Palermo, inspiring an emergency appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and criticism from the United Nations.

      The Sea-Watch ship was only allowed to dock after other European countries agreed to accept the migrants.

      In March, senators stopped a criminal case against Mr Salvini for blocking a rescue ship in August 2018 after an Italian court ruled that he should be tried.

      Mr Salvini has repeatedly berated rescue ships and accused charitable organisations of aiding and abetting illegal immigration.

      “I am under investigation again, but as long as I am the interior minister, the government colleagues can say what they want, the Italian ports remain closed,” he said, maintaining his hardline stance on immigration.

      “Another 18 criminal proceedings can be opened, I don’t change my mind."

      Before the senate vote on Mr Salvini’s case in March, Mr Conte and Mr Di Maio, who leads the Five Star Movement (M5S), formally defended the minister.

      “If Salvini is responsible for the seizure [of the boat] then the whole government is responsible,” they said in a statement.

      Giorgia Linardi, a spokesperson for Sea-Watch in Italy, said the organisation had worked within the law and the boat was unjustly detained.

      “The detention on board for propaganda purposes cannot once again be unjustified, because it is protected be politics,” she said.

      “People fleeing Libya must be rescued and protected, not exploited.”

      The court will reportedly have three months to decide whether the four politicians should face trial.

      If the court decides to bring charges, the senate will vote on whether their parliamentary immunity should be removed.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/matteo-salvini-italy-prime-minister-conte-migrants-detention-a8872301

  • Brendan Eich Writes to the US Senate: We Need a GDPR for the United...
    https://diasp.eu/p/7796293

    Brendan Eich Writes to the US Senate: We Need a GDPR for the United States

    Brendan Eich, the CEO of Brave, has written to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to present the case for GDPR-like data protection standards in the United States. Article word count: 906

    HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18119367 Posted by mochtar (karma: 380) Post stats: Points: 120 - Comments: 45 - 2018-10-02T07:02:23Z

    #HackerNews #brendan #eich #for #gdpr #need #senate #states #the #united #writes

    Article content:

    Brendan Eich, the CEO of Brave, has written to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to present the case for GDPR-like data protection standards in the United States. 

    The full text of this letter is copied (...)

  • La vie de désespoir des réfugiés relégués par l’Australie sur une île du Pacifique

    La femme du Somalien Khadar Hrisi a tenté plusieurs fois de se suicider. R, une Iranienne de 12 ans, a voulu s’immoler par le feu : à Nauru, minuscule caillou du Pacifique, des réfugiés relégués par l’Australie racontent à l’AFP une vie sans perspective, sans soins et sans espoir.

    Nauru, le plus petit pays insulaire du monde, vient d’accueillir le Forum des îles du Pacifique (Fip) mais a interdit aux journalistes l’accès aux camps de rétention où Canberra refoule les clandestins qui tentent de gagner l’Australie par la mer.

    L’AFP a toutefois réussi à y pénétrer et à rencontrer des réfugiés dont la quasi totalité ont souhaité l’anonymat pour des raisons de sécurité.

    A Nauru, près d’un millier de migrants dont une centaine d’enfants, sur 11.000 habitants, vivent dans huit camps financés par Canberra, certains depuis cinq ans, selon leurs récits.

    Dans le camp numéro 5, que l’on atteint au détour d’un chemin sous une chaleur écrasante, dans un paysage hérissé de pitons rocheux, le Somalien Hrisi veut témoigner à visage découvert.

    Il n’a plus peur, il n’a plus rien. Sa femme ne parle pas, son visage est inexpressif.

    M. Hrisi la laisse seule le moins possible, à cause de sa dépression. Elle a tenté plusieurs fois de se suicider ces derniers jours, raconte-t-il.

    « Quand je me suis réveillé, elle était en train de casser ça », dit-il en montrant des lames de rasoir jetables. « Elle allait les avaler avec de l’eau ».

    – Problèmes psychologiques -

    M. Hrisi affirme qu’ils sont allés plusieurs fois à l’hôpital de Nauru financé par l’Australie mais que celui-ci refuse de les prendre en charge. L’autre nuit, « ils ont appelé la police et nous ont mis dehors ».

    Le camp numéro 1 traite les malades, expliquent les réfugiés. Mais il n’accueille qu’une cinquantaine de personnes car l’endroit croule sous les demandes. Or beaucoup de migrants vont mal et souffrent de problèmes psychologiques liés à leur isolement sur l’île.

    Les évacuations sanitaires vers l’Australie sont rares selon eux.

    Les ONG ne cessent de dénoncer la politique d’immigration draconienne de l’Australie.

    Depuis 2013, Canberra, qui dément tout mauvais traitement, refoule systématiquement en mer tous les bateaux de clandestins, originaires pour beaucoup d’Afghanistan, du Sri Lanka et du Moyen-Orient.

