• Exposition collective #Ferme_du_Grand_Couvent – Gramat

     Du 04 juillet au 23 août 2020 www.galeriemhb.fr Sept Artistes contemporains seront à l’honneur pour cette exposition, organisée par la galerie MHB (Marie Hélène Bou) –Marc Petit, sculpteur d’origine lotoise, né...

    #Arts_Plastiques #Sculpture

  • [10] BD Regeneración - Arrestations, procès et emprisonnements

    Malgré les arrestations, les emprisonnements, les procès, les militants du PLM continuent de publier Revolución.

    #[BD]Regeneración-_Journal_indépendant_de_combat !_Les_anarchistes_dans_la_révolution_mexicaine

    / #IWW, #Librado_Rivera, #Ricardo_Flores_Magón, #Emma_Goldman, Fernando Palomarez


  • The business of building walls

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Booming budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :

    déjà signalé par @odilon ici :
    Je le remets ici avec des mots clé de plus

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    https://seenthis.net/messages/810272 via CDB_77

  • La fabrique des « agitateurs extérieurs »

    Traduction par le Collectif Auto Media énervé

    Article initialement paru le 20 août 2014 sur CrimethInc. Republié et traduit aujourd’hui suite aux émeutes en cours à Minneapolis en réaction au meurtre de #George_Floyd par la police, avant que des théories conspirationnistes circulent sur les responsables de ces émeutes. Retour sur la stratégie de division des médias, de la police et de l’État du Missouri lors des émeutes de Ferguson en 2014 suite au meurtre de Michael Brown par la police.

    Article original : The Making of “Outside Agitators”

    La police militarisée d’aujourd’hui entend dire qu’elle opère sur deux terrains différents à la fois : non seulement celui de la rue, mais aussi celui du discours. Tant que la plupart des personnes restent passives, la police peut harceler, battre, arrêter et même tuer des personnes en toute impunité – en tout cas certaines personnes. Mais parfois, les protestations deviennent « incontrôlables », c’est-à-dire qu’elles ont en fait un impact sur la capacité des autorités à garder la population sous contrôle. Alors, sans surprise, la police et les politiciens passent à la deuxième stratégie de leur manuel : ils déclarent qu’ils soutiennent les manifestant-e-s et sont là pour défendre leurs droits, mais quelques mauvaises pommes gâchent le tout. Dans ce nouveau récit, les ennemi-e-s des manifestant-e-s ne sont pas les policiers qui gazent et tirent sur les gens, mais celleux qui résistent à la police et à sa violence. Lorsque cette stratégie fonctionne, elle permet à la police de recommencer à harceler, battre, arrêter et tuer des personnes en toute impunité – en tout cas, certaines personnes.

    De #Ferguson à #Minneapolis
    Des U.S jusqu’ici
    Même système, sans frontières...

    « Si vous n’êtes attentifs-ves, les journaux vous feront haïr les personnes oppressées et aimer celles qui font ces oppressions. »
    Malcolm X

    https://seenthis.net/messages/856759 via ¿’ ValK.

  • Le Covid-19, nouveau danger pour les migrants en #Méditerranée

    Seul bateau humanitaire à opérer en ce moment, le « #Alan_Kurdi » cherche en vain un port pour débarquer 150 rescapés. Avec l’épidémie, l’Italie et Malte ont fermé leurs ports et disent n’être plus en mesure de mener des opérations de sauvetage.

    La scène est devenue d’une triste banalité. Depuis cinq jours, le bateau de sauvetage Alan Kurdi, de l’ONG allemande Sea-Eye, erre en Méditerranée entre Malte et l’île italienne de Lampedusa. Aucun des deux Etats n’est prêt à accueillir les 150 rescapés que le bateau a recueillis le 6 avril au large de la Libye. Avec l’épidémie de Covid-19 qui fait rage (plus de 18 000 morts en Italie, deux dans le petit archipel maltais), ils s’opposent même à un débarquement temporaire des migrants avant une relocalisation dans d’autres pays, alors que 150 villes allemandes se sont dites prêtes à accueillir des réfugiés, selon Sea-Eye. Rome aurait également refusé d’approvisionner le bateau en nourriture, médicaments et carburant.

