• Philippe répond Venezuela à une députée insoumise qui l’attaque sur la #pauvreté | Le Huffington Post
    https://www. huffingtonpost .fr/entry/philippe-repond-venezuela-a-une-deputee-insoumise-qui-lattaque-sur-la-pauvrete_fr_5daf1e15e4b0422422cc848c

    Quand allez-vous redistribuer les richesses ? Regardez ce qui se passe au #Chili, au #Liban, en #Algérie et ce qui monte dans le peuple de France ; nous ne vous laisserons pas tranquille !”, conclut la députée après deux minutes de parole.

    La réponse d’Édouard Philippe, elle, n’a pas duré plus de dix secondes, comme on peut l’entendre dans la vidéo en tête d’article : “J’ai bien entendu votre question pleine de nuances et de précisions : je voulais vous confirmer qu’en effet vous et nous étions déterminés à ce que la #France ne devienne jamais le #Venezuela.”

  • Venezuelan crisis: Government censors environmental and scientific data
    https://news.mongabay.com/2019/10/venezuelan-crisis-government-censors-environmental-and-scientific-dat

    Many important government environmental and social indices have been hidden from public view, including updated data on inflation, unemployment, crime, deforestation, ecosystem and wildlife endangerment, mining, water and air quality, pollution, climate change, energy, national fisheries production and more.

    #Venezuela #données

  • Adobe cancels all user accounts in Venezuela to comply with Trump order | Ars Technica
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/adobe-cancels-all-user-accounts-in-venezuela-to-comply-with-trump-order

    Adobe is deactivating all user accounts in Venezuela, saying that the action is necessary to comply with an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The action affects both free and paid accounts.

    In an FAQ titled “Adobe compliance with US Executive Order,” the company explained yesterday why it is canceling its Venezuela-based customers’ subscriptions:

    The US Government issued Executive Order 13884, the practical effect of which is to prohibit almost all transactions and services between US companies, entities, and individuals in Venezuela. To remain compliant with this order, Adobe is deactivating all accounts in Venezuela.

    Adobe appears to be interpreting the executive order more broadly than other companies. Microsoft’s Office 365 and other cloud services are still available in Venezuela, for example. The executive order itself says the US action is targeted at the Venezuelan government and people who provide material support to the regime.

    #Venezuela mais aussi #Hong-Kong

    https://www.rt.com/news/470578-apple-cancels-app-track-police
    Apple removes app that Hong Kong protesters used to track police movements following vandalism, attacks on officers

  • #Venezuela, pendant ce temps-là, l’opposition poursuit ses âpres combats internes…

    Pour bien comprendre : l’Assemblée nationale actuelle a été élue le 6 décembre 2015 et est en fonction (théoriquement) du 6 janvier 2016 au 6 janvier 2021. Dominée par une coalition de l’opposition, celle-ci a décidé de mettre en place une présidence tournant tous les ans entre les membres de la coalition, d’abord les 4 « grands », Acción Democrática, Primero Justicia, Un Nuevo Tiempo et Voluntad Popular, puis pour la dernière année par un représentant des autres « petits » partis de l’opposition.
    (cf. Este es el acuerdo de la MUD que explica por qué Borges asumió la presidencia de la AN https://maduradas.com/enterese-este-es-el-acuerdo-de-la-mud-que-explica-por-que-borges-asumio-l )

    Pour l’année 2019, Juan Guaidó a pris la place de Leopoldo López président de VP, empêché. En principe, selon l’accord de la MUD, il devrait (aurait dû…) céder sa place pour la dernière année du mandat de l’AN.

    Normalement, mais qu’est-ce qui est encore normal au Venezuela…, les tractations pour la désignation du président de l’AN aurait dû se faire à la fin de l’année pour l’ouverture de la nouvelle session le 6 janvier 2020. Mais c’est justement en tant que président de l’AN que Juan Guaidó s’est auto-attribué la fonction de président intérimaire de la République bolivarienne du Venezuela, considérant que le président Maduro était en situation de défaillance absolue (art. 84) de la constitution…

    D’où l’importance de verrouiller l’affaire plus de trois mois à l’avance.

    On ne sera donc pas étonné que les protestations soient émises par une membre du Bloc parlementaire du 16 juillet, regroupement de député·e·s provenant de partis d’opposition « minoritaires » (Convergencia, Vente Venezuela, Alianza Venezuela) qui s’est constitué en novembre 2017, vraisemblablement pour constituer le groupe parlementaire « minoritaire » le plus nombreux et pour prétendre à ce titre à la présidence de l’AN pour la dernière année : l’urgence c’est aujourd’hui, pas janvier 2020.
    (cf. 13 diputados forman nueva fracción opositora en la Asamblea Nacional https://transparencia.org.ve/13-diputados-forman-nueva-fraccion-opositora-la-asamblea-nacional )

    Ratificación de Guaidó como presidente de la AN : Una reacción extemporánea
    https://www.elnacional.com/venezuela/ratificacion-de-guaido-como-presidente-de-la-an-una-reaccion-extemporane


    Juan Guaidó, presidente interino.
    Foto : EFE

    Pese a no descartar el liderazgo del presidente interino, analistas y diputados consideran que su ratificación se ha realizado antes de tiempo. Aseguran que actualmente deben buscarse soluciones a la crisis que, de acuerdo con Hercon Consultores, ha llevado a 41% de la población a querer marcharse del país

    Septiembre vio luz con la ratificación de Juan Guaidó como presidente de la Asamblea Nacional y encargado de la República para el período 2020-2021.

    A principios de mes, partidos pertenecientes a la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática dieron su respaldo al mandatario interino para el venidero año en medio de un escenario en el que no se vislumbra cercano el cese de la usurpación, el gobierno de transición y las elecciones libres.

    Analistas y diputados calificaron de extemporánea esta reacción, pese a no descartar el liderazgo del mandatario interino y su papel en la lucha por un cambio político.

    Es completamente extemporáneo porque esta es una discusión que debería darse en noviembre o diciembre. En este momento otras temáticas son prioridad, como el cese de la usurpación, la crisis económica y política”, manifestó Marcos Hernández López, director de la encuestadora Hercon Consultores.

    A juicio de la diputada Dignora Hernández, subjefa de la Fracción 16 de Julio, los ciudadanos no están pendientes de lo que pueda ocurrir en enero de 2020, debido a que “la urgencia de la población venezolana es ahora”.

    En Venezuela no ha cesado la emergencia humanitaria ni la usurpación de Nicolás Maduro. Tampoco ha cesado el interinato del presidente Juan Guaidó. Entonces, ¿por qué tenemos que estar hablando de un hecho que va a suceder el 5 de enero de 2020?”, se preguntó.

  • Lundi 16 septembre : rentrée scolaire au #Venezuela
    Le pays a quitté les titres des médias, mais la situation ne s’améliore pas…
    D’après la présidente de la sous-commission pour l’Éducation de l’Assemblée nationale (opposition), les infrastructures sont dans «  un état de détérioration avancé  ». On estime que la moitié des enseignants ont quitté le pays depuis 4 ans.

    Año escolar iniciará con 89% de las infraestructuras deterioradas
    https://www.elnacional.com/venezuela/ano-escolar-iniciara-con-89-de-las-infraestructuras-deterioradas


    "No hay baños, no hay bebederos, no hay absolutamente nada", lamentó Bolivia Suárez, presidenta de la Subcomisión de Educación de la Asamblea Nacional
    Foto : Archivo

    El nuevo año escolar, que comenzará este 16 de septiembre, abrirá con 89% de las infraestructuras en avanzado estado de deterioro.

    La información la dio a conocer la diputada Bolivia Suárez, presidenta de la Subcomisión de Educación de la Asamblea Nacional, de acuerdo con lo reseñado por Banca y Negocios.

    Señaló que 99% de las instituciones no tiene acceso a los servicios básicos como el agua y la electricidad.

    «En 95% de los centros educativos no hay material didáctico, 91% no tiene útiles escolares en buenas condiciones, 89% no se cumple con el programa de alimentación», agregó.

    Suárez precisó que de 27.000 instituciones educativas en el país, el régimen de Nicolás Maduro solo entregará un kit de uniformes a 209 centros.

    «No tomarán en cuenta la realidad que tiene cada institución. No hay baños, no hay bebederos, no hay absolutamente nada», lamentó.

    Amelia Belisario, también diputada, sugirió declarar una emergencia educativa compleja.

    Aseguró que, aparte de la situación precaria de la infraestructura, está un creciente déficit de personal docente.

    Los cálculos de la Subcomisión de Educación de la Asamblea Nacional arrojan que 50% del personal docente migró en los últimos cuatro años.

    Los maestros perdieron 180% de aumento salarial establecido en la Convención Colectiva que se firmó en marzo de 2018, con las incidencias en todos los beneficios contractuales, más la recurrencia”, acotó Belisario.

    Dijo que perdieron el bono vacacional sin los aumentos del 40% de octubre 2018, 60% de enero 2019, 40% de abril 2019 y 40% de julio 2019.

  • Autre élément de la politique d’#externalisation des #frontières « made in USA ».
    Après le #Mexique : https://seenthis.net/messages/793063

    Le #Venezuela...

    EEUU aportará otros 120 millones de dólares en ayudas para hacer frente a la crisis migratoria venezolana

    EEUU aportará otros 120 millones de dólares en ayudas para hacer frente a la crisis migratoria venezolana

    Las autoridades de Estados Unidos aportarán 120 millones de dólares adicionales en asistencia humanitaria para ayudar a Latinoamérica a hacer frente al flujo de migrantes procedentes de Venezuela, según ha informado este miércoles el Departamento de Estado. Más de 4 millones de venezolanos salieron de su país en los últimos años huyendo de la crisis política y la escasez generalizada de alimentos y medicamentos. El subsecretario de Estado, John Sullivan, y el jefe de la Agencia de Es ...

    Leer más: https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-eeuu-aportara-otros-120-millones-dolares-ayudas-hacer-frente-cri

    (c) 2019 Europa Press. Está expresamente prohibida la redistribución y la redifusión de este contenido sin su previo y expreso consentimiento.

    https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-eeuu-aportara-otros-120-millones-dolares-ayudas-hacer-frente-cri

    #USA #Etats-Unis #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • Offener Brief an die Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung – Netzwerk Cuba – informationsbüro – e.V.
    https://www.netzwerk-cuba.de/2019/08/offener-brief-an-die-rosa-luxemburg-stiftung
    Les efforts de propagande contre le Venezuela font effet au sein de la fondation Rosa Luxemburg. Un groupe de soutien du parti Die Linke proteste contre les affirmations d’employés de a fondation.

    22. August 2019 - Am 30. Juli erschien im Neuen Deutschland ein Interview mit dem Titel „Venezuela schadet der Linken“ mit zwei venezolanischen Intellektuellen, dem Soziologen Edgardo Lander und dem Ökonomen und ehemaligen Minister für Grundstoffindustrie und Bergbau, Victor Alvarez. Beide gehören einer Permanenten Arbeitsgruppe des Rosa Luxemburg Regionalbüros in Quito an. Das Interview führte Karin Gabbert, Referatsleiterin Lateinamerika der Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.

    In dem Gespräch werden von beiden Interviewten ungeheuerliche Angriffe auf das Foro von Sao Paulo, dem wichtigsten Zusammenschluss der lateinamerikanischen Linken und offiziellen Partner der Partei DIE LINKE geäußert, ohne dass die Referatsleiterin der Stiftung auch nur ansatzweise kritisch nachgefragt hätte, bzw. sie gibt mit den Fragestellungen bereits eine dubiose Richtung vor.

    Das beginnt mit der Eingangsfrage, in der formuliert wird, der Westen versuche, Präsident Maduro zu isolieren. Erstens geht es nicht um eine Person, sondern um eine Systemfrage – den „Chavismus“ und konkrete historische Umstände. Zweitens geht es dem Imperium USA und verbündeten Ländern nicht nur um Isolierung, sondern um Putsch und Umsturz. Ein weiteres Defizit besteht darin, dass die diversen Ursachen der heutigen Probleme in Venezuela nicht erwähnt werden, ja dass sogar die Bemühungen und Erfolge linker Politik unter Chávez nicht erwähnt werden. Zugespitzt ist dieses Leugnen zum Ausdruck gebracht, in dem der Ökonom behauptet, manche Linken würden die Lage leider „noch durch die Brille des Kalten Krieges“ betrachten.

    Schockierend ist zudem, dass das Regionalbüro der Stiftung, die den Namen der Revolutionärin Rosa Luxemburg trägt, solche Akademiker unterstützt und ihnen eine Stimme gibt, damit sie die rechtmäßige linke Regierung verunglimpfen können.

    Die Solidarität des Foro mit den von Putsch und US-Intervention bedrohten Linksregierungen von Nicaragua und Venezuela wird von Edgardo Lander als stalinistisch verunglimpft. Solche Anwürfe erwarten wir von bürgerlicher, reaktionär-antikommunistischer Seite, nicht jedoch von der Stiftung der Partei DIE.LINKE, einer Partei, die sich in ihrem Grundsatzprogramm „internationaler Solidarität“ verpflichtet sieht.

    Im Erfurter Programm heißt es dazu: „…Verschiedene Bewegungen suchen, wie in Lateinamerika, nach neuen Wegen für eine nichtkapitalistische Entwicklung und fordern nicht nur unsere Solidarität, sondern auch unsere Lernbereitschaft. In den Ländern des globalen Südens entwickeln sich neue Formen des Eigentums und der Kooperation, die wichtige Akzente gegen den Neoliberalismus setzen. DIE LINKE beobachtet mit großem Interesse das Modell der Alba-Staaten, die eine solidarische Zusammenarbeit vereinbart haben“.

    Victor Alvarez macht in dem Interview ausschließlich die Regierung Venezuelas für die „rasante Verarmung“ und für die dadurch ausgelöste Migration verantwortlich, ohne auch nur mit einem Wort die jahrelangen Wirtschaftssanktionen und Subversionen gegen das Land zu erwähnen. Entgegen aller Fakten wird behauptet, die jetzige Regierung sei keine linke Regierung, weil sie den Zugang zu Sport, Bildung, Gesundheit und Kultur behindere. Kein Wort über die Programme im Wohnungsbau, die von der Regierung organisierte Sicherstellung der Gesundheitsversorgung mitkubanischen Ärzten und der Grundversorgung mit Nahrungsmitteln durch das CLAP-System usw. usf.

    Völlig außer Acht gelassen werden die von den USA und Verbündeten seit 1999 in unterschiedlichen Formen gesteuerten und durchgeführten Einmischungen und Umsturzversuche gegen die linke Regierung, u.a. der Putschversuch 2002, die unzähligen Wirtschaftssanktionen, die Terrorakte gegen Venezuela mit Zerstörung der Stromversorgung und die verschärfte Blockade

    gegen das Bruderland Kuba. Also die gesamte Genese, die Hintergründe, die geostrategische Bedeutung der Lage, das Agieren des US-Imperiums mit alten und neuen Handlungsmustern werden nicht erwähnt: diese Gemengelage ist „Kalter Krieg“. Und dies auch so zu benennen, ist das Mindeste, was ein Intellektueller und eine linke Stiftung und eine linke Zeitung leisten müssten. Stattdessen werden Trumpsche Ideologeme wiederholt.

    In wessen Namen spricht Edgardo Lander, wenn er sagt, dass die venezolanische Linke schockiert sei von der neoliberalen Politik der Regierung, die bewirkt, dass Kinder vor Hunger sterben? Wer ist diese Linke, worin besteht die neoliberale Politik – hätte die Interviewerin in luxemburgischem Sinne fragen müssen.

    Im April letzten Jahres hat der Sonderberichterstatter des Menschenrechtsrates der Vereinten Nationen Alfred de Zayas nach einem Besuch in Venezuela das Wirtschaftsembargo seitens der USA und von EU-Staaten angeprangert: “Die Sanktionen töten“, klagte de Zayas bei einer Pressekonferenz der UN in Genf an. Sie seien „geopolitische Verbrechen“, die direkt zum Tod von Kindern durch Unterernährung führten. „In Venezuela sterben Kinder, weil sie wegen der Sanktionen und der Blockade nicht genügend Lebensmittel oder Medikamente bekommen.“ Daher fordert Alfred de Zayas, dass der Internationale Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag die Wirtschaftssanktionen gegen Venezuela als mögliche Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit untersuchen solle.

    Idriss Jazairy, UN-Sonderberichterstatter für negative Auswirkungen von Sanktionen, sagte, wirtschaftspolitische Strafmaßnahmen zur Erzwingung politischer Ziele im Fall von Iran, Kuba und Venezuela stünden im Widerspruch zu Menschenrechten und Normen der internationalen diplomatischen Beziehungen. „Der Aufbau von Druck für Regimewechsel durch wirtschaftliche Maßnahmen, die eine Verletzung grundlegender Menschenrechte und möglicherweise sogar den Hungertod von Menschen billigend in Kauf nehmen, war noch nie eine akzeptable Praxis in den internationalen Beziehungen“, betonte Jazairy. Politische Differenzen zwischen Regierungen dürften niemals dadurch gelöst werden, dass wirtschaftliche und humanitäre Katastrophen herbeigeführt werden, indem die einfachen Menschen in Geiselhaft genommen werden. „Es ist schwer nachzuvollziehen, wie Maßnahmen, die die Wirtschaft Venezuelas zerstören und verhindern, dass Venezolaner Geld nach Hause schicken, darauf abzielen könnten, dem venezolanischen Volk zu helfen“, sagte der UN-Experte unter Bezugnahme auf entsprechende Begründungen des US-Finanzministeriums. Jazairys Aussagen folgen Berechnungen des Washingtoner Centre for Economic and Policy Research, wonach seit 2017 rund 40.000 Menschen in Venezuela an den Folgen von US-Sanktionen gestorben sein könnten.

    – Kein Wort dazu im Interview.

    Internationale Unterstützung erhält die Regierung Venezuelas nicht nur von „Russland, China, Iran Türkei, Bolivien und Kuba“, wie Edgardo Lander vereinzelnd aufzählt, sondern von einer Gruppe von rund 60 Staaten bei den Vereinten Nationen in New York, die sich aktiv gegen die Anerkennung des Putschisten Guaidós als Präsidenten Venezuelas und damit aktiv für die Verteidigung der UN-Charta einsetzen. Neben den engen Verbündeten wie die Alba-Länder oder Russland haben u.a. auch die Karibikgemeinschaft Caricom und der Südafrikanische Staatenbund klare Solidarität mit Venezuela gezeigt. Die große Mehrheit der Staaten der UN-Vollversammlung hat ausschließlich die legitime Regierung von Nicolás Maduro anerkannt. Eine Woche vor dem Interview gab es in Caracas ein Treffen auf Außenministerebene der 120 Mitgliedsstaaten der Blockfreien Bewegung, auf dem die US-Sanktionen verurteilt wurden und sich alle Länder hinter die Maduro-Regierung stellten.