    Ceux qui parviennent à passer par les mailles du filet sont envoyés dans des îles reculées du Pacifique. Même si leur demande d’asile est jugée légitime, ils ne seront jamais accueillis sur le sol australien.

    Canberra argue qu’il sauve ainsi des vies en dissuadant les migrants d’entreprendre un périlleux voyage. Les arrivées de bateaux, qui étaient quasiment quotidiennes, sont aujourd’hui rarissimes.

    Le Refugee Council of Australia et l’Asylum Seeker Resource Centre ont dénoncé récemment les ravages psychologiques de la détention indéfinie, en particulier chez les enfants.

    « Ceux qui ont vu ces souffrances disent que c’est pire que tout ce qu’ils ont vu, même dans les zones de guerre. Des enfants de sept et douze ans ont fait l’expérience de tentatives répétées de suicide, certains s’arrosent d’essence et deviennent catatoniques », écrivaient-ils.

    R, une Iranienne de 12 ans rencontrée par l’AFP, a tenté de s’immoler. Elle vit à Nauru depuis cinq ans avec ses deux parents de 42 ans et son frère de 13 ans.

    Les enfants passent leurs journées prostrés au lit. La mère a la peau couverte de plaques, elle dit souffrir et ne recevoir aucun traitement.

    – Essence et briquet -

    Le père a récemment surpris sa fille en train de s’asperger d’essence. « Elle a pris un briquet et elle a crié +Laisse-moi seule ! Laisse-moi seule ! Je veux me suicider ! Je veux mourir !+ ».

    Son fils sort lentement de son lit et confie d’une voix monocorde : « Je n’ai pas d’école, je n’ai pas de futur, je n’ai pas de vie ».

    Non loin de là, entre deux préfabriqués, une cuve est taguée du sigle « ABF » et d’une croix gammée. L’Australian Border Force est le service australien de contrôle des frontières, honni par les réfugiés.

    Ces derniers se déplacent librement sur l’île car la prison, ce sont ses 21 kilomètres carrés.

    Khadar reçoit un ami, un ancien gardien de buts professionnel camerounais qui raconte avoir secouru un voisin en train de se pendre. Son meilleur ami a été retrouvé mort, le nez et les yeux pleins de sang, sans qu’il sache la cause du décès.

    Pas de perspectives, et pas de soins. Au grand désespoir d’Ahmd Anmesharif, un Birman dont les yeux coulent en permanence. Il explique souffrir aussi du cœur et passe ses journées sur un fauteuil en mousse moisie, à regarder la route.

    Les défenseurs des droits dénoncent des conditions effroyables et font état d’accusations d’agressions sexuelles et d’abus physiques.

    Les autorités de l’île démentent. Les réfugiés « mènent leur vie normalement, comme les autres Nauruans (...) on est très heureux de vivre ensemble », assurait ainsi lors du Fip le président de Nauru, Baron Waqa.

    Mais les réfugiés soutiennent que leurs relations avec les Nauruans se détériorent.

    « Ils nous frappent toujours, ils nous lancent toujours des pierres », accuse l’adolescent iranien.

    – Economie sous perfusion -

    Un autre Iranien, un mécanicien qui a réussi à monter un petit commerce, crie sa colère. Il vient de se faire voler « la caisse, les motos, les outils ». « La police ne retrouve jamais rien quand ce sont les Nauruans qui volent les réfugiés », assène-t-il.

    Si les conditions sont vétustes dans les camps, où la plupart des logements sont des préfabriqués, beaucoup d’habitants de Nauru semblent vivre dans des conditions plus précaires encore.

    Bon nombre habitent des cabanes de tôle, les plages sont jonchées de détritus. Ils disent ne pas comprendre de quoi se plaignent les migrants.

    En attendant, les camps sont cruciaux pour l’économie de l’île, exsangue depuis l’épuisement des réserves de phosphate qui avait contribué à l’opulence du siècle dernier.

    Selon les chiffres australiens, les recettes publiques sont passées de 20 à 115 millions de dollars australiens (12 à 72 millions d’euros) entre 2010-2011 et 2015-2016, essentiellement grâce aux subventions australiennes liées aux camps.

    « Si on enlève les réfugiés, Nauru est morte : c’est pour ça que le président tient à ce que nous restions », juge le Camerounais.

    Mais tous les réfugiés rencontrés souhaitent partir, n’importe où pour certains.