    Le coronavirus et la fermeture du continent européen ont rendu les traversées de la Méditerranée plus risquées encore, et le travail des ONG plus difficile. Le Alan Kurdi est actuellement le seul navire humanitaire à patrouiller en Méditerranée centrale. Le bateau de l’ONG espagnole Open Arms est en réfection. Sea Watch et MSF ne sont pas retournés en mer après avoir été placés en quarantaine au large de l’Italie début mars.

    Fermeture des ports

    Après l’annonce du sauvetage effectué le 6 avril par le Alan Kurdi, et alors que le bateau demandait à l’Italie et à Malte une autorisation de débarquer, Rome et La Vallette ont choisi de fermer complètement leurs ports. Le 8 avril, le gouvernement italien annonçait que tant que l’état d’urgence sanitaire serait en vigueur, « les ports italiens ne pourraient être considérés comme "sûrs" pour le débarquement de navires battant pavillon étranger ». « A l’heure actuelle et en raison de l’épidémie de Covid-19, les ports ne présentent plus les conditions sanitaires nécessaires », a précisé le ministère des Transports.

    Malte a suivi le même chemin le 9 avril. « Il n’est actuellement pas possible d’assurer la disponibilité d’une zone sûre sur le territoire maltais sans mettre en danger l’efficacité des structures nationales de santé et de logistique », affirme le gouvernement, qui incite les migrants à ne pas tenter le voyage. « Il est de leur intérêt et de leur responsabilité de ne pas se mettre en danger en tentant un voyage risqué vers un pays qui n’est pas en mesure de leur offrir un abri sûr. »
    Selon l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières, Frontex, les arrivées illégales en Europe ont diminué avec la pandémie, sans s’arrêter pour autant. Ainsi, 800 personnes ont quitté la Libye en mars, selon l’agence de l’ONU pour les réfugiés. De l’autre côté de la Méditerranée, 177 personnes ont débarqué en Italie entre le 2 et le 8 avril, selon l’OIM. « Nous avons constaté une augmentation des traversées cette semaine en Méditerranée centrale, probablement due à l’instabilité croissante en Libye et à un temps clément », précise une porte-parole d’Alarm Phone, ONG qui alerte les garde-côtes si elle repère des embarcations en détresse. Dans la nuit du 6 au 7 avril, 67 personnes ont ainsi réussi à atteindre Lampedusa par elles-mêmes après avoir dérivé plusieurs dizaines d’heures. Alertés, les garde-côtes italiens et maltais ne sont pas intervenus.


    « Notre ligne d’urgence pour les personnes en détresse a constaté ces derniers jours un comportement de plus en plus irresponsable des garde-côtes européens. Les Maltais ou les Italiens n’interviennent pas toujours ou n’arrivent que très longtemps après les alertes », affirme Alarm Phone. L’ONG accuse les gardes-côtes de Malte d’avoir saboté le 9 avril un bateau transportant 70 personnes, qui se trouvait à 20 miles au sud-ouest de l’île. D’après un enregistrement consulté par le New York Times, les garde-côtes auraient coupé le câble d’alimentation du moteur. On y entend aussi l’un d’eux dire : « On va vous laisser mourir dans l’eau. Personne n’entre à Malte. » L’embarcation a finalement été secourue plusieurs heures plus tard.

    Avec la fermeture des ports, les garde-côtes devraient encore limiter leurs interventions. La Vallette a prévenu qu’elle ne serait plus en mesure de mener des missions de sauvetage. « Les personnes qui fuient la Libye devront rejoindre les points les plus méridionaux de Malte ou de l’Italie par elles-mêmes. C’est un pari extraordinairement risqué pour ces bateaux fragiles et trop chargés », s’inquiète Alarm Phone. « Malgré la pression que la pandémie fait peser sur tous les aspects de la société, nous sommes extrêmement préoccupés par ces décisions politiques qui, de fait, outrepassent le droit international.  Le débarquement des rescapés dans un lieu sûr est une obligation pour les capitaines de navire et les États ont la responsabilité juridique de coopérer à la désignation d’un lieu "sûr" approprié, rappelle une porte-parole de SOS Méditerranée.  Nous craignons que les gouvernements européens établissent une hiérarchie entre deux devoirs de priorité égale : sauver des vies à terre et sauver des vies en mer ».