    – Kein Wort davon im Interview.

    Gerade heute in Zeiten des völkerrechtswidrigen Interventionismus des Westens (Interventionen in Jugoslawien, Afghanistan, Irak, Libyen) und dessen massive Einmischung in weiteren Ländern (Ukraine, Syrien, Nicaragua, Venezuela) halten wir entgegen der Meinung von Edgardo Lander Kategorien wie „Imperialismus“ und „Antiimperialismus“ für alles andere als überholt. Wir stimmen mit Kubas Präsidenten Miguel Diaz–Canel überein, wenn er auf der Abschlussveranstaltung des Foro von Sao Paulo vor rund 750 Vertretern von mehr als 125 progressiven Organisationen und Parteien aus 70 Ländern fordert, die Verteidigung Venezuelas sei heute „die wichtigste Aufgabe im antiimperialistischen Kampf“. Ebenso wichtig sein Appell an die progressiven Kräfte Lateinamerikas, sich vor dem Hintergrund der Offensive des US-Imperialismus und der Oligarchie nicht auseinanderdividieren zu lassen.

    Wir erwarten von einer Parteistiftung der Linken, dass sie nicht dem antiimperialistischen und antikolonialen Kampf Kubas und der anderen Alba-Länder in den Rücken fällt, sondern vor Ort in Lateinamerika mit den im Foro von Sao Paulo organisierten Linkskräften den Dialog und die Zusammenarbeit bei der Verteidigung der Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit Lateinamerikas sucht und sich an der Kampagne und den damit verbundenen Aktionen gegen die Blockade Venezuelas und Kubas, gegen den Nica-Act der USA gegen Nicaragua und darüber hinaus für die Freilassung des inhaftierten brasilianischen Expräsidenten Lula da Silva beteiligt.

    Vor allem erwarten wir ebenso von der Stiftung in den Ländern, in denen sie tätig ist, dass sie den von der dortigen Bevölkerung eingeschlagenen progressiven Entwicklungsweg anerkennt und achtet, statt ihn zu torpedieren.

    Nicht Venezuela schadet der Linken, sondern eine derart einseitige, prinzipienlose und damit verzerrte Darstellung der Situation in Venezuela und der Linken in Lateinamerika wie sie von der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung über das ND verbreitet wird.

    Berliner Bündnis „Hände weg von Venezuela“

    #Allemagen #Venezuela #gauche

  • Les États-Unis prolongent de 3 mois la dérogation aux sanctions dont bénéficie Chevron au #Venezuela

    EE UU extendió licencia para que Chevron opere con Pdvsa hasta octubre
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/mundo/extendio-licencia-para-que-chevron-opere-con-pdvsa-hasta-octubre_290004

    El Departamento del Tesoro de Estados Unidos extendió este viernes hasta el 25 de octubre la licencia a Chevron, la única compañía petrolera estadounidense que aún opera en el país, para que cese sus operaciones de extracción de petróleo y gas en Venezuela.

    En enero, el gobierno de Donald Trump impuso sanciones a Petróleos de Venezuela con la intención de privar al país de los ingresos petroleros y forzar la salida de Nicolás Maduro. El permiso de la petrolera vencía este 26 de julio a la medianoche.

    Además de Chevron, el Departamento del Tesoro también extendió la licencia para las empresas Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes y Weatherford, pero la gran mayoría detuvo sus operaciones por la crisis venezolana, reseñó la agencia Reuters.

  • En Équateur, une rupture au goût de régression
    https://lemediapresse.fr/international/en-equateur-une-rupture-au-gout-de-regression

    La bataille politique s’intensifie entre l’ex-président Rafael #Correa et son successeur Lenín #Moreno, pourtant élu lui aussi sous les couleurs d’une « révolution citoyenne » dont il ne reste plus grand chose.

    #International #Amérique_du_Sud #Amérique_Latine #Assange #Brésil #Corruption #Equateur #Lava_Jato #Mashi #Venezuela #Wikileaks

  • USA : Dublin façon frontière Mexique/USA

    Faute d’accord avec le #Guatemala (pour l’instant bloqué du fait du recours déposé par plusieurs membres de l’opposition devant la Cour constitutionnelle) et le #Mexique les désignant comme des « #pays_sûr », les USA ont adopté une nouvelle réglementation en matière d’#asile ( « #Interim_Final_Rule » - #IFR), spécifiquement pour la #frontière avec le Mexique, qui n’est pas sans faire penser au règlement de Dublin : les personnes qui n’auront pas sollicité l’asile dans un des pays traversés en cours de route avant d’arriver aux USA verront leur demande rejetée.
    Cette règle entre en vigueur aujourd’hui et permet donc le #refoulement de toute personne « who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border, but who did not apply for protection from persecution or torture where it was available in at least one third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which he or she transited en route to the United States. »
    Lien vers le règlement : https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/07/15/dhs-and-doj-issue-third-country-asylum-rule
    Plusieurs associations dont ACLU (association US) vont déposer un recours visant à le faire invalider.
    Les USA recueillent et échangent déjà des données avec les pays d’Amérique centrale et latine qu’ils utilisent pour débouter les demandeurs d’asile, par exemple avec le Salvador : https://psmag.com/social-justice/homeland-security-uses-foreign-databases-to-monitor-gang-activity

    Reçu via email le 16.07.2019 de @pascaline

    #USA #Etats-Unis #Dublin #Dublin_façon_USA #loi #Dublin_aux_USA #législation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #El_Salvador

    • Trump Administration Implementing ’3rd Country’ Rule On Migrants Seeking Asylum

      The Trump administration is moving forward with a tough new asylum rule in its campaign to slow the flow of Central American migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Asylum-seeking immigrants who pass through a third country en route to the U.S. must first apply for refugee status in that country rather than at the U.S. border.

      The restriction will likely face court challenges, opening a new front in the battle over U.S. immigration policies.

      The interim final rule will take effect immediately after it is published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, according to the departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

      The new policy applies specifically to the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that “an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum.”

      “Until Congress can act, this interim rule will help reduce a major ’pull’ factor driving irregular migration to the United States,” Homeland Security acting Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan said in a statement about the new rule.

      The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to file a lawsuit to try to stop the rule from taking effect.

      “This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

      Gelernt accused the Trump administration of “trying to unilaterally reverse our country’s legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger.”

      The strict policy shift would likely bring new pressures and official burdens on Mexico and Guatemala, countries through which migrants and refugees often pass on their way to the U.S.

      On Sunday, Guatemala’s government pulled out of a meeting between President Jimmy Morales and Trump that had been scheduled for Monday, citing ongoing legal questions over whether the country could be deemed a “safe third country” for migrants who want to reach the U.S.

      Hours after the U.S. announced the rule on Monday, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said it was a unilateral move that will not affect Mexican citizens.

      “Mexico does not agree with measures that limit asylum and refugee status for those who fear for their lives or safety, and who fear persecution in their country of origin,” Ebrard said.

      Ebrard said Mexico will maintain its current policies, reiterating the country’s “respect for the human rights of all people, as well as for its international commitments in matters of asylum and political refuge.”

      According to a DHS news release, the U.S. rule would set “a new bar to eligibility” for anyone seeking asylum. It also allows exceptions in three limited cases:

      “1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country;

      ”(2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of ’victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons’ provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or,

      “(3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

      The DHS release describes asylum as “a discretionary benefit offered by the United States Government to those fleeing persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

      The departments of Justice and Homeland Security are publishing the 58-page asylum rule as the Trump administration faces criticism over conditions at migrant detention centers at the southern border, as well as its “remain in Mexico” policy that requires asylum-seekers who are waiting for a U.S. court date to do so in Mexico rather than in the U.S.

      In a statement about the new rule, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said that current U.S. asylum rules have been abused, and that the large number of people trying to enter the country has put a strain on the system.

      Barr said the number of cases referred to the Department of Justice for proceedings before an immigration judge “has risen exponentially, more than tripling between 2013 and 2018.” The attorney general added, “Only a small minority of these individuals, however, are ultimately granted asylum.”

      https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741769333/u-s-sets-new-asylum-rule-telling-potential-refugees-to-apply-elsewhere

    • Le journal The New Yorker : Trump est prêt à signer un accord majeur pour envoyer à l’avenir les demandeurs d’asile au Guatemala

      L’article fait état d’un projet de #plate-forme_externalisée pour examiner les demandes de personnes appréhendées aux frontières US, qui rappelle à la fois une proposition britannique (jamais concrétisée) de 2003 de créer des processing centers extra-européens et la #Pacific_solution australienne, qui consiste à déporter les demandeurs d’asile « illégaux » de toute nationalité dans des pays voisins. Et l’article évoque la « plus grande et la plus troublante des questions : comment le Guatemala pourrait-il faire face à un afflux si énorme de demandeurs ? » Peut-être en demandant conseil aux autorités libyennes et à leurs amis européens ?

      –-> Message reçu d’Alain Morice via la mailling-list Migreurop.

      Trump Is Poised to Sign a Radical Agreement to Send Future Asylum Seekers to Guatemala

      Early next week, according to a D.H.S. official, the Trump Administration is expected to announce a major immigration deal, known as a safe-third-country agreement, with Guatemala. For weeks, there have been reports that negotiations were under way between the two countries, but, until now, none of the details were official. According to a draft of the agreement obtained by The New Yorker, asylum seekers from any country who either show up at U.S. ports of entry or are apprehended while crossing between ports of entry could be sent to seek asylum in Guatemala instead. During the past year, tens of thousands of migrants, the vast majority of them from Central America, have arrived at the U.S. border seeking asylum each month. By law, the U.S. must give them a chance to bring their claims before authorities, even though there’s currently a backlog in the immigration courts of roughly a million cases. The Trump Administration has tried a number of measures to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country—from “metering” at ports of entry to forcing people to wait in Mexico—but, in every case, international obligations held that the U.S. would eventually have to hear their asylum claims. Under this new arrangement, most of these migrants will no longer have a chance to make an asylum claim in the U.S. at all. “We’re talking about something much bigger than what the term ‘safe third country’ implies,” someone with knowledge of the deal told me. “We’re talking about a kind of transfer agreement where the U.S. can send any asylum seekers, not just Central Americans, to Guatemala.”

      From the start of the Trump Presidency, Administration officials have been fixated on a safe-third-country policy with Mexico—a similar accord already exists with Canada—since it would allow the U.S. government to shift the burden of handling asylum claims farther south. The principle was that migrants wouldn’t have to apply for asylum in the U.S. because they could do so elsewhere along the way. But immigrants-rights advocates and policy experts pointed out that Mexico’s legal system could not credibly take on that responsibility. “If you’re going to pursue a safe-third-country agreement, you have to be able to say ‘safe’ with a straight face,” Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, told me. Until very recently, the prospect of such an agreement—not just with Mexico but with any other country in Central America—seemed far-fetched. Yet last month, under the threat of steep tariffs on Mexican goods, Trump strong-armed the Mexican government into considering it. Even so, according to a former Mexican official, the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador is stalling. “They are trying to fight this,” the former official said. What’s so striking about the agreement with Guatemala, however, is that it goes even further than the terms the U.S. sought in its dealings with Mexico. “This is a whole new level,” the person with knowledge of the agreement told me. “In my read, it looks like even those who have never set foot in Guatemala can potentially be sent there.”

      At this point, there are still more questions than answers about what the agreement with Guatemala will mean in practice. A lot will still have to happen before it goes into force, and the terms aren’t final. The draft of the agreement doesn’t provide much clarity on how it will be implemented—another person with knowledge of the agreement said, “This reads like it was drafted by someone’s intern”—but it does offer an exemption for Guatemalan migrants, which might be why the government of Jimmy Morales, a U.S. ally, seems willing to sign on. Guatemala is currently in the midst of Presidential elections; next month, the country will hold a runoff between two candidates, and the current front-runner has been opposed to this type of deal. The Morales government, however, still has six months left in office. A U.N.-backed anti-corruption body called the CICIG, which for years was funded by the U.S. and admired throughout the region, is being dismantled by Morales, whose own family has fallen under investigation for graft and financial improprieties. Signing an immigration deal “would get the Guatemalan government in the U.S.’s good graces,” Stephen McFarland, a former U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, told me. “The question is, what would they intend to use that status for?” Earlier this week, after Morales announced that he would be meeting with Trump in Washington on Monday, three former foreign ministers of Guatemala petitioned the country’s Constitutional Court to block him from signing the agreement. Doing so, they said, “would allow the current president of the republic to leave the future of our country mortgaged, without any responsibility.”

      The biggest, and most unsettling, question raised by the agreement is how Guatemala could possibly cope with such enormous demands. More people are leaving Guatemala now than any other country in the northern triangle of Central America. Rampant poverty, entrenched political corruption, urban crime, and the effects of climate change have made large swaths of the country virtually uninhabitable. “This is already a country in which the political and economic system can’t provide jobs for all its people,” McFarland said. “There are all these people, their own citizens, that the government and the political and economic system are not taking care of. To get thousands of citizens from other countries to come in there, and to take care of them for an indefinite period of time, would be very difficult.” Although the U.S. would provide additional aid to help the Guatemalan government address the influx of asylum seekers, it isn’t clear whether the country has the administrative capacity to take on the job. According to the person familiar with the safe-third-country agreement, “U.N.H.C.R. [the U.N.’s refugee agency] has not been involved” in the current negotiations. And, for Central Americans transferred to Guatemala under the terms of the deal, there’s an added security risk: many of the gangs Salvadorans and Hondurans are fleeing also operate in Guatemala.

      In recent months, the squalid conditions at borderland detention centers have provoked a broad political outcry in the U.S. At the same time, a worsening asylum crisis has been playing out south of the U.S. border, beyond the immediate notice of concerned Americans. There, the Trump Administration is quietly delivering on its promise to redraw American asylum practice. Since January, under a policy called the Migration Protection Protocols (M.P.P.), the U.S. government has sent more than fifteen thousand asylum seekers to Mexico, where they now must wait indefinitely as their cases inch through the backlogged American immigration courts. Cities in northern Mexico, such as Tijuana and Juarez, are filling up with desperate migrants who are exposed to violent crime, extortion, and kidnappings, all of which are on the rise.This week, as part of the M.P.P., the U.S. began sending migrants to Tamaulipas, one of Mexico’s most violent states and a stronghold for drug cartels that, for years, have brutalized migrants for money and for sport.

      Safe-third-country agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The logistics are complex, and the outcomes tend not to change the harried calculations of asylum seekers as they flee their homes. These agreements, according to a recent study by the Migration Policy Institute, are “unlikely to hold the key to solving the crisis unfolding at the U.S. southern border.” The Trump Administration has already cut aid to Central America, and the U.S. asylum system remains in dire need of improvement. But there’s also little question that the agreement with Guatemala will reduce the number of people who reach, and remain in, the U.S. If the President has made the asylum crisis worse, he’ll also be able to say he’s improving it—just as he can claim credit for the decline in the number of apprehensions at the U.S. border last month. That was the result of increased enforcement efforts by the Mexican government acting under U.S. pressure.

      There’s also no reason to expect that the Trump Administration will abandon its efforts to force the Mexicans into a safe-third-country agreement as well. “The Mexican government thought that the possibility of a safe-third-country agreement with Guatemala had fallen apart because of the elections there,” the former Mexican official told me. “The recent news caught top Mexican officials by surprise.” In the next month, the two countries will continue immigration talks, and, again, Mexico will face mounting pressure to accede to American demands. “The U.S. has used the agreement with Guatemala to convince the Mexicans to sign their own safe-third-country agreement,” the former official said. “Its argument is that the number of migrants Mexico will receive will be lower now.”

      https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-poised-to-sign-a-radical-agreement-to-send-future-asylum-seekers-to
      #externalisation

    • After Tariff Threat, Trump Says Guatemala Has Agreed to New Asylum Rules

      President Trump on Friday again sought to block migrants from Central America from seeking asylum, announcing an agreement with Guatemala to require people who travel through that country to seek refuge from persecution there instead of in the United States.

      American officials said the deal could go into effect within weeks, though critics vowed to challenge it in court, saying that Guatemala is itself one of the most dangerous countries in the world — hardly a refuge for those fleeing gangs and government violence.

      Mr. Trump had been pushing for a way to slow the flow of migrants streaming across the Mexican border and into the United States in recent months. This week, the president had threatened to impose tariffs on Guatemala, to tax money that Guatemalan migrants in the United States send back to family members, or to ban all travel from the country if the agreement were not signed.

      Joined in the Oval Office on Friday by Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart of Guatemala, Mr. Trump said the agreement would end what he has described as a crisis at the border, which has been overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of families fleeing violence and persecution in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.
      Sign up for The Interpreter

      Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.

      “These are bad people,” Mr. Trump told reporters after a previously unannounced signing ceremony. He said the agreement would “end widespread abuse of the system and the crippling crisis on our border.”

      Officials did not release the English text of the agreement or provide many details about how it would be put into practice along the United States border with Mexico. Mr. Trump announced the deal in a Friday afternoon Twitter post that took Guatemalan politicians and leaders at immigration advocacy groups by surprise.

      Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, described the document signed by the two countries as a “safe third” agreement that would make migrants ineligible for protection in the United States if they had traveled through Guatemala and did not first apply for asylum there.

      Instead of being returned home, however, the migrants would be sent back to Guatemala, which under the agreement would be designated as a safe place for them to live.

      “They would be removable, back to Guatemala, if they want to seek an asylum claim,” said Mr. McAleenan, who likened the agreement to similar arrangements in Europe.
      Editors’ Picks
      Buying a Weekend House With Friends: Is It Really a Good Idea?
      Bob Dylan and the Myth of Boomer Idealism
      True Life: I Got Conned by Anna Delvey

      The move was the latest attempt by Mr. Trump to severely limit the ability of refugees to win protection in the United States. A new regulation that would have also banned most asylum seekers was blocked by a judge in San Francisco earlier this week.