    « Au XXIe siècle, les gens pensent en secondes, en instants. Le gouvernement australien a volé cinq ans de notre vie... qui s’en soucie ? », regrette le père de la petite Iranienne.


    https://actu.orange.fr/monde/la-vie-de-desespoir-des-refugies-relegues-par-l-australie-sur-une-ile-du-pacifique-CNT0000016r391/photos/un-refugie-du-sri-lanka-a-anibare-sur-l-ile-de-nauru-dans-le-pacifique-l
    #Nauru #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Australie #photographie
    via @marty
    cc @reka

    • The #Nauru Experience: Zero-Tolerance Immigration and #Suicidal_Children

      A recent visit to Nauru revealed the effects of Australia’s offshore #detention_policy and its impact on #mental_health.

      The Krishnalingam family on the roof of an abandoned mansion in Ronave, Nauru. The family applied for resettlement in the #United_States after fleeing Sri Lanka and being certified as #refugees.

      CreditCreditMridula Amin

      TOPSIDE, Nauru — She was 3 years old when she arrived on Nauru, a child fleeing war in #Sri_Lanka. Now, Sajeenthana is 8.

      Her gaze is vacant. Sometimes she punches adults. And she talks about dying with ease.

      “Yesterday I cut my hand,” she said in an interview here on the remote Pacific island where she was sent by the Australian government after being caught at sea. She pointed to a scar on her arm.

      “One day I will kill myself,” she said. “Wait and see, when I find the knife. I don’t care about my body. ”

      Her father tried to calm her, but she twisted away. “It is the same as if I was in war, or here,” he said.

      Sajeenthana is one of more than 3,000 refugees and asylum seekers who have been sent to Australia’s offshore #detention_centers since 2013. No other Australian policy has been so widely condemned by the world’s human rights activists nor so strongly defended by the country’s leaders, who have long argued it saves lives by deterring smugglers and migrants.

      Now, though, the desperation has reached a new level — in part because of the United States.

      Sajeenthana and her father are among the dozens of refugees on Nauru who had been expecting to be moved as part of an Obama-era deal that President #Trump reluctantly agreed to honor, allowing resettlement for up to 1,250 refugees from Australia’s offshore camps.

      So far, according to American officials, about 430 refugees from the camps have been resettled in the United States — but at least 70 people were rejected over the past few months.

      That includes Sajeenthana and her father, Tamil refugees who fled violence at home after the Sri Lankan government crushed a Tamil insurgency.

      Sajeenthana, 8, with her father after describing her suicidal thoughts and attempts at self-harm in September.CreditMridula Amin and Lachie Hinton

      A State Department spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the #rejections, arguing the Nauru refugees are subject to the same vetting procedures as other refugees worldwide.

      Australia’s Department of Home Affairs said in a statement that Nauru has “appropriate mental health assessment and treatment in place.”

      But what’s clear, according to doctors and asylum seekers, is that the situation has been deteriorating for months. On Nauru, signs of suicidal children have been emerging since August. Dozens of organizations, including #Doctors_Without_Borders (which was ejected from Nauru on Oct. 5) have been sounding the alarm. And with the hope of American resettlement diminishing, the Australian government has been forced to relent: Last week officials said they would work toward moving all children off Nauru for treatment by Christmas.

      At least 92 children have been moved since August — Sajeenthana was evacuated soon after our interview — but as of Tuesday there were still 27 children on Nauru, hundreds of adults, and no long-term solution.

      The families sent to Australia for care are waiting to hear if they will be sent back to Nauru. Some parents, left behind as their children are being treated, fear they will never see each other again if they apply for American resettlement, while asylum seekers from countries banned by the United States — like Iran, Syria and Somalia — lack even that possibility.

      For all the asylum seekers who have called Nauru home, the psychological effects linger.
      ‘I Saw the Blood — It Was Everywhere’

      Nauru is a small island nation of about 11,000 people that takes 30 minutes by car to loop. A line of dilapidated mansions along the coast signal the island’s wealthy past; in the 1970s, it was a phosphate-rich nation with per capita income second only to Saudi Arabia.

      Now, those phosphate reserves are virtually exhausted, and the country relies heavily on Australian aid. It accounted for 25 percent of Nauru’s gross domestic product last year alone.

      Mathew Batsiua, a former Nauruan lawmaker who helped orchestrate the offshore arrangement, said it was meant to be a short-term deal. But the habit has been hard to break.

      “Our mainstay income is purely controlled by the foreign policy of another country,” he said.

      In Topside, an area of old cars and dusty brush, sits one of the two processing centers that house about 160 detainees. Hundreds of others live in community camps of modular housing. They were moved from shared tents in August, ahead of the Pacific Islands Forum, an intergovernmental meeting that Nauru hosted this year.

      Sukirtha Krishnalingam, 15, said the days are a boring loop as she and her family of five — certified refugees from Sri Lanka — wait to hear if the United States will accept them. She worries about her heart condition. And she has nightmares.

      “At night, she screams,” said her brother Mahinthan, 14.