    La situation est d’autant plus préoccupante que le nombre de traversées devrait repartir à la hausse, comme c’est habituellement le cas au printemps. Et pour la première fois, la marine libyenne pourrait refuser de pourchasser les migrants, là aussi en raison de la pandémie. Tripoli a suivi ses voisins du nord et déclaré ses propres ports « non sûrs ». Un bateau officiel des garde-côtes avec 280 rescapés à bord a été interdit d’aborder dans la capitale libyenne. Selon Sea-Eye, leurs collègues à terre exigent quant à eux des masques pour continuer les opérations d’interception.

    #ONG #sauvetage #Méditerranée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Mer_Méditerranée #ports #ports_fermés #fermeture_des_ports #frontières #fermeture_des_frontières

    ping @thomas_lacroix

    https://seenthis.net/messages/841857 via CDB_77

  • [12] #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) - Pelloutier écrivain

    Pelloutier était d’une souche bourgeoise, il était un intellectuel. Mais de quelle espèce rare d’intellectuels ! Sa pensée, son amour de la justice, l’avaient conduit dans les rangs du peuple ; il en a vécu toute la vie douloureuse : il s’est fait naturaliser prolétaire ; il est devenu ouvrier, prenant le composteur pour composer l’Ouvrier des Deux Mondes.

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Fernand Pelloutier, Georges Yvetot , #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • [11] #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) - Pelloutier écrivain

    Je ne m’explique pas qu’aucun camarade disposant de loisirs, ayant l’habitude de fouiller dans les bibliothèques, ne soit attaché à rechercher par quel laborieux effort de pensée Pelloutier réussit à se dégager du radicalisme, puis du socialisme politique, pour arriver au socialisme économique, au syndicalisme.

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Georges Yvetot , Fernand Pelloutier, #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • [10] #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) - La Verrerrie Ouvrière

    Bien méchante également fut l’accusation, bien coupable le soupçon porté contre Pelloutier au congrès de Paris, en 1900, pour lui le dernier des congrès, celui auquel il voulait absolument assister.

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Fernand Pelloutier, Georges Yvetot , #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • [09] #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) - La Verrerie Ouvrière

    C’est lors de la fondation de la Verrerie ouvrière que j’ai commencé à fréquenter Pelloutier. Comme représentant d’une petite coopérative du quartier où j’habite, je fis partie du comité d’initiative et ensuite du comité d’action de la Verrerie ouvrière d’Albi.

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Georges Yvetot , Fernand Pelloutier, #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • [08] #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) - La Fédération des Bourses

    Cet homme constamment souffrant possédait un vrai tempérament de combat ; ce qu’il croyait utile au mouvement, il le disait, il le faisait, sans craindre les criailleries et les calomnies.

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Georges Yvetot , Fernand Pelloutier, #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) [07]

    Il n’est peut-être pas inutile, en passant, de détruire une légende certain militant, beau parleur, ayant longtemps fabriqué des cours sur les idées des autres, se donne, peut-être de bonne foi, comme le père de l’Unité ouvrière.

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Fernand Pelloutier, Georges Yvetot , #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) [06]

    Comme l’a dit Pelloutier, la Fédération des Syndicats n’avait pas de programme. Rien chez elle ne pouvait vraiment intéresser les syndicats. En dehors de ses Congrès auxquels assistaient les syndicats parce qu’il n’y en avait pas d’autres, la Fédération ne donnait aucun signe de vie. La Fédération des Bourses, au contraire, présenta de suite une vitalité remarquable. Reposant sur le principe fédéraliste et s’interdisant toute action politique, elle offrait tous les éléments d’action utile. Aussi (...)

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Georges Yvetot , Fernand Pelloutier, #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) [04]

    Mais pour comprendre l’importance de la tache accomplie par Pelloutier, il faut se rappeler quelles luttes se poursuivaient entre les militants des différentes écoles socialistes se disputant la direction du mouvement ouvrier avant qu’existât la Fédération des Bourses du Travail de France. Pelloutier, dans son Histoire des Bourses du Travail, nous en donne une idée.

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Fernand Pelloutier, Georges Yvetot , #CGT

    #Fernand_Pelloutier_1867-1901_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901) [03]

    LA FÉDÉRATION DES BOURSES Fernand Pelloutier s’est révélé dans son œuvre d’éducation mieux qu’un précurseur il fut le premier militant syndicaliste révolutionnaire. C’est lui qui, d’une façon admirablement pratique, fraya le chemin au mouvement présent, tenta la première coordination de ce qui est aujourd’hui la Confédération Générale du Travail. Au début de la préface qu’il écrivait en tête de l’Histoire des Bourses du Travail, voici ce que disait de lui un homme, Georges Sorel, qui avait su apprécier ses (...)