      But the Trump administration is determined to do everything it can to stop the flow of migrants at the border, which has infuriated the president. Mr. Trump has frequently told his advisers that he sees the border situation as evidence of a failure to make good on his campaign promise to seal the border from dangerous immigrants.

      More than 144,200 migrants were taken into custody at the southwest border in May, the highest monthly total in 13 years. Arrests at the border declined by 28 percent in June after efforts in Mexico and the United States to stop migrants from Central America.

      Late Friday, the Guatemalan government released the Spanish text of the deal, which is called a “cooperative agreement regarding the examination of protection claims.” In an earlier statement announcing the agreement, the government had referred to an implementation plan for Salvadorans and Hondurans. It does not apply to Guatemalans who request asylum in the United States.

      By avoiding any mention of a “safe third country” agreement, President Jimmy Morales of Guatemala appeared to be trying to sidestep a recent court ruling blocking him from signing a deal with the United States without the approval of his country’s congress.

      Mr. Morales will leave office in January. One of the candidates running to replace him, the conservative Alejandro Giammattei, said that it was “irresponsible” for Mr. Morales to have agreed to an accord without revealing its contents first.

      “It is up to the next government to attend to this negotiation,” Mr. Giammattei wrote on Twitter. His opponent, Sandra Torres, had opposed any safe-third-country agreement when it first appeared that Mr. Morales was preparing to sign one.

      Legal groups in the United States said the immediate effect of the agreement will not be clear until the administration releases more details. But based on the descriptions of the deal, they vowed to ask a judge to block it from going into effect.

      “Guatemala can neither offer a safe nor fair and full process, and nobody could plausibly argue otherwise,” said Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued against other recent efforts to limit asylum. “There’s no way they have the capacity to provide a full and fair procedure, much less a safe one.”

      American asylum laws require that virtually all migrants who arrive at the border must be allowed to seek refuge in the United States, but the law allows the government to quickly deport migrants to a country that has signed a “safe third” agreement.

      But critics said that the law clearly requires the “safe third” country to be a truly safe place where migrants will not be in danger. And it requires that the country have the ability to provide a “full and fair” system of protections that can accommodate asylum seekers who are sent there. Critics insisted that Guatemala meets neither requirement.

      They also noted that the State Department’s own country condition reports on Guatemala warn about rampant gang activity and say that murder is common in the country, which has a police force that is often ineffective at best.

      Asked whether Guatemala is a safe country for refugees, Mr. McAleenan said it was unfair to tar an entire country, noting that there are also places in the United States that are not safe.

      In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, 116,808 migrants apprehended at the southwest border were from Guatemala, while 77,128 were from Honduras and 31,636 were from El Salvador.

      “It’s legally ludicrous and totally dangerous,” said Eleanor Acer, the senior director for refugee protection at Human Rights First. “The United States is trying to send people back to a country where their lives would be at risk. It sets a terrible example for the rest of the world.”

      Administration officials traveled to Guatemala in recent months, pushing officials there to sign the agreement, according to an administration official. But negotiations broke down in the past two weeks after Guatemala’s Constitutional Court ruled that Mr. Morales needed approval from lawmakers to make the deal with the United States.

      The ruling led Mr. Morales to cancel a planned trip in mid-July to sign the agreement, leaving Mr. Trump fuming.

      “Now we are looking at the BAN, Tariffs, Remittance Fees, or all of the above,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on July 23.

      Friday’s action suggests that the president’s threats, which provoked concern among Guatemala’s business community, were effective.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/world/americas/trump-guatemala-asylum.html

    • Este es el acuerdo migratorio firmado entre Guatemala y Estados Unidos

      Prensa Libre obtuvo en primicia el acuerdo que Guatemala firmó con Estados Unidos para detener la migración desde el Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica.

      Estados Unidos y Guatemala firmaron este 26 de julio un “acuerdo de asilo”, después de que esta semana el presidente Donald Trump amenazara a Guatemala con imponer aranceles para presionar por la negociación del convenio.

      Según Trump, el acuerdo “va a dar seguridad a los demandantes de asilo legítimos y a va detener los fraudes y abusos en el sistema de asilo”.

      El acuerdo fue firmado en el Despacho Oval de la Casa Blanca entre Kevin McAleenan, secretario interino de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos, y Enrique Degenhart, ministro de Gobernación de Guatemala.

      “Hace mucho tiempo que hemos estado trabajando con Guatemala y ahora podemos hacerlo de la manera correcta”, dijo el mandatario estadounidense.

      Este es el contenido íntegro del acuerdo:

      ACUERDO ENTRE EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA Y EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA RELATIVO A LA COOPERACIÓN RESPECTO AL EXAMEN DE SOLICITUDES DE PROTECCIÓN

      EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA Y EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA, en lo sucesivo de forma individual una “Parte” o colectivamente “las Partes”,

      CONSIDERANDO que Guatemala norma sus relaciones con otros países de conformidad con principios, reglas y prácticas internacionales con el propósito de contribuir al mantenimiento de la paz y la libertad, al respeto y defensa de los derechos humanos, y al fortalecimiento de los procesos democráticos e instituciones internacionales que garanticen el beneficio mutuo y equitativo entre los Estados; considerando por otro lado, que Guatemala mantendrá relaciones de amistad, solidaridad y cooperación con aquellos Estados cuyo desarrollo económico, social y cultural sea análogo al de Guatemala, como el derecho de las personas a migrar y su necesidad de protección;

      CONSIDERANDO que en la actualidad Guatemala incorpora en su legislación interna leyes migratorias dinámicas que obligan a Guatemala a reconocer el derecho de toda persona a emigrar o inmigrar, por lo que cualquier migrante puede entrar, permanecer, transitar, salir y retornar a su territorio nacional conforme a su legislación nacional; considerando, asimismo, que en situaciones no previstas por la legislación interna se debe aplicar la norma que más favorezca al migrante, siendo que por analogía se le debería dar abrigo y cuidado temporal a las personas que deseen ingresar de manera legal al territorio nacional; considerando que por estos motivos es necesario promover acuerdos de cooperación con otros Estados que respeten los mismos principios descritos en la política migratoria de Guatemala, reglamentada por la Autoridad Migratoria Nacional;

      CONSIDERANDO que Guatemala es parte de la Convención sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados de 1951, celebrada en Ginebra el 28 de julio de 1951 (la “Convención de 1951″) y del Protocolo sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados, firmado en Nueva York el 31 de enero de 1967 (el “Protocolo de 1967′), del cual los Estados Unidos son parte, y reafirmando la obligación de las partes de proporcionar protección a refugiados que cumplen con los requisitos y que se encuentran físicamente en sus respectivos territorios, de conformidad con sus obligaciones según esos instrumentos y sujetos . a las respectivas leyes, tratados y declaraciones de las Partes;

      RECONOCIENDO especialmente la obligación de las Partes respecto a cumplir el principio de non-refoulement de no devolución, tal como se desprende de la Convención de 1951 y del Protocolo de 1967, así como la Convención contra la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes, firmada en Nueva York el 10 de diciembre de 1984 (la “Convención contra la Tortura”), con sujeción a las respectivas reservas, entendimientos y declaraciones de las Partes y reafirmando sus respectivas obligaciones de fomentar y proteger los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales en consonancia con sus obligaciones en el ámbito internacional;

      RECONOCIENDO y respetando las obligaciones de cada Parte de conformidad con sus leyes y políticas nacionales y acuerdos y arreglos internacionales;

      DESTACANDO que los Estados Unidos de América y Guatemala ofrecen sistemas de protección de refugiados que son coherentes con sus obligaciones conforme a la Convención de 1951 y/o el Protocolo de 1967;

      DECIDIDOS a mantener el estatuto de refugio o de protección temporal equivalente, como medida esencial en la protección de los refugiados o asilados, y al mismo tiempo deseando impedir el fraude en el proceso de solicitud de refugio o asilo, acción que socava su legitimo propósito; y decididos a fortalecer la integridad del proceso oficial para solicitar el estatuto de refugio o asilo, así como el respaldo público a dicho proceso;

      CONSCIENTES de que la distribución de la responsabilidad relacionada con solicitudes de protección debe garantizar en la práctica que se identifique a las personas que necesitan protección y que se eviten las violaciones del principio básico de no devolución; y, por lo tanto, comprometidos con salvaguardar para cada solicitante del estatuto de refugio o asilo que reúna las condiciones necesarias el acceso a un procedimiento completo e imparcial para determinar la solicitud;

      ACUERDAN lo siguiente:

      ARTÍCULO 1

      A efectos del presente Acuerdo:

      1. “Solicitud de protección” significa la solicitud de una persona de cualquier nacionalidad, al gobierno de una de las Partes para recibir protección conforme a sus respectivas obligaciones institucionales derivadas de la Convención de 1951, del Protocolo de 1967 o de la Convención contra la Tortura, y de conformidad con las leyes y políticas respectivas de las Partes que dan cumplimiento a esas obligaciones internacionales, así como para recibir cualquier otro tipo de protección temporal equivalente disponible conforme al derecho migratorio de la parte receptora.

      2. “Solicitante de protección” significa cualquier persona que presenta una solicitud de protección en el territorio de una de las partes.

      3. “Sistema para determinar la protección” significa el conjunto de políticas, leyes, prácticas administrativas y judiciales que el gobierno de cada parte emplea para decidir respecto de las solicitudes de protección.

      4. “Menor no acompañado” significa un solicitante de protección que no ha cumplido los dieciocho (18) años de edad y cuyo padre, madre o tutor legal no está presente ni disponible para proporcionar atención y custodia presencial en los Estados Unidos de América o en Guatemala, donde se encuentre el menor no acompañado.

      5. En el caso de la inmigración a Guatemala, las políticas respecto de leyes y migración abordan el derecho de las personas a entrar, permanecer, transitar y salir de su territorio de conformidad con sus leyes internas y los acuerdos y arreglos internacionales, y permanencia migratoria significa permanencia por un plazo de tiempo autorizado de acuerdo al estatuto migratorio otorgado a las personas.

      ARTÍCULO 2

      El presente Acuerdo no aplica a los solicitantes de protección que son ciudadanos o nacionales de Guatemala; o quienes, siendo apátridas, residen habitualmente en Guatemala.

      ARTÍCULO 3

      1. Para garantizar que los solicitantes de protección trasladados a Guatemala por los Estados Unidos tengan acceso a un sistema para determinar la protección, Guatemala no retornará ni expulsará a solicitantes de protección en Guatemala, a menos que el solicitante abandone la ‘solicitud o que esta sea denegada a través de una decisión administrativa.

      2. Durante el proceso de traslado, las personas sujetas al presente Acuerdo serán responsabilidad de los Estados Unidos hasta que finalice el proceso de traslado.

      ARTÍCULO 4

      1. La responsabilidad de determinar y concluir en su territorio solicitudes de protección recaerá en los Estados Unidos, cuando los Estados Unidos establezcan que esa persona:

      a. es un menor no acompañado; o

      b. llegó al territorio de los Estados Unidos:

      i. con una visa emitida de forma válida u otro documento de admisión válido, que no sea de tránsito, emitido por los Estados Unidos; o

      ii. sin que los Estados Unidos de América le exigiera obtener una visa.

      2. No obstante el párrafo 1 de este artículo, Guatemala evaluará las solicitudes de protección una por una, de acuerdo a lo establecido y autorizado por la autoridad competente en materia migratoria en sus políticas y leyes migratorias y en su territorio, de las personas que cumplen los requisitos necesarios conforme al presente Acuerdo, y que llegan a los Estados Unidos a un puerto de entrada o entre puertos de entrada, en la fecha efectiva del presente Acuerdo o posterior a ella. Guatemala evaluará la solicitud de protección, conforme al plan de implementación inicial y los procedimientos operativos estándar a los que se hace referencia en el artículo 7, apartados 1 y 5.

      3. Las Partes aplicarán el presente Acuerdo respecto a menores no acompañados de conformidad con sus respectivas leyes nacionales,

      4. Las Partes contarán con procedimientos para garantizar que los traslados de los Estados Unidos a Guatemala de las personas objeto del presente Acuerdo sean compatibles con sus obligaciones, leyes nacionales e internacionales y políticas migratorias respectivas.

      5. Los Estados Unidos tomarán la decisión final de que una persona satisface los requisitos para una excepción en virtud de los artículos 4 y 5 del presente Acuerdo.

      ARTÍCULO 5

      No obstante cualquier disposición del presente Acuerdo, cualquier parte podrá, según su propio criterio, examinar cualquier solicitud de protección que se haya presentado a esa Parte cuando decida que es de su interés público hacerlo.

      ARTÍCULO 6

      Las Partes podrán:

      1. Intercambiar información cuando sea necesario para la implementación efectiva del presente Acuerdo con sujeción a las leyes y reglamentación nacionales. Dicha información no será divulgada por el país receptor excepto de conformidad con sus leyes y reglamentación nacionales.

      2. Las Partes podrán intercambiar de forma habitual información respecto á leyes, reglamentación y prácticas relacionadas con sus respectivos sistemas para determinar la protección migratoria.

      ARTÍCULO 7

      1. Las Partes elaborarán procedimientos operativos estándar para asistir en la implementación del presente Acuerdo. Estos procedimientos incorporarán disposiciones para notificar por adelantado, a Guatemala, el traslado de cualquier persona conforme al presente Acuerdo. Los Estados Unidos colaborarán con Guatemala para identificar a las personas idóneas para ser trasladadas al territorio de Guatemala.

      2. Los procedimientos operativos incorporarán mecanismos para solucionar controversias que respeten la interpretación e implementación de los términos del presente Acuerdo. Los casos no previstos que no puedan solucionarse a través de estos mecanismos serán resueltos a través de la vía diplomática.

      3. Los Estados Unidos prevén cooperar para fortalecer las capacidades institucionales de Guatemala.

      4. Las Partes acuerdan evaluar regularmente el presente Acuerdo y su implementación, para subsanar las deficiencias encontradas. Las Partes realizarán las evaluaciones conjuntamente, siendo la primera dentro de un plazo máximo de tres (3) meses a partir de la fecha de entrada en operación del Acuerdo y las siguientes evaluaciones dentro de los mismos plazos. Las Partes podrán invitar, de común acuerdo, a otras organizaciones pertinentes con conocimientos especializados sobre el tema a participar en la evaluación inicial y/o cooperar para el cumplimiento del presente Acuerdo.

      5. Las Partes prevén completar un plan de implementación inicial, que incorporará gradualmente, y abordará, entre otros: a) los procedimientos necesarios para llevar a cabo el traslado de personas conforme al presente Acuerdo; b) la cantidad o número de personas a ser trasladadas; y c) las necesidades de capacidad institucional. Las Partes planean hacer operativo el presente Acuerdo al finalizarse un plan de implementación gradual.

      ARTÍCULO 8

      1. El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor por medio de un canje de notas entre las partes en el que se indique que cada parte ha cumplido con los procedimientos jurídicos nacionales necesarios para que el Acuerdo entre en vigor. El presente Acuerdo tendrá una vigencia de dos (2) años y podrá renovarse antes de su vencimiento a través de un canje de notas.

      2. Cualquier Parte podrá dar por terminado el presente Acuerdo por medio de una notificación por escrito a la otra Parte con tres (3) meses de antelación.

      3. Cualquier parte podrá, inmediatamente después de notificar a la otra parte por escrito, suspender por un periodo inicial de hasta tres (3) meses la implementación del presente Acuerdo. Esta suspensión podrá extenderse por periodos adicionales de hasta tres (3) meses por medio de una notificación por escrito a la otra parte. Cualquier parte podrá, con el consentimiento por escrito de la otra, suspender cualquier parte del presente Acuerdo.

      4. Las Partes podrán, por escrito y de mutuo acuerdo, realizar cualquier modificación o adición al presente Acuerdo. Estas entrarán en vigor de conformidad con los procedimientos jurídicos pertinentes de cada Parte y la modificación o adición constituirá parte integral del presente Acuerdo.

      5. Ninguna disposición del presente Acuerdo deberá interpretarse de manera que obligue a las Partes a erogar o comprometer fondos.

      EN FE DE LO CUAL, los abajo firmantes, debidamente autorizados por sus respectivos gobiernos, firman el presente Acuerdo.

      HECHO el 26 de julio de 2019, por duplicado en los idiomas inglés y español, siendo ambos textos auténticos.

      POR EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA: Kevin K. McAleenan, Secretario Interino de Seguridad Nacional.

      POR EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA: Enrique A. Degenhart Asturias, Ministro de Gobernación.

      https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/migrantes/este-es-el-acuerdo-migratorio-firmado-entre-guatemala-y-estados-unidos

    • Washington signe un accord sur le droit d’asile avec le Guatemala

      Sous la pression du président américain, le Guatemala devient un « pays tiers sûr », où les migrants de passage vers les Etats-Unis doivent déposer leurs demandes d’asile.

      Sous la pression de Donald Trump qui menaçait de lui infliger des sanctions commerciales, le Guatemala a accepté vendredi 26 juillet de devenir un « pays tiers sûr » pour contribuer à réduire le nombre de demandes d’asile aux Etats-Unis. L’accord, qui a été signé en grande pompe dans le bureau ovale de la Maison blanche, en préfigure d’autres, a assuré le président américain, qui a notamment cité le Mexique.

      Faute d’avoir obtenu du Congrès le financement du mur qu’il souhaitait construire le long de la frontière avec le Mexique, Donald Trump a changé de stratégie en faisant pression sur les pays d’Amérique centrale pour qu’ils l’aident à réduire le flux de migrants arrivant aux Etats-Unis, qui a atteint un niveau record sous sa présidence.

      Une personne qui traverse un « pays tiers sûr » doit déposer sa demande d’asile dans ce pays et non dans son pays de destination. Sans employer le terme « pays tiers sûr », le gouvernement guatémaltèque a précisé dans un communiqué que l’accord conclu avec les Etats-Unis s’appliquerait aux réfugiés originaires du Honduras et du Salvador.

      Contreparties pour les travailleurs agricoles

      S’adressant à la presse devant la Maison blanche, le président américain a indiqué que les ouvriers agricoles guatémaltèques auraient en contrepartie un accès privilégié aux fermes aux Etats-Unis.

      Le président guatémaltèque Jimmy Morales devait signer l’accord de « pays tiers sûr » la semaine dernière mais il avait été contraint de reculer après que la Cour constitutionnelle avait jugé qu’il ne pouvait pas prendre un tel engagement sans l’accord du Parlement, ce qui avait provoqué la fureur de Donald Trump.