      In the past year, talk of suicide on the island has become more common. Young men like Abdullah Khoder, a 24-year-old Lebanese refugee, says exhaustion and hopelessness have taken a toll. “I cut my hands with razors because I am tired,” he said.

      Even more alarming: Children now allude to suicide as if it were just another thunderstorm. Since 2014, 12 people have died after being detained in Australia’s offshore detention centers on Nauru and Manus Island, part of Papua New Guinea.

      Christina Sivalingam, a 10-year-old Tamil girl on Nauru spoke matter-of-factly in an interview about seeing the aftermath of one death — that of an Iranian man, Fariborz Karami, who killed himself in June.

      “We came off the school bus and I saw the blood — it was everywhere,” she said calmly. It took two days to clean up. She said her father also attempted suicide after treatment for his thyroid condition was delayed.

      Seeing some of her friends being settled in the United States while she waits on her third appeal for asylum has only made her lonelier. She said she doesn’t feel like eating anymore.

      “Why am I the only one here?” she said. “I want to go somewhere else and be happy.”

      Some observers, even on Nauru, wonder if the children are refusing to eat in a bid to leave. But medical professionals who have worked on the island said the rejections by the Americans have contributed to a rapid deterioration of people’s mental states.

      Dr. Beth O’Connor, a psychiatrist working with Doctors Without Borders, said that when she arrived last year, people clung to the hope of resettlement in the United States. In May, a batch of rejections plunged the camp into despair.

      Mr. Karami’s death further sapped morale.

      “People that just had a bit of spark in their eye still just went dull,” Dr. O’Connor said. “They felt more abandoned and left behind.”

      Many of the detainees no longer hope to settle in Australia. #New_Zealand has offered to take in 150 refugees annually from Nauru but Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister, has said that he will only consider the proposal if a bill is passed banning those on Nauru from ever entering Australia. Opposition lawmakers say they are open to discussion.

      In the meantime, Nauru continues to draw scrutiny.
      ‘I’m Not Going Back to Nauru’

      For months, doctors say, many children on Nauru have been exhibiting symptoms of #resignation_syndrome — a mental condition in response to #trauma that involves extreme withdrawal from reality. They stopped eating, drinking and talking.

      “They’d look right through you when you tried to talk to them,” Dr. O’Connor said. “We watched their weights decline and we worried that one of them would die before they got out.”

      Lawyers with the National Justice Project, a nonprofit legal service, have been mobilizing. They have successfully argued for the #medical_evacuation of around 127 people from Nauru this year, including 44 children.

      In a quarter of the cases, the government has resisted these demands in court, said George Newhouse, the group’s principal lawyer.

      “We’ve never lost,” he said. “It is gut-wrenching to see children’s lives destroyed for political gain.”

      A broad coalition that includes doctors, clergy, lawyers and nonprofit organizations, working under the banner #kidsoffnauru, is now calling for all asylum seekers to be evacuated.

      Public opinion in Australia is turning: In one recent poll, about 80 percent of respondents supported the removal of families and children from Nauru.

      Australia’s conservative government, with an election looming, is starting to shift.

      “We’ve been going about this quietly,” Mr. Morrison said last week. “We haven’t been showboating.”

      But there are still questions about what happens next.

      Last month, Sajeenthana stopped eating. After she had spent 10 days on a saline drip in a Nauruan hospital, her father was told he had two hours to pack for Australia.

      Speaking by video from Brisbane last week (we are not using her full name because of her age and the severity of her condition), Sajeenthana beamed.

      “I feel better now that I am in Australia,” she said. “I’m not going back to Nauru.”

      But her father is less certain. The United States rejected his application for resettlement in September. There are security guards posted outside their Brisbane hotel room, he said, and though food arrives daily, they are not allowed to leave. He wonders if they have swapped one kind of limbo for another, or if they will be forced back to Nauru.

      Australia’s Home Affairs minister has said the Nauru children will not be allowed to stay.

      “Anyone who is brought here is still classified as a transitory person,” said Jana Favero, director of advocacy and campaigns at the Asylum Seeker Resource Center. “Life certainly isn’t completely rosy and cheery once they arrive in Australia.”

      On Monday, 25 more people, including eight children, left the island in six family units, she said.

      Those left behind on Nauru pass the days, worrying and waiting.

      Christina often dreams of what life would be like somewhere else, where being 10 does not mean being trapped.

      A single Iranian woman who asked not to be identified because she feared for her safety said that short of attempting suicide or changing nationality, there was no way off Nauru.

      She has been waiting two years for an answer to her application for resettlement in the United States — one that now seems hopeless given the Trump administration’s policies.

      Each night, often after the power goes out on Nauru, she and her sister talk about life and death, and whether to harm themselves to seek freedom.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/world/australia/nauru-island-asylum-refugees-children-suicide.html