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)


  • #Fernand_Pelloutier (1867-1901) [01]

    La magnifique étude de #Georges_Yvetot_que nous publions ici a déjà paru dans la Vie Ouvrière... oui dans la V0, du temps où, loin d’être l’organe d’un parti politique, elle défendait, au contraire, courageusement l’anarchisme syndicaliste. Mais cela se passait en mai 1911...

    Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)

    / Georges Yvetot , Fernand Pelloutier


  • 10 bonnes raisons de fermer certains #Services #Framasoft (la 5e est un peu bizarre…)

    On le sait, faire le « grand ménage de printemps » c’est pas une partie de plaisir… mais c’est tellement agréable, quand c’est fait. À l’heure où nous nous retroussons les manches pour « Déframasoftiser #Internet », nous voulons vous expliquer ce que l’on … Lire la suite­­

    #Contributopia #Dégooglisons_Internet #Communaute #Deframasoftisons #Degooglisons #fermetures #GAFAM #Libre #Planet #PlanetEdu #RezoTIC

  • Georges Yvetot (1868-1942) [04]

    Il nous faut dire ici quelques mots sur #Fernand_Pelloutier, qu’on affecte aujourd’hui d’ignorer, et qui fut l’un des plus dévoués et des plus clairvoyants parmi ceux qui luttèrent pour le triomphe de la classe ouvrière.

    Georges Yvetot (1868-1942)

    / Fernand Pelloutier, Georges Yvetot , #CGT

    #Georges_Yvetot_1868-1942_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • Georges Yvetot (1868-1942) [03]

    En 1887, à l’âge de dix-neuf ans, Yvetot sortit de son orphelinat et commença à exercer son métier. Il entra au journal la Patrie, où il travailla pendant sept ans. On lui a reproché quelquefois d’avoir fait figure de sarrazin, c’est-à-dire d’avoir travaillé à des salaires inférieurs et de ne pas s’être solidarisé avec ses camarades de classe.

    Georges Yvetot (1868-1942)

    / #Fernand_Pelloutier, Georges Yvetot , #CGT

    #Georges_Yvetot_1868-1942_ #Georges_Yvetot_

  • A Paris, le bar emblématique des « #antifas » en sursis

    C’est le centre névralgique du militantisme libertaire parisien. Et il risque de mettre la clé sous la porte. Le #Saint-Sauveur, bar du quartier de Ménilmontant, dans le 20e arrondissement de Paris, se voit frappé d’une « fermeture administrative » de neuf jours, du 21 au 30 janvier, notamment en raison du bruit les soirs de week-end, que ce soit la musique ou le bruit des clients. « Ils nous ont demandé qu’il n’y ait pas plus de cinq personnes devant le bar, c’est impossible en fin de semaine », rapporte Julien Terzics, le propriétaire et une figure de l’#antifascisme parisien. Ancien chef des #Redskins de la capitale, il a longtemps exercé une forte influence sur le milieu militant « antifa ».

    « Cette fermeture va me coûter 15 000 euros, je ne les ai pas », continue-t-il, ému. Il dénonce un changement d’attitude de la police depuis plusieurs semaines, avec des amendes répétées et des visites régulières pour n’importe quelle raison. « C’est une mesure politique pour nous faire fermer », assure-t-il.


    Frédéric Hocquard, adjoint à la #vie_nocturne et par ailleurs élu (Génération.s) du #20e arrondissement, estime pour sa part que « la fermeture d’un bar, c’est toujours un échec ». Il reconnaît « que dans cet arrondissement, la situation est particulière car il y a une multiplication des #fermeture_administratives alors qu’ailleurs à Paris cela baisse ou stagne. Il faut trouver une solution ». M. Hocquard s’interroge également : « Je me demande si ce n’est pas aussi parce que le Saint-Sauveur est un point de ralliement de la contestation. »

    https://seenthis.net/messages/822057 via ant1

  • They Grow the Nation’s Food, but They Can’t Drink the Water

    Water is a currency in California, and the low-income farmworkers who pick the Central Valley’s crops know it better than anyone. They labor in the region’s endless orchards, made possible by sophisticated irrigation systems, but at home their faucets spew toxic water tainted by arsenic and fertilizer chemicals.