      Invoquant la nécessité d’éviter des « répercussions sociales et économiques », le gouvernement guatémaltèque a indiqué qu’un accord serait signé dans les prochains jours avec Washington pour faciliter l’octroi de visas de travail agricole temporaires aux ressortissants guatémaltèques. Il a dit espérer que cette mesure serait ultérieurement étendue aux secteurs de la construction et des services.

      Les Etats-Unis sont confrontés à une flambée du nombre de migrants qui cherchent à franchir sa frontière sud, celle qui les séparent du Mexique. En juin, les services de police aux frontières ont arrêté 104 000 personnes qui cherchaient à entrer illégalement aux Etats-Unis. Ils avaient été 144 000 le mois précédent.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/07/27/washington-signe-un-accord-sur-le-droit-d-asile-avec-le-guatemala_5493979_32
      #agriculture #ouvriers_agricoles #travail #fermes

    • Migrants, pressions sur le Mexique

      Sous la pression des États-Unis, le Mexique fait la chasse aux migrants sur son territoire, et les empêche d’avancer vers le nord. Au mois de juin, les autorités ont arrêté près de 24 000 personnes sans papiers.

      Debout sur son radeau, Edwin maugrée en regardant du coin de l’œil la vingtaine de militaires de la Garde Nationale mexicaine postés sous les arbres, côté mexicain. « C’est à cause d’eux si les affaires vont mal », bougonne le jeune Guatémaltèque en poussant son radeau à l’aide d’une perche. « Depuis qu’ils sont là, plus personne ne peut passer au Mexique ».

      Les eaux du fleuve Suchiate, qui sépare le Mexique du Guatemala, sont étrangement calmes depuis le mois de juin. Fini le ballet incessant des petits radeaux de fortune, où s’entassaient, pêle-mêle, villageois, commerçants et migrants qui se rendaient au Mexique. « Mais ça ne change rien, les migrants traversent plus loin », sourit le jeune homme.

      La stratégie du président américain Donald Trump pour contraindre son voisin du sud à réduire les flux migratoires en direction des États-Unis a mis le gouvernement mexicain aux abois : pour éviter une nouvelle fois la menace de l’instauration de frais de douanes de 5 % sur les importations mexicaines, le gouvernement d’Andrés Manuel López Obrador a déployé dans l’urgence 6 500 éléments de la Garde Nationale à la frontière sud du Mexique.
      Des pots-de-vin lors des contrôles

      Sur les routes, les opérations de contrôle sont partout. « Nous avons été arrêtés à deux reprises par l’armée », explique Natalia, entourée de ses garçons de 11 ans, 8 ans et 3 ans. Cette Guatémaltèque s’est enfuie de son village avec son mari et ses enfants, il y a dix jours. Son époux, témoin protégé dans le procès d’un groupe criminel, a été menacé de mort. « Au premier contrôle, nous leur avons donné 1 500 pesos (NDLR, 70 €), au deuxième 2 500 pesos (118 €), pour qu’ils nous laissent partir », explique la mère de famille, assise sous le préau de l’auberge du Père César Augusto Cañaveral, l’une des deux auberges qui accueillent les migrants à Tapachula.

      Conçu pour 120 personnes, l’établissement héberge actuellement plus de 300 personnes, dont une centaine d’enfants en bas âge. « On est face à une politique anti-migratoire de plus en plus violente et militarisée, se désole le Père Cañaveral. C’est devenu une véritable chasse à l’homme dehors, alors je leur dis de sortir le moins possible pour éviter les arrestations ». Celles-ci ont en effet explosé depuis l’ultimatum du président des États-Unis : du 1er au 24 juin, l’Institut National de Migration (INM) a arrêté près de 24 000 personnes en situation irrégulière, soit 1 000 personnes détenues par jour en moyenne, et en a expulsé plus de 17 000, essentiellement des Centraméricains. Du jamais vu.
      Des conditions de détention « indignes »

      À Tapachula, les migrants arrêtés sont entassés dans le centre de rétention Siglo XXI. À quelques mètres de l’entrée de cette forteresse de béton, Yannick a le regard vide et fatigué. « Il y avait tellement de monde là-dedans que ma fille y est tombée malade », raconte cet Angolais âgé de 33 ans, sa fille de 3 ans somnolant dans ses bras. « Ils viennent de nous relâcher car ils ne vont pas nous renvoyer en Afrique, ajoute-il. Heureusement, car à l’intérieur on dort par terre ». « Les conditions dans ce centre sont indignes », dénonce Claudia León Aug, coordinatrice du Service jésuite des réfugiés pour l’Amérique latine, qui a visité à plusieurs reprises le centre de rétention Siglo XXI. « La nourriture est souvent avariée, les enfants tombent malades, les bébés n’ont droit qu’à une seule couche par jour, et on a même recensé des cas de tortures et d’agressions ».

      Tapachula est devenu un cul-de-sac pour des milliers de migrants. Ils errent dans les rues de la ville, d’hôtel en d’hôtel, ou louent chez l’habitant, faute de pouvoir avancer vers le nord. Les compagnies de bus, sommées de participer à l’effort national, demandent systématiquement une pièce d’identité en règle. « On ne m’a pas laissé monter dans le bus en direction de Tijuana », se désole Elvis, un Camerounais de 34 ans qui rêve de se rendre au Canada.

      Il sort de sa poche un papier tamponné par les autorités mexicaines, le fameux laissez-passer que délivrait l’Institut National de Migration aux migrants extra-continentaux, pour qu’ils traversent le Mexique en 20 jours afin de gagner la frontière avec les États-Unis. « Regardez, ils ont modifié le texte, maintenant il est écrit que je ne peux pas sortir de Tapachula », accuse le jeune homme, dépité, avant de se rasseoir sur le banc de la petite cour de son hôtel décati dans la périphérie de Tapachula. « La situation est chaotique, les gens sont bloqués ici et les autorités ne leur donnent aucune information, pour les décourager encore un peu plus », dénonce Salvador Lacruz, coordinateur au Centre des Droits humains Centro Fray Matías de Córdova.
      Explosion du nombre des demandes d’asile au Mexique

      Face à la menace des arrestations et des expulsions, de plus en plus de migrants choisissent de demander l’asile au Mexique. Dans le centre-ville de Tapachula, la Commission mexicaine d’aide aux réfugiés (COMAR), est prise d’assaut dès 4 heures du matin par les demandeurs d’asile. « On m’a dit de venir avec tous les documents qui prouvent que je suis en danger de mort dans mon pays », explique Javier, un Hondurien de 34 ans qui a fait la queue une partie de la nuit pour ne pas rater son rendez-vous.

      Son fils de 9 ans est assis sur ses genoux. « J’ai le certificat de décès de mon père et celui de mon frère. Ils ont été assassinés pour avoir refusé de donner de l’argent aux maras », explique-t-il, une pochette en plastique dans les mains. « Le prochain sur la liste, c’est moi, c’est pour ça que je suis parti pour les États-Unis, mais je vois que c’est devenu très difficile, alors je me pose ici, ensuite, on verra ».

      Les demandes d’asile au Mexique ont littéralement explosé : 31 000 pour les six premiers mois de 2019, c’est trois fois plus qu’en 2018 à la même période, et juin a été particulièrement élevé, avec 70 % de demandes en plus par rapport à janvier. La tendance devrait se poursuivre du fait de la décision prise le 15 juillet dernier par le président américain, que toute personne « entrant par la frontière sud des États-Unis » et souhaitant demander l’asile aux États-Unis le fasse, au préalable, dans un autre pays, transformant ainsi le Mexique, de facto, en « pays tiers sûr ».

      « Si les migrants savent que la seule possibilité de demander l’asile aux États-Unis, c’est de l’avoir obtenu au Mexique, ils le feront », observe Salvador Lacruz. Mais si certains s’accrochent à Tapachula, d’autres abandonnent. Jesús Roque, un Hondurien de 21 ans, « vient de signer » comme disent les migrants centraméricains en référence au programme de retour volontaire mis en place par le gouvernement mexicain. « C’est impossible d’aller plus au nord, je rentre chez moi », lâche-t-il.

      Comme lui, plus de 35 000 personnes sont rentrées dans leur pays, essentiellement des Honduriens et des Salvadoriens. À quelques mètres, deux femmes pressent le pas, agacées par la foule qui se presse devant les bureaux de la COMAR. « Qu’ils partent d’ici, vite ! », grogne l’une. Le mur tant désiré par Donald Trump s’est finalement érigé au Mexique en quelques semaines. Dans les esprits aussi.

      https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Ameriques/Le-Mexique-verrouille-frontiere-sud-2019-08-01-1201038809

    • US Move Puts More Asylum Seekers at Risk. Expanded ‘#Remain_in_Mexico’ Program Undermines Due Process

      The Trump administration has drastically expanded its “Remain in Mexico” program while undercutting the rights of asylum seekers at the United States southern border, Human Rights Watch said today. Under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – known as the “Remain in Mexico” program – asylum seekers in the US are returned to cities in Mexico where there is a shortage of shelter and high crime rates while awaiting asylum hearings in US immigration court.

      Human Rights Watch found that asylum seekers face new or increased barriers to obtaining and communicating with legal counsel; increased closure of MPP court hearings to the public; and threats of kidnapping, extortion, and other violence while in Mexico.

      “The inherently inhumane ‘Remain in Mexico’ program is getting more abusive by the day,” said Ariana Sawyer, assistant US Program researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The program’s rapid growth in recent months has put even more people and families in danger in Mexico while they await an increasingly unfair legal process in the US.”

      The United States will begin sending all Central American asylum-seeking families to Mexico beginning the week of September 29, 2019 as part of the most recent expansion of the “Remain in Mexico” program, the Department of Homeland Security acting secretary, Kevin McAleenan, announced on September 23.

      Human Rights Watch concluded in a July 2019 report that the MPP program has had serious rights consequences for asylum seekers, including high – if not insurmountable – barriers to due process on their asylum claims in the United States and threats and physical violence in Mexico. Human Rights Watch recently spoke to seven asylum seekers, as well as 26 attorneys, migrant shelter operators, Mexican government officials, immigration court workers, journalists, and advocates. Human Rights Watch also observed court hearings for 71 asylum seekers in August and analyzed court filings, declarations, photographs, and media reports.

      “The [MPP] rules, which are never published, are constantly changing without advance notice,” said John Moore, an asylum attorney. “And so far, every change has had the effect of further restricting the already limited access we attorneys have with our clients.”

      Beyond the expanded program, which began in January, the US State Department has also begun funding a “voluntary return” program carried out by the United Nations-affiliated International Organization for Migration (IOM). The organization facilitates the transportation of asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico back to their country of origin but does not notify US immigration judges. This most likely results in negative judgments against asylum seekers for not appearing in court, possibly resulting in a ban of up to 10 years on entering the US again, when they could have withdrawn their cases without penalty.

      Since July, the number of people being placed in the MPP program has almost tripled, from 15,079 as of June 24, to 40,033 as of September 7, according to the Mexican National Institute of Migration. The Trump administration has increased the number of asylum seekers it places in the program at ports of entry near San Diego and Calexico, California and El Paso, Texas, where the program had already been in place. The administration has also expanded the program to Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, even as the overall number of border apprehensions has declined.

      As of early August, more than 26,000 additional asylum seekers were waiting in Mexican border cities on unofficial lists to be processed by US Customs and Border Protection as part the US practice of “metering,” or of limiting the number of people who can apply for asylum each day by turning them back from ports of entry in violation of international law.

      In total, more than 66,000 asylum seekers are now in Mexico, forced to wait months or years for their cases to be decided in the US. Some have given up waiting and have attempted to cross illicitly in more remote and dangerous parts of the border, at times with deadly results.

      As problematic as the MPP program is, seeking asylum will likely soon become even more limited. On September 11, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to carry out an asylum ban against anyone entering the country by land after July 16 who transited through a third country without applying for asylum there. This could affect at least 46,000 asylum seekers, placed in the MPP program or on a metering list after mid-July, according to calculations based on data from the Mexican National Institute of Migration. Asylum seekers may still be eligible for other forms of protection, but they carry much higher eligibility standards and do not provide the same level of relief.

      Human Rights Watch contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the US Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review with its findings and questions regarding the policy changes and developments but have not to date received a response. The US government should immediately cease returning asylum seekers to Mexico and instead ensure them meaningful access to full and fair asylum proceedings in US immigration courts, Human Rights Watch said. Congress should urgently act to cease funding the MPP program. The US should manage asylum-seeker arrivals through a genuine humanitarian response that includes fair determinations of an asylum seeker’s eligibility to remain in the US. The US should simultaneously pursue longer-term efforts to address the root causes of forced displacement in Central America.

      “The Trump administration seems intent on making the bad situation for asylum seekers even worse by further depriving them of due process rights,” Sawyer said. “The US Congress should step in and put an end to these mean-spirited attempts to undermine and destroy the US asylum system.”

      New Concerns over the MPP Program

      Increased Barriers to Legal Representation

      Everyone in the MPP has the right to an attorney at their own cost, but it has been nearly impossible for asylum seekers forced to remain in Mexico to get legal representation. Only about 1.3 percent of participants have legal representation, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, a research center that examined US immigration court records through June 2019. In recent months, the US government has raised new barriers to obtaining representation and accessing counsel.

      When the Department of Homeland Security created the program, it issued guidance that:

      in order to facilitate access to counsel for aliens subject to return to Mexico under the MPP who will be transported to their immigration court hearings, [agents] will depart from the [port of entry] with the alien at a time sufficient to ensure arrival at the immigration court not later than one hour before his or her scheduled hearing time in order to afford the alien the opportunity to meet in-person with his or her legal representative.

      However, according to several attorneys Human Rights Watch interviewed in El Paso, Texas, and as Human Rights Watch observed on August 12 to 15 in El Paso Immigration Court, the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which manages the immigration court, have effectively barred attorneys from meeting with clients for the full hour before their client’s hearing begins. Rather than having free access to their clients, attorneys are now required to wait in the building lobby on a different level than the immigration court until the court administrator notifies security guards that attorneys may enter.

      As Human Rights Watch has previously noted, one hour is insufficient for adequate attorney consultation and preparation. Still, several attorneys said that this time in court was crucial. Immigration court is often the only place where asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico can meet with attorneys since lawyers capable of representing them typically work in the US. Attorneys cannot easily travel to Mexico because of security and logistical issues. For MPP participants without attorneys, there are now also new barriers to getting basic information and assistance about the asylum application process.

      Human Rights Watch observed in May a coordinated effort by local nongovernmental organizations and attorneys in El Paso to perform know-your-rights presentations for asylum seekers without an attorney and to serve as “Friend of the Court,” at the judge’s discretion. The Executive Office for Immigration Review has recognized in the context of unaccompanied minors that a Friend of the Court “has a useful role to play in assisting the court and enhancing a respondent’s comprehension of proceedings.”

      The agency’s memos also say that, “Immigration Judges and court administrators remain encouraged to facilitate pro bono representation” because pro bono attorneys provide “respondents with welcome legal assistance and the judge with efficiencies that can only be realized when the respondent is represented.”

      To that end, immigration courts are encouraged to support “legal orientations and group rights presentations” by nonprofit organizations and attorneys.

      One of the attorneys involved in coordinating the various outreach programs at the El Paso Immigration Court said, however, that on June 24 the agency began barring all contact between third parties and asylum seekers without legal representation in both the courtroom and the lobby outside. This effectively ended all know-your-rights presentations and pro bono case screenings, though no new memo was issued. Armed guards now prevent attorneys in the US from interacting with MPP participants unless the attorneys have already filed official notices that they are representing specific participants.

      On July 8, the agency also began barring attorneys from serving as “Friend of the Court,” several attorneys told Human Rights Watch. No new memo has been issued on “Friend of the Court” either.

      In a July 16 email to an attorney obtained by Human Rights Watch, an agency spokesman, Rob Barnes, said that the agency shut down “Friend of the Court” and know-your-rights presentations to protect asylum seekers from misinformation after it “became aware that persons from organizations not officially recognized by EOIR...were entering EOIR space in El Paso.

      However, most of the attorneys and organizations now barred from performing know-your-rights presentations or serving as “Friend of the Court” in El Paso are listed on a form given to asylum seekers by the court of legal service providers, according to a copy of the form given to Human Rights Watch and attorneys and organizations coordinating those services.

      Closure of Immigration Court Hearings to the Public

      When Human Rights Watch observed court hearings in El Paso on May 8 to 10, the number of asylum seekers who had been placed in the MPP program and scheduled to appear in court was between 20 and 24 each day, with one judge hearing all of these cases in a single mass hearing. At the time, those numbers were considered high, and there was chaos and confusion as judges navigated a system that was never designed to provide hearings for people being kept outside the US.

      When Human Rights Watch returned to observe hearings just over three months later, four judges were hearing a total of about 250 cases a day, an average of over 60 cases for each judge. Asylum seekers in the program, who would previously have been allowed into the US to pursue their claims at immigration courts dispersed around the country, have been primarily funneled through courts in just two border cities, causing tremendous pressures on these courts and errors in the system. Some asylum seekers who appeared in court found their cases were not in the system or received conflicting instructions about where or when to appear.

      One US immigration official said the MPP program had “broken the courts,” Reuters reported.

      The Executive Office for Immigration Review has stated that immigration court hearings are generally supposed to be open to the public. The regulations indicate that immigration judges may make exceptions and limit or close hearings if physical facilities are inadequate; if there is a need to protect witnesses, parties, or the public interest; if an abused spouse or abused child is to appear; or if information under seal is to be presented.

      In recent weeks, however, journalists, attorneys, and other public observers have been barred from these courtrooms in El Paso by court administrators, security guards, and in at least one case, by a Department of Homeland Security attorney, who said that a courtroom was too full to allow a Human Rights Watch researcher entry.

      Would-be observers are now frequently told by the court administrator or security guards that there is “no room,” and that dockets are all “too full.”

      El Paso Immigration Court Administrator Rodney Buckmire told Human Rights Watch that hundreds of people receive hearings each day because asylum seekers “deserve their day in court,” but the chaos and errors in mass hearings, the lack of access to attorneys and legal advice, and the lack of transparency make clear that the MPP program is severely undermining due process.

      During the week of September 9, the Trump administration began conducting hearings for asylum seekers returned to Mexico in makeshift tent courts in Laredo and Brownsville, where judges are expected to preside via videoconference. At a September 11 news conference, DHS would not commit to allowing observers for those hearings, citing “heightened security measures” since the courts are located near the border. Both attorneys and journalists have since been denied entry to these port courts.

      Asylum Seekers Describe Risk of Kidnapping, Other Crimes

      As the MPP has expanded, increasing numbers of asylum seekers have been placed at risk of kidnapping and other crimes in Mexico.

      Two of the northern Mexican states to which asylum seekers were initially being returned under the program, Baja California and Chihuahua, are among those with the most homicides and other crimes in the country. Recent media reports have documented ongoing harm to asylum seekers there, including rape, kidnapping, sexual exploitation, assault, and other violent crimes.

      The program has also been expanded to Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros, both in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is on the US State Department’s “do not travel” list. The media and aid workers have also reported that migrants there have experienced physical violence, sexual assault, kidnapping, and other abuses. There have been multiple reports in 2019 alone of migrants being kidnapped as they attempt to reach the border by bus.

      Jennifer Harbury, a human rights attorney and activist doing volunteer work with asylum-seekers on both sides of the border, collected sworn declarations that they had been victims of abuse from three asylum seekers who had been placed in the MPP program and bused by Mexican immigration authorities to Monterrey, Mexico, two and a half hours from the border. Human Rights Watch examined these declarations, in which asylum seekers reported robbery, extortion, and kidnapping, including by Mexican police.

      Expansion to Mexican Cities with Even Fewer Protections

      Harbury, who recently interviewed hundreds of migrants in Mexico, described asylum seekers sent to Nuevo Laredo as “fish in a barrel” because of their vulnerability to criminal organizations. She said that many of the asylum seekers she interviewed said they had been kidnapped or subjected to an armed assault at least once since they reached the border.

      Because Mexican officials are in many cases reportedly themselves involved in crimes against migrants, and because nearly 98 percent of crimes in Mexico go unsolved, crimes committed against migrants routinely go unpunished.

      In Matamoros, asylum seekers have no meaningful shelter access, said attorneys with Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) who were last there from August 22 to 26. Instead, more than 500 asylum seekers were placed in an encampment in a plaza near the port of entry to the US, where they were sleeping out in the open, despite temperatures of over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Henriette Vinet-Martin, a lawyer with the group, said she saw a “nursing mother sleeping on cardboard with her baby” and that attorneys also spoke to a woman in the MPP program there who said she had recently miscarried in a US hospital while in Customs and Border Protection custody. The attorneys said some asylum seekers had tents, but many did not.

      Vinet-Martin and Claire Noone, another lawyer there as part of the L4GG project, said they found children with disabilities who had been placed in the MPP program, including two children with Down Syndrome, one of them eight months old.

      Human Rights Watch also found that Customs and Border Protection continues to return asylum seekers with disabilities or other chronic health conditions to Mexico, despite the Department of Homeland Security’s initial guidance that no one with “known physical/mental health issues” would be placed in the program. In Ciudad Juárez, Human Rights Watch documented six such cases, four of them children. In one case, a 14-year-old boy had been placed in the program along with his mother and little brother, who both have intellectual disabilities, although the boy said they have family in the US. He appeared to be confused and distraught by his situation.

      The Mexican government has taken some steps to protect migrants in Ciudad Juárez, including opening a large government-operated shelter. The shelter, which Human Rights Watch visited on August 22, has a capacity of 3,000 migrants and is well-stocked with food, blankets, sleeping pads, personal hygiene kits, and more. At the time of the visit, the shelter held 555 migrants, including 230 children, primarily asylum seekers in the MPP program.

      One Mexican government official said the government will soon open two more shelters – one in Tijuana with a capacity of 3,000 and another in Mexicali with a capacity of 1,500.

      Problems Affecting the ‘Assisted Voluntary Return’ Program

      In October 2018, the International Organization for Migration began operating a $1.65 million US State Department-funded “Assisted Voluntary Return” program to assist migrants who have decided or felt compelled to return home. The return program originally targeted Central Americans traveling in large groups through the interior of Mexico. However, in July, the program began setting up offices in Ciudad Juárez, Tijuana, and Mexicali focusing on asylum seekers forced to wait in those cities after being placed in the MPP program. Alex Rigol Ploettner, who heads the International Organization for Migration office in Ciudad Juárez, said that the organization also provides material support such as bunk beds and personal hygiene kits to shelters, which the organization asks to refer interested asylum seekers to the Assisted Voluntary Return program. Four shelter operators in Ciudad Juárez confirmed these activities.

      As of late August, Rigol Ploettner said approximately 500 asylum seekers in the MPP program had been referred to Assisted Voluntary Return. Of those 500, he said, about 95 percent were found to be eligible for the program.

      He said the organization warns asylum seekers that returning to their home country may cause them to receive deportation orders from the US in absentia, meaning they will most likely face a ban on entering the US of up to 10 years.

      The organization does not inform US immigration courts that they have returned asylum seekers, nor are asylum seekers assisted in withdrawing their petition for asylum, which would avoid future penalties in the US.

      “For now, as the IOM, we don’t have a direct mechanism for withdrawal,” Rigol Ploettner said. Human Rights Watch is deeply concerned about the failure to notify the asylum courts when people who are on US immigration court dockets return home and the negative legal consequences for asylum seekers. These concerns are heightened by the environment in which the Assisted Voluntary Return Program is operating. Asylum seekers in the MPP are in such a vulnerable situation that it cannot be assumed that decisions to return home are based on informed consent.

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/09/25/us-move-puts-more-asylum-seekers-risk

      via @pascaline

    • Sweeping Language in Asylum Agreement Foists U.S. Responsibilities onto El Salvador

      Amid a tightening embrace of Trump administration policies, last week El Salvador agreed to begin taking asylum-seekers sent back from the United States. The agreement was announced on Friday but details were not made public at the time. The text of the agreement — which The Intercept requested and obtained from the Department of Homeland Security — purports to uphold international and domestic obligations “to provide protection for eligible refugees,” but immigration experts see the move as the very abandonment of the principle of asylum. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy analyst at American Immigration Council, called the agreement a “deeply cynical” move.

      The agreement, which closely resembles one that the U.S. signed with Guatemala in July, implies that any asylum-seeker who is not from El Salvador could be sent back to that country and forced to seek asylum there. Although officials have said that the agreements would apply to people who passed through El Salvador or Guatemala en route, the text of the agreements does not explicitly make that clear.

      “This agreement is so potentially sweeping that it could be used to send an asylum-seeker who never transited El Salvador to El Salvador,” said Eleanor Acer, senior director of refugee protection at the nonprofit organization Human Rights First.

      DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

      The Guatemalan deal has yet to take effect, as Guatemala’s Congress claims to need to ratify it first. DHS officials are currently seeking a similar arrangement with Honduras and have been pressuring Mexico — under threats of tariffs — to crack down on U.S.-bound migration.

      The agreement with El Salvador comes after the Supreme Court recently upheld the Trump administration’s most recent asylum ban, which requires anyone who has transited through another country before reaching the border to seek asylum there first, and be denied in that country, in order to be eligible for asylum in the U.S. Meanwhile, since January, more than 42,000 asylum-seekers who filed their claims in the U.S. before the ban took effect have been pushed back into Mexico and forced to wait there — where they have been subjected to kidnapping, rape, and extortion, among other hazards — as the courts slowly weigh their eligibility.

      Reichlin-Melnick called the U.S.-El Salvador deal “yet another sustained attack at our system of asylum protections.” It begins by invoking the international Refugee Convention and the principle of non-refoulement, which is the crux of asylum law — the guarantee not to return asylum-seekers to a country where they would be subjected to persecution or death. Karen Musalo, law professor at U.C. Hastings Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, called that invocation “Orwellian.”

      “The idea that El Salvador is a safe country for asylum-seekers when it is one of the major countries sending asylum-seekers to the U.S., a country with one of the highest homicide and femicide rates in the world, a place in which gangs have control over large swathes of the country, and the violence is causing people to flee in record numbers … is another absurdity that is beyond the pale,” Musalo said.

      “El Salvador is not a country that is known for having any kind of protection for its own citizens’ human rights,” Musalo added. “If they can’t protect their own citizens, it’s absolutely absurd to think that they can protect people that are not their citizens.”

      “They’ve looked at all of the facts,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “And they’ve decided to create their own reality.”

      Last week, the Salvadoran newspaper El Faro reported that the country’s agency that reviews asylum claims only has a single officer. Meanwhile, though homicide rates have gone down in recent months — since outsider president Nayib Bukele took office in June — September has already seen an increase in homicides. Bukele’s calculus in accepting the agreement is still opaque to Salvadoran observers (Guatemala’s version was deeply unpopular in that country), but he has courted U.S. investment and support. The legal status of nearly 200,000 Salvadorans with temporary protected status in the U.S. is also under threat from the administration. This month also saw the symbolic launch of El Salvador’s Border Patrol — with U.S. funding and support. This week, Bukele, who has both sidled up to Trump and employed Trumpian tactics, will meet with the U.S. president in New York to discuss immigration.

      Reichlin-Melnick noted that the Guatemalan and Salvadoran agreements, as written, could bar people not only from seeking asylum, but also from two other protections meant to fulfill the non-refoulement principle: withholding of removal (a stay on deportation) and the Convention Against Torture, which prevents people from being returned to situations where they may face torture. That would mean that these Central American cooperation agreements go further than the recent asylum ban, which still allows people to apply for those other protections.

      Another major difference between the asylum ban and these agreements is that with the asylum ban, people would be deported to their home countries. If these agreements go into effect, the U.S. will start sending people to Guatemala or El Salvador, regardless of where they may be from. In the 1980s, the ACLU documented over 100 cases of Salvadorans who were harmed or killed after they were deported from the U.S. After this agreement goes into effect, it will no longer be just Salvadorans who the U.S. will be sending into danger.

      https://theintercept.com/2019/09/23/el-salvador-asylum-agreement

    • La forteresse Trump ou le pari du mur

      Plus que sur le mur promis pendant sa campagne, Donald Trump semble fonder sa #politique_migratoire sur une #pression_commerciale sur ses voisins du sud, remettant en cause les #échanges économiques mais aussi culturels avec le Mexique. Ce mur ne serait-il donc que symbolique ?
      Alors que l’administration américaine le menaçait de #taxes_douanières et de #guerre_commerciale, le Mexique d’Andres Lopez Obrador a finalement concédé de freiner les flux migratoires.

      Après avoir accepté un #accord imposé par Washington, Mexico a considérablement réduit les flux migratoires et accru les #expulsions. En effet, plus de 100 000 ressortissants centre-américains ont été expulsés du Mexique vers le #Guatemala dans les huit premiers mois de l’année, soit une hausse de 63% par rapport à l’année précédente selon les chiffres du Guatemala.

      Par ailleurs, cet été le Guatemala a conclu un accord de droit d’asile avec Washington, faisant de son territoire un « #pays_sûr » auprès duquel les demandeurs d’asiles ont l’obligation d’effectuer les premières démarches. Le Salvador et le #Honduras ont suivi la voie depuis.

      Et c’est ainsi que, alors qu’il rencontrait les plus grandes difficultés à obtenir les financements pour le mur à la frontière mexicaine, Donald Trump mise désormais sur ses voisins pour externaliser sa politique migratoire.

      Alors le locataire de la Maison Blanche a-t-il oublié ses ambitions de poursuivre la construction de cette frontière de fer et de béton ? Ce mur n’était-il qu’un symbole destiné à montrer à son électorat son volontarisme en matière de lutte contre l’immigration ? Le retour de la campagne est-il susceptible d’accélérer les efforts dans le domaine ?

      D’autre part, qu’en est-il de la situation des migrants sur le terrain ? Comment s’adaptent-ils à cette nouvelle donne ? Quelles conséquences sur les parcours migratoires des hommes, des femmes et des enfants qui cherchent à gagner les Etats-Unis ?

      On se souvient de cette terrible photo des cadavres encore enlacés d’un père et de sa petite fille de 2 ans, Oscar et Valeria Alberto, originaires du Salvador, morts noyés dans les eaux tumultueuses du Rio Bravo en juin dernier alors qu’ils cherchaient à passer aux Etats-Unis.

      Ce destin tragique annonce-t-il d’autres drames pour nombre de candidats à l’exil qui, quelques soient les politiques migratoires des Etats, iront au bout de leur vie avec l’espoir de l’embellir un peu ?

      https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/cultures-monde/les-frontieres-de-la-colere-14-la-forteresse-trump-ou-le-pari-du-mur

      #Mexique #symbole #barrières_frontalières #USA #Etats-Unis #renvois #push-back #refoulements

    • Mexico sends asylum seekers south — with no easy way to return for U.S. court dates

      The exhausted passengers emerge from a sleek convoy of silver and red-streaked buses, looking confused and disoriented as they are deposited ignominiously in this tropical backwater in southernmost Mexico.

      There is no greeter here to provide guidance on their pending immigration cases in the United States or on where to seek shelter in a teeming international frontier town packed with marooned, U.S.-bound migrants from across the globe.

      The bus riders had made a long and perilous overland trek north to the Rio Grande only to be dispatched back south to Mexico’s border with Central America — close to where many of them had begun their perilous journeys weeks and months earlier. At this point, some said, both their resources and sense of hope had been drained.

      “We don’t know what we’re going to do next,” said Maria de Los Angeles Flores Reyes, 39, a Honduran accompanied by her daughter, Cataren, 9, who appeared petrified after disembarking from one of the long-distance buses. “There’s no information, nothing.”

      The two are among more than 50,000 migrants, mostly Central Americans, whom U.S. immigration authorities have sent back to Mexico this year to await court hearings in the United States under the Trump administration’s Remain in Mexico program.

      Immigration advocates have assailed the program as punitive, while the White House says it has worked effectively — discouraging many migrants from following up on asylum cases and helping to curb what President Trump has decried as a “catch and release” system in which apprehended migrants have been freed in U.S. territory pending court proceeding that can drag on for months or years.

      The ever-expanding ranks pose a growing dilemma for Mexican authorities, who, under intense pressure from the White House, had agreed to accept the returnees and provide them with humanitarian assistance.

      As the numbers rise, Mexico, in many cases, has opted for a controversial solution: Ship as many asylum seekers as possible more than 1,000 miles back here in the apparent hope that they will opt to return to Central America — even if that implies endangering or foregoing prospective political asylum claims in U.S. immigration courts.

      Mexican officials, sensitive to criticism that they are facilitating Trump’s hard-line deportation agenda, have been tight-lipped about the shadowy busing program, under which thousands of asylum-seekers have been returned here since August. (Mexican authorities declined to provide statistics on just how many migrants have been sent back under the initiative.)

      In a statement, Mexico’s immigration agency called the 40-hour bus rides a “free, voluntary and secure” alternative for migrants who don’t want to spend months waiting in the country’s notoriously dangerous northern border towns.

      Advocates counter that the program amounts to a barely disguised scheme for encouraging ill-informed migrants to abandon their ongoing petitions in U.S. immigration court and return to Central America. Doing so leaves them to face the same conditions that they say forced them to flee toward the United States, and, at the same time, would undermine the claims that they face persecution at home.

      “Busing someone back to your southern border doesn’t exactly send them a message that you want them to stay in your country,” said Maureen Meyer, who heads the Mexico program for the Washington Office on Latin America, a research and advocacy group. “And it isn’t always clear that the people on the buses understand what this could mean for their cases in the United States.”

      Passengers interviewed on both ends of the bus pipeline — along the northern Mexican border and here on the southern frontier with Guatemala — say that no Mexican official briefed them on the potential legal jeopardy of returning home.

      “No one told us anything,” Flores Reyes asked after she got off the bus here, bewildered about how to proceed. “Is there a safe place to stay here until our appointment in December?”

      The date is specified on a notice to appear that U.S. Border Patrol agents handed her before she and her daughter were sent back to Mexico last month after having been detained as illegal border-crossers in south Texas. They are due Dec. 16 in a U.S. immigration court in Harlingen, Texas, for a deportation hearing, according to the notice, stamped with the capital red letters MPP — for Migrant Protection Protocols, the official designation of Remain in Mexico.

      The free bus rides to the Guatemalan border are strictly a one-way affair: Mexico does not offer return rides back to the northern border for migrants due in a U.S. immigration court, typically several months later.

      Beti Suyapa Ortega, 36, and son Robinson Javier Melara, 17, in a Mexican immigration agency waiting room in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

      “At this point, I’m so frightened I just want to go home,” said Beti Suyapa Ortega, 36, from Honduras, who crossed the border into Texas intending to seek political asylum and surrendered to the Border Patrol.

      She, along with her son, 17, were among two dozen or so Remain in Mexico returnees waiting recently for a southbound bus in a spartan office space at the Mexican immigration agency compound in Nuevo Laredo, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas.

      Ortega and others said they were terrified of venturing onto the treacherous streets of Nuevo Laredo — where criminal gangs control not only drug trafficking but also the lucrative enterprise of abducting and extorting from migrants.

      “We can’t get out of here soon enough. It has been a nightmare,” said Ortega, who explained that she and her son had been kidnapped and held for two weeks and only released when a brother in Atlanta paid $8,000 in ransom. “I can never come back to this place.”

      The Ortegas, along with a dozen or so other Remain in Mexico returnees, left later that evening on a bus to southern Mexico. She said she would skip her date in U.S. immigration court, in Laredo — an appointment that would require her to pass through Nuevo Laredo and expose herself anew to its highly organized kidnapping and extortion gangs.

      The Mexican government bus service operates solely from the northern border towns of Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros, officials say. Both are situated in hyper-dangerous Tamaulipas state, a cartel hub on the Gulf of Mexico that regularly ranks high nationwide in homicides, “disappearances” and the discovery of clandestine graves.

      The long-haul Mexican busing initiative began in July, after U.S. immigration authorities began shipping migrants with court cases to Tamaulipas. Earlier, Remain in Mexico had been limited to sending migrants with U.S. court dates back to the northern border towns of Tijuana, Mexicali and Ciudad Juarez.

      At first, the buses left migrants departing from Tamaulipas state in the city of Monterrey, a relatively safe industrial center four hours south of the U.S. border. But officials there, including the state governor, complained about the sudden influx of hundreds of mostly destitute Central Americans. That’s when Mexican authorities appear to have begun busing all the way back to Ciudad Hidalgo, along Mexico’s border with Guatemala.

      A separate, United Nations-linked program has also returned thousands of migrants south from two large cities on the U.S. border, Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez.

      The packed buses arrive here two or three times a week, with no apparent set schedule.