    “Clean water flows toward power and money,” said Susana De Anda, a longtime water-rights organizer in the region. She is the daughter of lechugueros who worked in lettuce fields and helped make California one of the agricultural capitals of the world. “Homes, schools and clinics are supposed to be the safest places to go. But not in our world.”

    As she spoke, Ms. De Anda drove through several towns where tainted water is a fact of life, here in the state’s agricultural center. In the foreground, along State Route 201, were miles of lush orange groves and dairy farms. Spotted out the passenger window of her silver Toyota was Stone Corral Elementary in the town of Seville, where century-old pipes contaminate the tap water with soil and bacteria. The school depends on grant money to pay for bottled water for students.

    Today, more than 300 public water systems in California serve unsafe drinking water, according to public compliance data compiled by the California State Water Resources Control Board. It is a slow-motion public health crisis that leaves more than one million Californians exposed to unsafe water each year, according to public health officials.
    Sign Up for the Morning Briefing

    Get what you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox.

    Though water contamination is a problem up and down the state, the failing systems are most heavily concentrated in small towns and unincorporated communities in the Central and Salinas Valleys, the key centers of California agriculture. About half of all failing water systems are in the agricultural San Joaquin Valley, in the southern section of the broader Central Valley, said Ellen Hanak, the director of the Water Policy Center at the Public Policy Institute of California.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed a tax of about $140 million on urban water districts and the agriculture industry to pay for redevelopment in districts serving unsafe water. That money would come in addition to $168 million he has allocated toward water infrastructure improvements from a bond proposition passed last year.

    Some have bristled at the proposed tax, given already high tax rates in the state and a budget surplus of more than $21 billion. The Association of California Water Agencies — whose members provide an estimated 90 percent of water distributed in the state — has spoken out against the governor’s proposed solution, arguing it would affect the cost of living in already-expensive California.

    “There’s agreement with everyone involved in policy that there is a problem and it needs to be solved,” said Cindy Tuck, the group’s deputy executive director for government relations. But, “we think it doesn’t make sense to tax a resource that is essential.”

    State Senator Melissa Hurtado, a Democrat representing the Fresno area, whose district is severely affected by tainted water, said she would like to see more money allocated for infrastructure spending, but believes a tax on water is a nonstarter. Last week, the Democratic-controlled State Senate budget subcommittee voted against the governor’s proposed water tax, in favor of recommending funding from the state’s general fund. The Legislature is expected to work out the details as part of broader budget negotiations, which will come for a vote in June.
    Editors’ Picks
    ‘S.N.L.’ Premiere Meets Impeachment Head-On, but Not Shane Gillis
    The Gift of the Missing Men
    ‘S.N.L.’ Is Sorry: A Brief History of the Show’s (Sort Of) Apologies

    But the debate in Sacramento feels far away in East Orosi, a farmworker community of about 500 nestled along the foot of the Sierra Nevada that is surrounded by fields of oranges. There, residents complain of conditions that resemble the developing world, not the richest state in the nation. Fears of nitrate exposure in the tap water — which numerous studies have linked to an increased risk of infant death, and at high levels, an elevated risk of cancer in adults — compound other difficult realities like faraway grocery stores and doctors, grueling work conditions, and a lack of political clout.

    Veronica Corrales, the president of the East Orosi water board, wonders why more people are not outraged that, in 2019, people living in a state as wealthy as California lack such a fundamental necessity.

    “Everyone is saying ‘America First,’ but what about us?” she said.

    Many factors have led to the groundwater contamination reflected in the state’s data, but public health experts say the region’s agriculture industry has played an outsize role. Chemical fertilizers and dairy manure seep into the ground and cause nitrate contamination, like the kind plaguing East Orosi. Such contamination, which is common throughout the valley, takes years to materialize and even longer to clear up.

    Arsenic is naturally occurring in some areas but can become worse with exhaustive groundwater pumping, which has been a longstanding problem in the valley and accelerated during the drought between 2012 and 2016.

    It is exceedingly difficult to say with certainty whether any illness is directly tied to specific environmental factors, including contaminated water. But an article published last month in Environmental Health, an academic journal, estimated that 15,500 cases of cancer in California could occur within 70 years because of unsafe drinking water.