      On a recent morning, half a dozen, each ferrying more than 40 migrants, came to a stop a block from the Rodolfo Robles international bridge that spans the Suchiate River, the dividing line between Mexico and Guatemala. Part of the fleet of the Omnibus Cristobal Colon long-distance transport company, the buses displayed windshield signs explaining they were “in the service” of Mexico’s national immigration agency.

      The migrants on board had begun the return journey south in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Texas, after having been sent back there by U.S. immigration authorities.

      Many clutched folders with notices to appear in U.S. immigration court in Texas in December.

      But some, including Flores Reyes, said they were terrified of returning to Matamoros, where they had been subjected to robbery or kidnapping. Nor did they want to return across the Rio Grande to Texas, if it required travel back through Matamoros.

      Flores Reyes said kidnappers held her and her daughter for a week in Matamoros before they managed to escape with the aid of a fellow Honduran.

      The pair later crossed into Texas, she said, and they surrendered to the U.S. Border Patrol. On Sept. 11, they were sent back to Matamoros with a notice to appear Dec. 16 in immigration court in Harlingen.

      “When they told us they were sending us back to Matamoros I became very upset,” Flores Reyes said. “I can’t sleep. I’m still so scared because of what happened to us there.”

      Fearing a second kidnapping, she said, she quickly agreed to take the transport back to southern Mexico.

      Christian Gonzalez, 23, a native of El Salvador who was also among those recently returned here, said he had been mugged in Matamoros and robbed of his cash, his ID and his documents, among them the government notice to appear in U.S. immigration court in Texas in December.

      “Without the paperwork, what can I do?” said an exasperated Gonzalez, a laborer back in Usulutan province in southeastern El Salvador. “I don’t have any money to stay here.”

      He planned to abandon his U.S. immigration case and return to El Salvador, where he said he faced threats from gangs and an uncertain future.

      Standing nearby was Nuvia Carolina Meza Romero, 37, accompanied by her daughter, Jessi, 8, who clutched a stuffed sheep. Both had also returned on the buses from Matamoros. Meza Romero, too, was in a quandary about what do, but seemed resigned to return to Honduras.

      “I can’t stay here. I don’t know anyone and I don’t have any money,” said Meza Romero, who explained that she spent a week in U.S. custody in Texas after crossing the Rio Grande and being apprehended on Sept. 2.

      Her U.S. notice to appear advised her to show up on Dec. 3 in U.S. immigration court in Brownsville.

      “I don’t know how I would even get back there at this point,” said Meza Romero, who was near tears as she stood with her daughter near the border bridge.

      Approaching the migrants were aggressive bicycle taxi drivers who, for a fee of the equivalent of about $2, offered to smuggle them back across the river to Guatemala on rafts made of planks and inner tubes, thus avoiding Mexican and Guatemalan border inspections.

      Opting to cross the river were many bus returnees from Matamoros, including Meza Romero, her daughter and Gonzalez, the Salvadoran.

      But Flores Reyes was hesitant to return to Central America and forfeit her long-sought dream of resettling in the United States, even if she had to make her way back to Matamoros on her own.

      “Right now, we just need to find some shelter,” Flores Reyes said as she ambled off in search of some kind of lodging, her daughter holding her mother’s arm. “We have an appointment on Dec. 16 on the other side. I plan to make it. I’m not ready to give up yet.”

      https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-15/buses-to-nowhere-mexico-transports-migrants-with-u-s-court-dates-to-its-far

      –---------

      Commentaire de @pascaline via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Outre le dispositif d’expulsion par charter de l’OIM (https://seenthis.net/messages/730601) mis en place à la frontière nord du Mexique pour les MPPs, le transfert et l’abandon des demandeurs d’asile MPPS à la frontière avec le Guatemala, par les autorités mexicaines est présentée comme une façon de leur permettre d’échapper à la dangerosité des villes frontalières du Nord tout en espérant qu’ils choississent de retourner par eux-mêmes « chez eux »...

    • In a first, U.S. starts pushing Central American families seeking asylum to Guatemala

      U.S. officials have started to send families seeking asylum to Guatemala, even if they are not from the Central American country and had sought protection in the United States, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

      In July, the Trump administration announced a new rule to effectively end asylum at the southern U.S. border by requiring asylum seekers to claim protection elsewhere. Under that rule — which currently faces legal challenges — virtually any migrant who passes through another country before reaching the U.S. border and does not seek asylum there will be deemed ineligible for protection in the United States.

      A few days later, the administration reached an agreement with Guatemala to take asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border who were not Guatemalan. Although Guatemala’s highest court initially said the country’s president couldn’t unilaterally enter into such an agreement, since late November, U.S. officials have forcibly returned individuals to Guatemala under the deal.

      At first, U.S. officials said they would return only single adults. But starting Tuesday, they began applying the policy to non-Guatemalan parents and children, according to communications obtained by The Times and several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials.

      One family of three from Honduras, as well as a separate Honduran parent and child, were served with notices on Tuesday that they’d soon be deported to Guatemala.

      The Trump administration has reached similar agreements with Guatemala’s Northern Triangle neighbors, El Salvador and Honduras, in each case obligating those countries to take other Central Americans who reach the U.S. border. Those agreements, however, have yet to be implemented.

      The administration describes the agreements as an “effort to share the distribution of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims.”

      The deals — also referred to as “safe third country” agreements — “are formed between the United States and foreign countries where aliens removed to those countries would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection,” according to the federal notice.

      Guatemala has virtually no asylum system of its own, but the Trump administration and Guatemalan government both said the returns would roll out slowly and selectively.

      The expansion of the policy to families could mean many more asylum seekers being forcibly removed to Guatemala.

      Experts, advocates, the United Nations and Guatemalan officials say the country doesn’t have the capacity to handle any sizable influx, much less process potential protection claims. Guatemala’s own struggles with corruption, violence and poverty helped push more than 270,000 Guatemalans to the U.S. border in fiscal 2019.

      Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

      https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-10/u-s-starts-pushing-asylum-seeking-families-back-to-guatemala-for-first-time

    • U.S. implements plan to send Mexican asylum seekers to Guatemala

      Mexicans seeking asylum in the United States could be sent to Guatemala under a bilateral agreement signed by the Central American nation last year, according to documents sent to U.S. asylum officers in recent days and seen by Reuters.

      In a Jan. 4 email, field office staff at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were told Mexican nationals will be included in the populations “amenable” to the agreement with Guatemala.

      The agreement, brokered last July between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and the outgoing Guatemalan government, allows U.S. immigration officials to send migrants requesting asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border to apply for protection in Guatemala instead.

      Mexico objects to the plan, its foreign ministry said in a statement late on Monday, adding that it would be working with authorities to find “better options” for those that could be affected.

      Trump has made clamping down on unlawful migration a top priority of his presidency and a major theme of his 2020 re-election campaign. His administration penned similar deals with Honduras and El Salvador last year.

      U.S. Democrats and pro-migrant groups have opposed the move and contend asylum seekers will face danger in Guatemala, where the murder rate is five times that of the United States, according to 2017 data compiled by the World Bank. The country’s asylum office is tiny and thinly staffed and critics have argued it lacks the capacity to properly vet a significant increase in cases.

      Guatemalan President-elect Alejandro Giammattei, who takes office this month, has said he will review the agreement.

      Acting Deputy U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Ken Cuccinelli said in a tweet in December that Mexicans were being considered for inclusion under the agreement.

      USCIS referred questions to DHS, which referred to Cuccinelli’s tweet. Mexico’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

      Alejandra Mena, a spokeswoman for Guatemala’s immigration institute, said that since the agreement was implemented in November, the United States has sent 52 migrants to the country. Only six have applied for asylum in Guatemala, Mena said.

      On Monday, an additional 33 Central American migrants arrived on a flight to Guatemala City, she said.

      Unaccompanied minors cannot be sent to Guatemala under the agreement, which now applies only to migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico, according to the guidance documents. Exceptions are made if the migrants can establish that they are “more likely than not” to be persecuted or tortured in Guatemala based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

      Numbers of Central American migrants apprehended at the border fell sharply in the second part of 2019 after Mexico deployed National Guard troops to stem the flow, under pressure from Trump.

      Overall, border arrests are expected to drop again in December for the seventh straight month, a Homeland Security official told Reuters last week, citing preliminary data.

      The U.S. government says another reason for the reduction in border crossings is a separate program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, that has forced more than 56,000 non-Mexican migrants to wait in Mexico for their U.S. immigration court hearings.

      With fewer Central Americans at the border, U.S. attention has turned to Mexicans crossing illegally or requesting asylum. About 150,000 Mexican single adults were apprehended at the border in fiscal 2019, down sharply from previous decades but still enough to bother U.S. immigration hawks.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/us-implements-plan-to-send-mexican-asylum-seekers-to-guatemala-idUSKBN1Z51S
      #Guatemala

    • Mexico begins flying, busing migrants back to #Honduras

      Hundreds of Central American migrants who entered southern Mexico in recent days have either been pushed back into Guatemala by Mexican troops, shipped to detention centers or returned to Honduras, officials said Tuesday. An unknown number slipped past Mexican authorities and continued north.

      The latest migrant caravan provided a public platform for Mexico to show the U.S. government and migrants thinking of making the trip that it has refined its strategy and produced its desired result: This caravan will not advance past its southern border.

      What remained unclear was the treatment of the migrants who already find themselves on their way back to the countries they fled last week.

      “Mexico doesn’t have the capacity to process so many people in such a simple way in a couple of days,” said Guadalupe Correa Cabrera, a professor at George Mason University studying how the caravans form.

      The caravan of thousands had set out from Honduras in hopes Mexico would grant them passage, posing a fresh test of U.S. President Donald Trump’s effort to reduce the flow of migrants arriving at the U.S. border by pressuring other governments to stop them.

      Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said 2,400 migrants entered Mexico legally over the weekend. About 1,000 of them requested Mexico’s help in returning to their countries. The rest were being held in immigration centers while they start legal processes that would allow them to seek refuge in Mexico or obtain temporary work permits that would confine them to southern Mexico.

      On Tuesday afternoon, Jesus, a young father from Honduras who offered only his first name, rested in a shelter in Tecun Uman, Guatemala, with his wife and their baby, unsure of what to do next.

      “No country’s policy sustains us,” he said in response to hearing Ebrard’s comments about the situation. “If we don’t work, we don’t eat. (He) doesn’t feed us, doesn’t care for our children.”

      Honduran officials said more than 600 of its citizens were expected to arrive in that country Tuesday by plane and bus and more would follow in the coming days.

      Of an additional 1,000 who tried to enter Mexico illegally Monday by wading across the Suchiate river, most were either forced back or detained later by immigration agents, according to Mexican officials.

      Most of the hundreds stranded in the no-man’s land on the Mexican side of the river Monday night returned to Guatemala in search of water, food and a place to sleep. Late Tuesday, the first buses carrying Hondurans left Tecun Uman with approximately 150 migrants heading back to their home country.

      Mexican authorities distributed no water or food to those who entered illegally, in what appeared to be an attempt by the government to wear out the migrants.

      Alejandro Rendón, an official from Mexico’s social welfare department, said his colleagues were giving water to those who turned themselves in or were caught by immigration agents, but were not doing the same along the river because it was not safe for workers to do so.

      “It isn’t prudent to come here because we can’t put the safety of the colleagues at risk,” he said.

      Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said Tuesday that the government is trying to protect the migrants from harm by preventing them from traveling illegally through the country. He said they need to respect Mexican laws.

      “If we don’t take care of them, if we don’t know who they are, if we don’t have a register, they pass and get to the north, and the criminal gangs grab them and assault them, because that’s how it was before,” he said. “They disappeared them.”

      Mexican Interior Minister Olga Sánchez Cordero commended the National Guard for its restraint, saying: “In no way has there been an act that we could call repression and not even annoyance.”

      But Honduras’ ambassador to Mexico said there had been instances of excessive force on the part of the National Guard. “We made a complaint before the Mexican government,” Alden Rivera said in an interview with HCH Noticias without offering details. He also conceded migrants had thrown rocks at Mexican authorities.

      An Associated Press photograph of a Mexican National Guardsman holding a migrant in a headlock was sent via Twitter by acting U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli with the message: “We appreciate Mexico doing more than they did last year to interdict caravans attempting to move illegally north to our southern border.”

      “They absolutely must be satisfied with (Mexico’s) actions because in reality it’s their (the United States’) plan,” said Correa Cabrera, the George Mason professor. “They’re congratulating themselves, because in reality it wasn’t López Obrador’s plan.”

      She said it is an complicated issue for Mexico, but the National Guard had no business being placed at the border to handle immigration because they weren’t trained for it. The government “is sending a group that doesn’t know how to and can’t protect human rights because they’re trained to do other kinds of things,” she said.

      Mexico announced last June that it was deploying the newly formed National Guard to assist in immigration enforcement to avoid tariffs that Trump threatened on Mexican imports.

      Darlin René Romero and his wife were among the few who spent the night pinned between the river and Mexican authorities.

      Rumors had circulated through the night that “anything could happen, that being there was very dangerous,” Romero said. But the couple from Copan, Honduras, spread a blanket on the ground and passed the night 20 yards from a line of National Guard troops forming a wall with their riot shields.

      They remained confident that Mexico would allow them to pass through and were trying to make it to the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, where his sister lives.

      They said a return home to impoverished and gang-plagued Honduras, where most of the migrants are from, was unthinkable.

      https://apnews.com/4d685100193f6a2c521267fe614356df

  • Négociation à la Barbade sous la médiation norvégienne : accord sur un groupe de travail permanent entre gouvernement et opposition pour résoudre la crise politique au #Venezuela

    Proceso de negociación en Barbados acordó una mesa de trabajo permanente
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/politica/proceso-negociacion-barbados-acordo-una-mesa-trabajo-permanente_288256

    Los delegados del presidente encargado Juan Guaidó y del régimen de Nicolás Maduro acordaron establecer una mesa de trabajo permanente para resolver la crisis política, luego de concluir una ronda de diálogo en Barbados, informó este jueves el gobierno de Noruega, que sirve de mediador.

  • Vessels Change Names, Go Dark to Ship Venezuelan Oil to Cuba - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-08/vessels-change-names-go-dark-to-ship-venezuelan-crude-to-cuba


    Esperanza turns off signal to conceal delivery of Venezuelan oil to Cuba

    • Oil tanker Nedas sailed incognito for 42 days in April-May
    • U.S. continues to target shipments between the two countries

    Stopping the flow of Venezuelan oil to its ally Cuba might prove harder than the U.S. expected.

    Tankers are being renamed and vessels are switching off their transponders to sail under the radar of the U.S. government. The vessel Ocean Elegance, an oil tanker that has been delivering Venezuelan crude to Cuba for the past three years, was renamed Oceano after being sanctioned in May. The ship S-Trotter, another one that’s on the sanctions list, is now known as Tropic Sea, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    The oil tanker Nedas, after being sanctioned in April, made a delivery to Cuba incognito because it turned off its satellite tracking system. It went unaccounted for 42 days, but shipping reports show that it delivered oil to Cuba. After the ghost delivery, it discreetly changed its name to Esperanza. The Nedas/Esperanza has delivered 2 million barrels of crude to Cuba this year, according to shipping reports.

    Halting the flow between the two countries may prove difficult. There are over 4,500 crude oil tankers in operation globally, and state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela SA also uses oil products vessels, adding to the complexity of the task.

    Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to target shipments between the two countries and aims to close loopholes in sanctions, according to a senior U.S. administration official. The goal is to surgically and methodically cut off funds to the regime of President Nicolas Maduro.

    #AIS #sanctions #Venezuela

  • MAR de RABIA est une formation née début 2015 au Vénézuela à Maracaibo, également appelée « La cuisine de Satan ». Ce tsunami mélange furieusement punk, hardcore et thrash.
    En 2016, sort un 1er EP « La Destrucción Inminente ».

    Le groupe a quitté le #Vénézuela pour fuir la dictature militaire, prenant ainsi part à la grande vague de migration qui frappe le continent d’Amérique Latine. Dans un pays détruisant son propre environnement (extractions de minéraux, pétrole, etc…), Mar De Rabia a choisi d’exprimer son mécontentement face à une dictature sourde.

    Cette année, le groupe sort son second EP « La Infección Cultural », décrivant ainsi ce qu’est la vie dans une ère digne de G. Orwell.

    https://www.kalvingrad.com/event/punk-mar-de-rabia-bof

    https://marderabia.bandcamp.com/track/sistema-condena

    https://marderabia.bandcamp.com
    source Aredje : http://aredje.net/agenda/index.php?quoi=ext
    #aredje #trash-metal #punk

    Le 12/7 à la gueule noire

  • 15.06.2019: »Solidarität kann erhebliche Auswirkungen haben« (Tageszeitung junge Welt)
    https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/356720.h%C3%A4nde-weg-von-venezuela-solidarit%C3%A4t-kann-erhebliche-auswi

    Noam Chomsky à propos du #Venezuela.

    Washington hat offen zum Putsch gegen die gewählte Regierung Venezuelas aufgerufen. Welche Interessen verfolgt die US-Regierung in dem Land?

    Als Hugo Chávez 1999 sein Amt antrat, reagierte die US-Regierung zunächst nicht aggressiv und ging davon aus, dass er ein »böser Junge« war, der gezähmt werden könnte. Diese Einstellung änderte sich, als Chávez die OPEC dazu veranlasste, die Ölpreise zum Wohle des globalen Südens hoch zu halten. Bald darauf wurde seine Regierung durch einen Militärputsch gestürzt, der offen von der US-Regierung unterstützt und von den Massenmedien der USA gelobt wurde. Der Putsch wurde durch einen Volksaufstand verhindert, und die USA wandten sich der Subversion und Unterstützung der Opposition zu, die aus der Elite des Landes bestand und die Chávez hasste. Das Ziel bleibt der »Regime-Change« und die Wiederherstellung der Rolle Venezuelas im imperialen System der USA seit der Entdeckung des Öls vor einem Jahrhundert und der Übernahme der Kontrolle durch die Vereinigten Staaten.

    Die US-Regierung bricht das Völkerrecht. Die venezolanische Botschaft in den Vereinigten Staaten wurde von der Polizei gestürmt, obwohl diplomatische Vertretungen besonderen Schutz genießen. Wie hat die Bevölkerung in den USA darauf reagiert?