    For years, Martha Sanchez and her husband, Jose — who live in East Orosi and make their living filling crates with oranges or picking cherries — have received notices from the local water system that their taps are unsafe to drink from because of contamination. The family spends at least $60 a month for tap water they can’t use, Ms. Sanchez estimates, which is factored into the rent. To cook and wash dishes, Ms. Sanchez ladles bottled water into pots and pans from heavy blue jugs kept in the kitchen. She and her children shower using the water from the pipes, but she says it makes their skin itch.

    “Some people around here drink it,” Ms. Sanchez said. “Here at home, I don’t use it at all for cooking, not even for beans.”

    Ms. Sanchez’s family is given five free five-gallon jugs of water every two weeks, funded by a grant from the State Water Resources Control Board that was secured by Self-Help Enterprises, a community organization. But, Ms. Sanchez says, it is never enough to hold the family over, and they buy an additional four gallons.


    Her husband, who is a supervisor in the fields, pays for clean water out of pocket for the employees he manages, because the farm does not provide it. Sometimes he brings in about $80 for a full day of work.

    These problems are not new. The failing infrastructure at the heart of the potable water crisis in these communities is tinged with the legacy of rural redlining, said Camille Pannu, the director of the Aoki Water Justice Clinic at the University of California, Davis, who likened the situation in the valley to the one in Flint, Mich. “Flint is everywhere here,” she said.

    “The fact that more than a million Californians in 2019 have been left behind is really appalling,” said Jared Blumenfeld, the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. “I’ll never forget talking to people in Imperial and Coachella Valley who are like, ‘You know what, it’s amazing when we go back to Mexico, the water is better.’”

    Mr. Blumenfeld said the “vast majority” of water systems with unsafe water are in small communities where there are too few customers to cover the cost of water treatment and maintenance. Laying even short distances of pipe can cost millions of dollars, which is sometimes feasible when costs are spread out among many people but not so for individual families, or when towns are especially remote.

    “I’ve never seen as many small drinking water systems in any other state. California is unique in that way,” Mr. Blumenfeld said.

    Many families who live in those areas use water from private wells because their homes are not connected to public water systems. The number of people exposed to dangerous water statewide could be even higher than the data shows: The state does not regulate private wells and does not monitor systems with fewer than 15 connections.

    One solution for expanding potable water access could be for larger systems to absorb smaller systems, which would allow them to spread infrastructure costs across more customers. In the San Joaquin Valley, nearly 80 percent of disadvantaged communities without potable water are less than one mile away from other communities with safe drinking water, according to a 2018 report by the U.C. Davis Center for Regional Change.

    But larger water systems are often wary of absorbing the smaller systems. In part, they do not want to absorb the costs that come with overhauling dilapidated infrastructure, said Ms. Hanak, the Water Policy Center director.


    Often, community members also worry that adding lower-income customers from neighboring communities will leave them to foot the bill. And the poorer customers worry they will have to pay rates they cannot afford.

    The East Orosi water district has teetered from one consolidation effort to another over the last decade, with little success. The state recently signaled that it would order nearby Orosi, which has clean water, to consolidate its system with East Orosi to expand clean-water access. Compelled by the state, the two communities have sought to negotiate a consolidation, but disagreements have left them at a stalemate.

    “Because Orosi has clean water, they don’t want to take on rate payers from East Orosi who they think are so poor they’ll skip out on their bills,” Ms. Pannu said. “Unfortunately, you have poor people versus poorer people.”

    E. Joaquin Esquivel, the chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board, said the gaps in potable water access were unacceptable, and promised that the state would continue using its consolidation authority to ease disparities. But he added that sustained funding for infrastructure and maintenance projects would be crucial for long-term solutions.

    Ms. Corrales, a nurse, stepped in as the president of the East Orosi water board several months ago. There was no one else who wanted the job, she said, and she was voted in at a community meeting almost without realizing it.

    Sometimes she is not sure whom she should be fighting: the state, the farm owners, the skeptics in Orosi. She just wants clean water.


    #eau #eau_potable #pollution #agriculture #industrie_agro-alimentaire #dépendance #technologie #Californie #USA #Etats-Unis #arsénic #fertilisants #contamination


    ping @sinehebdo

    https://seenthis.net/messages/804310 via CDB_77