    Es gab praktisch keine Reaktion und es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass viele Menschen überhaupt davon wissen. Es wurde kaum berichtet, und die wenigen Berichte, die ausgestrahlt wurden, stellten es als Vertreibung illegaler Eindringlinge dar, die die Botschaft der authentischen Regierung Venezuelas annektiert hätten – der »Regierung« von Juan Guaidó.

    Washington hat zahlreiche Sanktionen gegen die Regierung in Caracas verhängt. Welche Konsequenzen haben diese Strafmaßnahmen für die venezolanische Bevölkerung?

    Die sorgfältigste Analyse stammt von den Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern Mark Weisbrot und Jeffrey Sachs. Sie legen dar, »dass die Sanktionen das Leben und die Gesundheit der Menschen erheblich beeinträchtigt und zunehmend verschärft haben, einschließlich geschätzter mehr als 40.000 Todesfälle zwischen 2017 und 2018«. Und dass diese Sanktionen unter die Definition der kollektiven Bestrafung der Zivilbevölkerung passen, wie sie sowohl in den Genfer als auch in den Haager internationalen Übereinkommen beschrieben ist, die von den USA unterzeichnet wurden. Die Trump-Regierung hat praktisch alle Einkommensquellen der Regierung abgeschnitten, so dass es praktisch unmöglich ist, dringend benötigte Importe zu erhalten.

    Die Bolivarische Revolution soll die soziale Teilhabe und die medizinische Versorgung der Armen sicherstellen. Inwieweit ist sie ein Vorbild für andere Länder?

    Das ist eine schwerwiegende Frage. Unter Chávez gab es erhebliche Verbesserungen bei der Armutsbekämpfung, Gesundheit und Bildung sowie bei der allgemeinen sozialen Eingliederung. Es gab auch viele Mängel, einschließlich des Versagens, die aus der Quasikolonialzeit stammende Ölwirtschaft zu diversifizieren und die Reserven während der Zeiten, in denen die Ölpreise hoch waren, zurückzuhalten. Als die Preise nach Chávez’ Tod fielen, litt die Ökonomie des Landes stark unter wüster Wirtschaftspolitik, schwerwiegender Korruption, erbitterter Opposition und Feindseligkeit der USA. Heute befindet sie sich in einem katastrophalen Zustand.

    Es gibt zahlreiche Demonstrationen, die ihre Solidarität mit den fortschrittlichen Kräften Venezuelas und Lateinamerikas ausdrücken und sich gegen die Invasion des US-Imperialismus wehren. Kann Solidarität gegen die Übermacht aus Washington etwas bewirken?

    Wie die Vergangenheit gezeigt hat, kann internationale Solidarität erhebliche Auswirkungen haben. Gegenwärtig haben die von den USA unterstützten Rechtsaußenregierungen in den meisten Teilen der Hemisphäre die Macht übernommen und die bedeutenden Errungenschaften früherer Jahre rückgängig gemacht. Dies ist allerdings auch früher schon geschehen – insbesondere unter der bösartigen Repressionsplage, die sich von Anfang der 1960er bis in die 1980er Jahre über die gesamte Hemisphäre ausbreitete – und es wurde überwunden. Das kann wieder geschehen.

  • Hugo Chávez und der „Caracazo“ | amerika21
    https://amerika21.de/analyse/83958/hugo-chavez-und-der-caracazo

    26.08.2013 - Amerika21.de-Kolumnist Ignacio Ramonet im Gespräch mit dem ehemaligen venezolanischen Präsidenten


    Hugo Chávez und Amerika21.de-Kolumnist Ignacio Ramonet im Interview Quelle: Ignacio Ramonet

    Nur wenige Persönlichkeiten der neueren Geschichte haben so entscheidende Spuren hinterlassen wie Hugo Chávez (1954-2013).1998 zum Präsidenten von Venezuela gewählt, haben seine Botschaft und sein Beispiel der Bolivarischen Revolution ganz Lateinamerika verändert. Am 28. Juli erschien in Venezuela anlässlich des 59. Geburtstag von Hugo Chávez ein Buch, in dem Ignacio Ramonet den am 5. März dieses Jahres verstorbenen Präsidenten nach fünf Jahren Arbeit und mehr als 200 Gesprächsstunden portraitiert. ("Hugo Chávez: Mi primera vida. Conversaciones con Ignacio Ramonet." Debate, Barcelona, 2013.)

    Das Buch erscheint in Spanien und Lateinamerika am 17. Oktober. In dem kurzen Auszug, den amerika21 hier veröffentlicht, schildert Chávez die Bedeutung der sozialen Aufstände am 27. Februar 1989, die als „Caracazo“ in die Geschichte eingingen. Der sozialdemokratische Präsident Carlos Andrés Pérez ließ die Sozialrebellion mit unglaublicher Gewalt niederschlagen, tausende Tote waren die Folge.

    Ignacio Ramonet: Gerade wieder gewählt, hatte Carlos Andrés Pérez seinen Kurs geändert.

    Hugo Chávez: Total. Fast von einem auf den anderen Tag hat er die „große Wende“ vollzogen. Er übernahm das Präsidentenamt am 4. Februar 1989. Und am 16. Februar erklärte er vor der erstaunten Menge seiner eigenen Anhänger, dass er das Land sofort und ohne Narkose einer neoliberalen „Schocktherapie“ unterwerfen werde, wie vom Internationalen Währungsfonds (IWF) gefordert. Er bekam Unterstützung von den Ministern Moisés Naím und Miguel Rodríguez Fandeo und wurde von Jeffrey Sachs beraten, einem der damaligen großen Fanatiker des Ultraliberalismus. An diesem Tag verkündete Carlos Andrés seine ominösen Maßnahmen des „neoliberalen Pakets“: Liberalisierung des Handels, Abschaffung der Geldwechselkontrollen, massive Privatisierung öffentlicher Unternehmen, drastische Kürzungen in der Sozialhilfe, große Preiserhöhungen bei lebenswichtigen Produkten und Dienstleistungen ... Von all diesen Entscheidungen waren zwei am härtesten für die Bevölkerung: der Preisanstieg bei Produkten mit Erdölherstellung und der darauf folgende – hundertprozentige! – Anstieg des Benzinpreises, dazu die 30-prozentige Erhöhung der Tarife im öffentlichen Personenverkehr. Für die Menschen, die drei Monate vorher noch den Sozialdemokraten Carlos Andrés gewählt hatten, war dieser Kahlschlag, diese „Strukturanpassung“ wie ein Todesstoß.

    IR: Wann fingen die Proteste an?

    HC: Als die Regierung diese Maßnahmen durchführte, also ein paar Tage danach. Am Sonntag, den 26. Februar, kündigte das Kohle- und Energieministerium an, dass der Preisanstieg beim Benzin und die Tariferhöhungen im öffentlichen Personenverkehr am nächsten Tag in Kraft treten würden: am Montag, den 27. Februar. Ein schönes Monatsende, wenn die Arbeiter sowieso keinen Cent mehr haben. Das war der Tropfen, der das Fass zum Überlaufen brachte. An diesem Montag um sechs Uhr morgens wollten die ersten Arbeiter mit dem Bus von Guarenas am Rand von Caracas in die Stadt zur Arbeit fahren. Sie akzeptierten die Preiserhöhungen nicht, rebellierten und widersetzen sich den Transportunternehmern. Da begann alles. Die Leute sagten: „Basta!“ Das war der Ausbruch und der Beginn der Revolte: „Nein zum IWF!“ Die Bewohner der Nachbargemeinde Menca de Leoni (heute „27. Februar“) wurden von dem Aufruhr angesteckt und schlossen sich dem Aufstand der Reisenden an. Die Wut des Volkes kam zum Vorschein. Einige Autobusse brannten. Die wenigen Polizisten waren überfordert. Die Unruhen breiteten sich wie ein Lauffeuer auf den Hügeln und Ortschaften wie El Valle, Catia, Antímano und Coche aus. Viele Lebensmittelgeschäfte wurden vom Volk geplündert, das hungerte. Am frühen Nachmittag erreichte der Aufstand das Zentrum von Caracas und einige Städte im Landesinneren. Das war nicht nur ein „Caracazo“, das war ein „Venezolanazo“, denn es breitete sich bald im ganzen Land aus. Das Zentrum war sicherlich in Caracas, aber der Aufstand breitete sich nach Barquisimeto, Cagua, Ciudad Guayana, La Guaira, Maracay, Valencia, Los Andes aus. Panisch erklärte die Regierung den Ausnahmezustand und setzte den „Plan Avila“ in Aktion, der die Hauptstadt unter Kriegsrecht und Bewachung durch das Militär stellte. Dieser Plan erlaubte, dass die Militärs mit Kriegswaffen das Feuer auf zivile Demonstranten eröffnen konnten. Man hat diesen Aufstand also mit brutaler Gewalt niedergeschlagen, wahre Massaker in den Armenvierteln angerichtet. Man ging nach der Losung von (dem vormaligen Präsidenten) Rómulo Betancourt vor: „Zuerst schießen, danach gucken.“

    IR: Wo waren Sie bei Ausbruch des „Caracazo“?

    HC: Ich hatte die Nacht in Seconasede im Weißen Palast verbracht und wie ich Ihnen schon erzählt habe, bin ich mit Fieber und Übelkeit wach geworden und hatte starke Gelenkschmerzen. Meine Kinder hatten Windpocken und ich hatte mich angesteckt. Der Arzt bestätigte, dass es sich um eine sehr ansteckende Infektion handelte und dass ich nicht dort bleiben konnte. Er schickte mich nach Hause. Ich befehligte keine Truppe und wusste auch nicht, dass der Aufstand schon ausgebrochen war. So fuhr ich zuerst zur Universität, sah, dass alle Kurse abgesagt wurden und ging daraufhin nach Hause. Ich wohnte damals mit Nancy und unseren drei Kindern Rosita, María und Huguito in San Joaquín (im Staat Carabobo, rund 100 Kilometer von Caracas entfernt). Wir hatten uns gerade ein kleines Häuschen dort gekauft. Einer meiner Nachbarn und Genosse vom MBR-200 (Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario-200, eine politisch linksgerichtete Bewegung innerhalb des Militärs), Major Wilmar Castro Soteldo, benachrichtigte mich und fragte: „Was sollen wir machen?“ Der Aufstand erwischte uns unvorbereitet. Wir konnten nichts tun.

    IR: Hatten Sie das nicht vorausgesehen?

    HC: Natürlich. Aber wie hatten keinen Plan, es schien hoffnungslos. Der Augenblick war gekommen, den wir uns so erhofft hatten, und wir waren nicht in der Lage, etwas zu unternehmen. Ich erinnere mich, dass ich mit Arias Cárdenas telefonierte und ihm sagte: „Das Volk hat uns überholt. Sie haben den ersten Schritt gemacht.“ Dieses Aufwachen des Volkes traf uns völlig unvorbereitet. Wir verfügten über kein Kommunikationssystem, um mit den übrigen Mitgliedern des MBR-200 in Kontakt zu treten. Nur einigen gelang es, vereinzelte Aktionen zu starten. Sie versuchten, das Massaker zu stoppen. Einige Offiziere, die den Befehl hatten, das Feuer gegen das Volk zu eröffnen, weigerten sich und befahlen ihren Truppen, nicht auf die Bevölkerung zu schießen. Aber das war eine Minderheit.

    IR: Wie viele Opfer gab es?
    caracazo-2.jpg
    Festnahme während des „Caracazo“ in Venezuela 1989
    Festnahme während des „Caracazo“ in Venezuela 1989
    Quelle: cubadebate.cu

    HC: Das hat man nie erfahren. Es floss viel Blut an diesem Tag. Die offizielle Zahl lautet auf ungefähr dreihundert Tote, aber wahrscheinlich waren es einige Tausend, die anschließend in Massengräbern verscharrt wurden. Und nicht durch eine ausländische Armee, sondern von unseren eigenen Polizei- und Militärkräften. Ich sah Kinder, die von Kugeln unserer Soldaten zerfetzt wurden. Sie haben sogar Patienten in einer Klinik für geistig Behinderte beschossen. Die Regierung hat befohlen, Truppen aus dem Inneren des Landes zusammenzuziehen und hat sie wie eine Invasionsarmee benutzt, als ob unsere Armee die bewaffneten Streitkräfte des Internationalen Währungsfonds wäre. Viele Offiziere, die an der Unterdrückung teilgenommen hatten, hatten nachher Gewissensbisse und schämten sich. Sie machten sich Vorwürfe. In einer Versammlung mit Offizieren einige Wochen später erinnerte ich sie an den bekannten Satz von Bolívar: „Verflucht sei der Soldat, der seine Waffe gegen das eigene Volk richtet.“ Ich konnte mich nicht zurück halten und ergänzte: „Der Fluch von Bolívar hat uns eingeholt. Wir sind verflucht!“

    IR: War der Eindruck auf die bewaffneten Kräfte stark?

    HC: Das hat uns sehr geschmerzt. Es hat unsere Generation geprägt und unauslöschbare Spuren hinterlassen. Mitten in unseren Streitkräften hat das auf lange Sicht die größten Spuren hinterlassen. Ich erinnere mich daran, dass Monate später eines Abends beim Betreten des Weißen Palastes ein Offizier auf mich zukam und sagte: „Major, Sie sind anscheinend in einer Gruppe aktiv, und ich möchte auch daran teilnehmen.“ Aus Sicherheitsgründen verneinte ich dies, aber ich fragte ihn, warum er daran teilnehmen wolle. Der Leutnant erzählte mir folgendes: "Am 27. Februar 1989 war ich in der Gegend von Miraflores auf Wache und entdeckte einige Jugendliche, die eine Bäckerei geplündert hatten. Es waren ungefähr zwölf, fast alle minderjährig. Ich nahm sie fest. Ich ließ zu, dass sie das gestohlene Brot aßen, denn sie gestanden mir, dass sie Hunger hatten. Ich gab ihnen Wasser. Ich unterhielt mich einige Stunden mit ihnen. Sie erzählten mir, wie elendig sie in den Vororten lebten, arm, arbeitslos, hungrig. Sie baten mich: „Leutnant, lassen Sie uns frei!“ Das konnte ich nicht machen, ich musste auf einen Befehl warten. Es kam eine Brigade der (Geheimpolizei) Disip und befragte sie. Ich übergab ihnen die Jugendlichen. Sie verfrachteten sie in einen LKW und brachten sie weg. Ein paar Stunden später ging ich eine benachbarte Straße entlang und sah sie alle wieder: erschossen, exekutiert."

    Dieser Offizier war am Boden zerstört. Er verfasste einen Bericht. Seine Vorgesetzten befahlen ihm, Schweigen zu bewahren, das sei nicht sein Problem, es handele sich um reine Verbrecher und er habe die Demokratie zu retten. Dieser Offizier gehörte zur Präsidentengarde, das heißt, er war ein Militär mit vollem Vertrauen zum Apparat. Aber von diesem Tag an war er uns näher als der Regierung. Das Regime nutzte den „Caracazo“ aus, um die Armen zu terrorisieren und ihnen einen Denkzettel zu verpassen. Sie sollten nicht noch einmal meutern. An diesem Tag begingen sie das größte Massaker in der Geschichte Venezuelas im 20. Jahrhundert. An diesem Tag verlor die Demokratie in Venezuela ihre Maske und enthüllte ihr verhasstes Unterdrückergesicht. Denn, nachdem der Aufstand in den ersten Märztagen niedergeschlagen war, machte die Regierung weiter mit ihrem systematischen und kriminellen Staatsterrorismus. Das dürfen wir niemals vergessen. Es war eine als Demokratie verkleidete Diktatur. Deshalb sage ich immer wieder, dass wir das nicht vergessen dürfen.

    IR: Gab es auch Opfer unter ihren Freunden beim Militär?

    HC: Ja, leider gab es auch Opfer unter unseren Genossen. Unter ihnen war auch Felipe Acosta Cárlez, einer der Gründer der bolivarischen Bewegung, ein treuer Genosse und großer Freund. Am ersten März erhielt ich die Nachricht; „Sie haben Felipe Acosta Cárlez getötet!“ Es ist nicht klar, wie er starb. Ich bin überzeugt, dass das Oberkommando und die Disip wussten, dass er einer der Führer unserer Bewegung war und die herrschende Verwirrung ausnutzten, um ihm eine Falle zu stellen und ihn zu liquidieren. Wenn ich in jener Woche nicht krank gewesen wäre, wäre ich vielleicht auch von der politischen Polizei liquidiert worden.

    IR: Deshalb haben Sie ihm ein Gedicht gewidmet?

    HC: Ja, an diesem ersten März habe ich ein Gedicht für ihn geschrieben. Diese Tragödie hatte sich schwer auf meine Seele gelegt und mein Schmerz hat sich auf ein Blatt Papier ergossen. Obwohl ich es ihm gewidmet habe, habe ich an alle Opfer gedacht. Dieser Schmerz wirkte aber auch wie ein Initialzünder. Die Explosion des „Caracazo“ zerbrach die Platte, die auf Venezuela wie auf einem Massengrab lag. Denn wenn wir diesen Aufstand aus internationaler Sicht betrachten, war er bewundernswert.

    IR: In welcher Hinsicht?

    HC: Der „Caracazo“ ist meiner Meinung nach das bedeutendste politische Ereignis des 20. Jahrhunderts in Venezuela. Und in diesem Sinne bedeutet er auch das Wiedererstehen der Bolivarischen Revolution. Bedenken Sie, in diesem Jahr fiel auch die Mauer in Berlin. Und Caracas erhob sich gegen den IWF! Als die Intellektuellen auf der ganzen Welt vom „Ende der Geschichte“ sprachen und jeder nicht nur politisch, sondern auch finanziell und ökonomisch, vor dem IWF und der Politik Washingtons aufgegeben hatte, erhob sich hier eine Stadt und ein ganzes Land. Mit dieser Rebellion der Armen, mit diesem Aufstand der Opfer der Ungleichheit und der Exklusion, mit diesem heldenhaften Blut des Volkes begann eine neue Geschichte in Venezuela. Denn fast zehn Jahre später schlug unsere Bolivarische Regierung alternative Formeln vor. Venezuela widersetzte sich dem Strom des Neoliberalismus. Und wir in der Armee begriffen, dass wir keinen Schritt mehr zurück gehen dürfen.

    Persönlich sagte ich mir: „Jetzt verlasse ich die Armee nicht, auch wenn wir nur fünf sind, die eines Nachts mit Schüssen in Miraflores einziehen, wir gehen hier nicht schweigend weg.“ Die anderen sagten mir das gleiche. Unsere Bewegung wurde wiederbelebt, wuchs, ging in die Offensive, festigte sich. Wir nahmen unsere Versammlungen wieder auf. Von da an begann die Regierung, uns hart anzugreifen, denn wir wurden zu einer offensichtlichen und herausfordernden Bedrohung.

    #Venezuela

  • Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr...
    https://diasp.eu/p/9207880

    Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia The term, petrodollar warfare, refers to the alleged motivation of US military offensives as preserving by force the status of the United States dollar as the world’s dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency war is sometimes used with the same meaning. #oil #war #usd #iraq #iran #libya #venezuela

  • Dans la lignée de son rôle très actifs dans les accords de paix en Colombie, la Norvège, qui n’a pas reconnu Juan Guaidó comme président, entretient de longue date des contacts avec gouvernement et opposants du Venezuela. Des rencontres ont eu lieu mardi 14 et mercredi 15à Oslo.

    Qué tienen los noruegos para abonar una solución a la crisis en Venezuela
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/politica/que-tienen-los-noruegos-para-abonar-una-solucion-crisis-venezuela_28253

    Noruega ha hecho del apoyo a la paz en el mundo una verdadera política de Estado”. Son palabras del ex presidente colombiano Juan Manuel Santos en la obra La batalla por la paz, en la que desgrana desde las vivencias personales en el arduo camino hasta la firma de los acuerdos de paz en Colombia. En esta complicada tarea participó una delegación noruega encabezada por el diplomático Dag Nylander.

    Noruega, junto con Cuba, fueron los países garantes presentes en la mesa de negociaciones. Con esa labor, Noruega se ganó el crédito de todos, incluidos cubanos y venezolanos, subraya al diario ALnavío Leiv Marsteintredet, profesor asociado de Política Comparada de la Universidad de Bergen. Este experto noruego es investigador de fenómenos políticos y especialista en estudios de resolución de conflictos, con un marcado interés por América Latina, especialmente Venezuela.

    Ahora el foco negociador vuelve de nuevo a Noruega. Esta vez por la crisis venezolana. Según adelantó el diario ALnavío -y se hacen eco medios noruegos y españoles- el martes y el miércoles delegados de la oposición y del régimen de Nicolás Maduro mantuvieron dos encuentros en Oslo. Ya están de regreso a Caracas. En ambos encuentros estuvo presente un grupo de intermediarios, un equipo noruego. Marsteintredet subraya que parte de ese equipo es el mismo que participó en la mesa de negociación de los acuerdos de paz en Colombia, incluido Nylander.

    Noruega lleva ya probablemente un año o más hablando con las dos partes, con gobierno y oposición de Venezuela. Por lo menos por separado. Lo confirmó la ministra de Exteriores noruega, Ine Eriksen Søreide”, recalca este experto.

    El rumor de que Noruega podría tener un papel en la mediación entre ambas partes despertó cuando Yván Gil, viceministro para Europa de Nicolás Maduro, visitó Oslo a mediados de febrero. Gil se reunió con el diplomático noruego Nylander, el mismo de las negociaciones de paz en Colombia años atrás.

    Intercambiamos opiniones sobre la situación de Venezuela, pero en el marco de la posición oficial de Noruega”, dijo Gil a Aftenposten.

     Hasta ahora Noruega no ha reconocido a Juan Guaidó como presidente encargado de Venezuela.

    ¿Por qué los noruegos están mediando en la crisis venezolana? “Es natural ver esto como una continuación del buen contacto que Noruega obtuvo en la negociación de los acuerdos de paz en Colombia tanto con los cubanos como con el gobierno de Venezuela, primero de Hugo Chávez y ahora de Nicolás Maduro, ya que Venezuela también formó parte de las conversaciones para el tratado de paz en Colombia”, explica Marsteintredet.

    Este experto subraya que Noruega ha mantenido una presencia en Colombia para seguir la implementación del acuerdo de paz, que “se ha ganado el respeto del gobierno de Venezuela” y que “ha aprovechado esos contactos para seguir trabajando”, esta vez por la resolución del conflicto venezolano.

    • Le point de vue du «  boss  » : négocier, c’est bien, faut essayer, mais faut pas que ça serve à gagner du temps ; négocier, c’est pour virer Maduro.
      Intéressante base de «  négociations  ». Un peu comme pour Bachar,…

      Rubio : Guaidó y su equipo no caerán en negociaciones falsas
      http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/mundo/rubio-guaido-equipo-caeran-negociaciones-falsas_282689

      Marco Rubio, senador estadounidense por el estado de Florida, dijo este viernes que el presidente interino Juan Guaidó merece crédito por «explorar nuevas posibilidades para encontrar una transición pacífica a la democracia en Venezuela». 

      Señaló que tanto Estados Unidos como el Grupo de Lima son conscientes de que Nicolás Maduro utilizó las oportunidades de diálogo pasadas para ganar tiempo. «El presidente Guaidó y su equipo no van a caer en una negociación falsa», aseguró en Twitter. 

      El martes Noruega recibió a representantes de Nicolás Maduro y de la oposición para explorar eventuales conversaciones a fin de buscar solución a la crisis política. Por parte del oficialismo participaron Jorge Rodríguez y Héctor Rodríguez y por la oposición asistieron Gerardo Blyde, Fernando Martínez y Stalin González, segundo vicepresidente del Parlamento.

      Guaidó informó el jueves en rueda de prensa que se trataba de «un esfuerzo de Noruega por una mediación, que tiene meses. Esta fue la segunda invitación a Oslo (...) Es la intención de un país, así como la tienen el Grupo de Contacto, el Grupo de Lima, Canadá y otras naciones, de mediar en la crisis. Es una iniciativa más de un país que quiere colaborar».

      @marcorubio - Twitter
      17:36 - 17 may. 2019
      https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1129410338603044865

      .@jguaido deserves credit for exploring new every possibility at finding a peaceful transition to democracy in #Venezuela#LimaGroup & #EU well aware #Maduro used past negotiations to buy time & President Guaido & his team aren’t going to fall for a fake negotiation

  • Le Département des transports états-uniens suspend tous les vols, passagers ou fret, de et vers le #Venezuela.

    Estados Unidos suspendió todos los vuelos desde y hacia Venezuela
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/mundo/estados-unidos-suspendio-todos-los-vuelos-desde-hacia-venezuela_282393

    El Departamento de Transporte de Estados Unidos informó este martes la suspensión de todos los vuelos desde y hacia Venezuela debido a la crisis que padece el país. 

    En el texto explica que en el territorio nacional existe una amenaza a la seguridad de los pasajeros, aeronaves y tripulaciones que viajan desde un aeropuerto extranjero hasta Venezuela o desde este país hacia destinos foráneos. 

    La publicación, autorizada por Kevin McAleenan, secretario interino de la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos, recomienda a los ciudadanos no viajar al país luego de la suspensión de las operaciones de su embajada. Los inspectores de la Administración de Seguridad del Transporte (TSA) advierten que no viajen al territorio debido a las preocupaciones de seguridad. 

    El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) sostiene que debido a los factores que afectan al país se requiere una suspensión inmediata de todos los vuelos comerciales de pasajeros y de carga entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela.

    • Departamento de Transporte de EEUU suspende todos los vuelos desde y hacia Venezuela | United States Department Of Homeland Security (158K views)
      https://www.scribd.com/document/410164633/Departamento-de-Transporte-de-EEUU-suspende-todos-los-vuelos-desde-y-hacia-V

      Acting Secretary McAleenan has based his conclusion on a number of factors including:
      (1) reports of civil unrest and violence in and around the airports;
      (2) the inability of TSA to gain access to Venezuelan airports to conduct required security assessments to ensure that adequate security measures are in place;
      (3) the current economic and political crisis in Venezuela;
      (4) cancellation of flights to the country by American Airlines, the largest air carrier providing service, and two other carriers;
      (5) the U.S. Department of State’s publication of Do Not Travel advisories, suspension of Embassy operations, and recommendation that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inspectors not enter the country owing to safety concerns;
      (6) the Federal Aviation Administration’s issuance of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) on May 1, 2019, which prohibits all flight operations by U.S. air carriers and commercial operators in Venezuela airspace below FL 260; and
      (7) the risk of Maduro regime actions against Americans and American interests located in Venezuela.

      Based on these findings regarding current conditions in Venezuela by DHS, I agree that the public interest requires an immediate suspension of foreign air transportation between the United States and Venezuelan airports.

    • Venezuela : les sanctions, c’est bien, mais y a des limites ! Quand ça nous embête, c’est pas bien ! [l’opposition vénézuélienne en exil aux É.-U.]

      Veppex pidió a Trump reactivar vuelos de EE UU a Caracas
      http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/mundo/veppex-pidio-trump-reactivar-vuelos-caracas_282661

      Grupos del exilio venezolano pidieron este viernes al presidente Donald Trump reactivar los vuelos de Estados Unidos a Venezuela, al señalar que la suspensión ha afectado a la gente común y ha dejado varados a decenas de pasajeros en aeropuertos.

      Los grupos Venezolanos Perseguidos Políticos en el Exilio (Veppex) y Madres Venezolanas en el Exterior (Amavex) señalaron en rueda de prensa que aprueban las medidas de presión «para aislar al régimen de Nicolás Maduro», pero que se debe «corregir» la suspensión de los vuelos.

      La activista Helene Villalonga, de Amavex, hizo un llamado de atención al gobierno de Trump por esa medida, al subrayar que ha afectado no a los funcionarios, como se podría pensar en principio, sino al venezolano común. Además, dijo a Efe que los venezolanos varados en el aeropuerto de Miami no han tenido respuesta a sus reclamos por parte de las aerolíneas, que solo les ofrecen llevarlos a un tercer país.

  • #Venezuela, l’Assemblée nationale voit ses travaux suspendus par l’intervention des renseignements (le SEBIN) à la recherche d’explosifs…

    Funcionarios mantienen tomada la AN por presunto artefacto explosivo
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/politica/funcionarios-mantienen-tomada-por-presunto-artefacto-explosivo_282238

    Funcionarios del Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional, Sebin, y de la Guardia Nacional Bolivariana tienen tomado el Palacio Federal Legislativo, sede de la Asamblea Nacional, desde muy temprano este martes por la presunta presencia de un artefacto explosivo.

    Les renseignements sont également présents en nombre devant l’ambassade d’Espagne.

    Denuncian presencia del Sebin en la Embajada de España en Caracas
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/politica/denuncian-presencia-del-sebin-embajada-espana-caracas_282242

    Alberto Ravell, periodista venezolano, denunció este martes que cuatro camionetas del Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional, Sebin, se encuentran en las afueras de la Embajada de España en Caracas.

  • L’avenir du #Venezuela va-t-il se décider à Sotchi ? Mike Pompeo y rencontre Vladimir V. Poutine et Sergueï V.Lavrov pour y parler du Venezuela (mais aussi de la Syrie et de l’Ukraine).
    Il y croisera aussi Wang Yi, Ministre des affaires étrangères chinois.

    En Sochi se decide si Maduro se va
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/columnista/sochi-decide-maduro_282012

    Quizás no nos hemos dado cuenta, inmersos en tantos dimes y diretes, en las protestas y persecuciones, pero mañana podría ser una fecha trascendental para la historia política venezolana: en Sochi, ciudad turística de Rusia, el secretario de Estado norteamericano, Mike Pompeo, se reunirá con el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin, y con el canciller de ese país, Serguéi Lavrov.

    La vocera del Departamento de Estado, Morgan Ortagus, confirmó que el secretario de Estado llegaría el domingo 12 de mayo y permanecerá hasta este martes 14 “en una visita de trabajo para negociar todos los problemas bilaterales y multilaterales”.

    La agenda tiene como tema principal a Venezuela, aunque también se hablará sobre Siria y Ucrania.

    Pompeo y Lavrov tuvieron un primer acercamiento el 6 de mayo en Rovaniemi, Finlandia.

    Trascendió además que el canciller ruso conversará hoy con su homólogo chino, Wang Yi, también presente en Sochi, por lo que representantes de alto nivel de Estados Unidos, Rusia y China coincidirán entre hoy y mañana en un mismo espacio geográfico.

  • Dos au mur, l’opposition vénézuélienne en exil promet d’accentuer la pression sur #Maduro
    https://lemediapresse.fr/international/dos-au-mur-lopposition-venezuelienne-en-exil-promet-daccentuer-la-pres

    Les échecs successifs de Juan Guaidó face au gouvernement chaviste fragilisent l’action de ceux qui appellent à une transition politique au #Venezuela. Face à l’impasse, l’avenir du pays se joue tout autant à l’intérieur qu’à l’étranger, où beaucoup de détracteurs du pouvoir en place ont trouvé refuge. La #Colombie s’est ainsi consolidée comme une place forte des opposants qui, tant bien que mal, répètent que leur victoire est inéluctable. 

    #International #États-Unis #Chavez #Chavisme #Duque #FARC #Guaido #Lopez #UE

  • #Venezuela : réouverture des frontières avec l’île d’Aruba et le Brésil

    El Aissami anunció reapertura de las fronteras con Aruba y Brasil
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/politica/aissami-anuncio-reapertura-las-fronteras-con-aruba-brasil_281928


    actualizat

    Tarek el Aisami, vicepresidente del Área Económica del gobierno de Nicolás Maduro, anunció este viernes la reapertura de las fronteras de Venezuela con Aruba y Brasil. Con la medida se pretende reestablecer la vida económica, política y cultural en las ciudades fronterizas, indico.

  • Tiens, Trump se pose des questions sur le #Venezuela, au moins sur la stratégie suivie jusque là, avec le succès que l’on sait…

    A frustrated Trump questions his administration’s Venezuela strategy - The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-frustrated-trump-questions-his-administrations-venezuela-strategy/2019/05/08/ad51561a-71a7-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html

    President Trump is questioning his administration’s aggressive strategy in Venezuela following the failure of a U.S.-backed effort to oust President Nicolás Maduro, complaining he was misled about how easy it would be to replace the socialist strongman with a young opposition figure, according to administration officials and White House advisers.

    The president’s dissatisfaction has crystallized around national security adviser John Bolton and what Trump has groused is an interventionist stance at odds with his view that the United States should stay out of foreign quagmires.

    Trump has said in recent days that Bolton wants to get him “into a war” — a comment that he has made in jest in the past but that now betrays his more serious concerns, one senior administration official said.

    The administration’s policy is officially unchanged in the wake of a fizzled power play last week by U.S.-backed opposition leader Juan Guaidó. But U.S. officials have since been more cautious in their predictions of Maduro’s swift exit, while reassessing what one official described as the likelihood of a diplomatic “long haul.

    U.S. officials point to the president’s sustained commitment to the Venezuela issue, from the first weeks of his presidency as evidence that he holds a realistic view of the challenges there and does not think there is a quick fix.

    But Trump has nonetheless complained over the past week that Bolton and others underestimated Maduro, according to three senior administration officials who like others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

    Opposition leader Juan Guaidó called on Venezuelans to protest April 30 and urged the military to “keep advancing” in efforts to oust President Nicolás Maduro. (Reuters)
    Trump has said that Maduro is a “tough cookie” and that aides should not have led him to believe that the Venezuelan leader could be ousted last week, when Guaidó led mass street protests that turned deadly.

    • U.S. defense leaders regard any military scenario involving boots on the ground in Venezuela as a quagmire and warn that standoff weapons such as Tomahawk missiles run a major risk of killing civilians. The White House has repeatedly asked for military planning short of an invasion, however.

      Officials said the options under discussion while Maduro is still in power include sending additional military assets to the region, increasing aid to neighboring countries such as Colombia and other steps to provide humanitarian assistance to displaced Venezuelans outside of Venezuela. More forward-leaning options include sending Navy ships to waters off Venezuela as a show of force.
      […]
      John D. Feeley, a former U.S. ambassador and Univision political analyst, said there is another reason that military intervention is unlikely.

      It runs counter to Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection narrative,” Feeley said. “At a time when you’re pulling people back from Syria, back from Iraq, back from Afghanistan, how do you say we’re going to commit 50-, 100-, 150,000 of our blood and treasure to a country where you can’t tell the bad guys from the good guys?

  • Pétrole, or, nourriture, le vrai pouvoir des militaires au #Venezuela.
    En quelque sorte une évolution à la brésilienne,…

    Petróleo, oro y alimentos, el verdadero poder de los militares en Venezuela
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/politica/petroleo-oro-alimentos-verdadero-poder-los-militares-venezuela_281453

    «¡Leales siempre, traidores nunca!», hace repetir a sus seguidores Nicolás Maduro. Y estos días en que el futuro de la crisis se juega fundamentalmente en los cuarteles, el oficialismo cuenta con un ingrediente extra para asegurarse la lealtad de los 140.000 militares que tiene el país. El papel preponderante que el chavismo asignó a los uniformados en la economía de Venezuela se vería amenazado en un régimen democrático como el que propone el presidente interino Juan Guaidó .

    «A los militares ya no les interesa tanto el poder político de los ministerios como el manejo de las empresas, especialmente en tres actividades que producen divisas: el petróleo, la minería y los alimentos», explicó a La Nación Rocío San Miguel, de la ONG Control Ciudadano, que el año pasado publicó el informe «El entramado de empresas, fundaciones y órganos militares en Venezuela».

    La petrolera estatal Pdvsa, que aporta más de 95% de los ingresos del presupuesto nacional, es dirigida desde hace año y medio por un oficial de la Guardia Nacional Bolivariana, Manuel Quevedo, mayor general sin experiencia en la materia.

    El segundo rubro es la minería, puesto que Venezuela ostenta una de las reservas de bauxita (de la que se obtiene el aluminio), oro y diamantes más grandes del mundo. La explotación minera está controlada por los militares a través de Camimpeg (Compañía Anónima Militar de Industrias Mineras, Petrolíferas y de Gas, creada en 2016), presidida por el mayor general Alexander Cornelio Hernández Quintana.

    Otra especialista, Francine Jacome, directora ejecutiva del Instituto Venezolano de Estudios Sociales y Políticos, Invesp, indicó que hoy «es mucho más fácil ver en qué sectores económicos los militares no tienen un dominio directo, ya que la mayor parte está bajo su control».

    Las áreas económicas que escapan de la administración castrense son «espacios muy limitados que quedaron en manos privadas: comercios, pymes, telecomunicaciones y banca», dijo Jacome. «Pero aun allí existe una supervisión gubernamental permanente y en muchos casos mediante entes controlados por militares en actividad o retirados», señala.