Archives de catégorie : Vient de paraître

Guillermo Abril, Carlos Spottorno, La Fissure, Paris, Gallimard BD, 2017

« Pendant trois années, Carlos Spottorno et Guillermo Abril ont sillonné les frontières de l’Europe. À partir des 25 000 photographies et 15 carnets de notes rapportés, ils ont composé une « bande dessinée » faite de photos.

De l’Afrique à l’Arctique, les journalistes racontent: une rencontre avec les Africains du Gourougou, le sauvetage d’une embarcation au large des côtes libyennes, l’exode des réfugiés à travers les Balkans, les manœuvres des chars de l’OTAN en face de la Biélorussie…

Un document qui montre comme nul autre auparavant les migrants, les militaires, les murs qui se dressent. » (éd.)

Photographies de Carlos Spottorno

http://lemonde.fr/bande-dessinee/visuel/2017/04/01/la-fissure-une-bande-dessinee-pour-raconter-la-detresse-des-migrants_5104200_4420272.html#

Illustration en une : couverture de la BD,  document créé et certifié chez IGS-CP, Charente (16)
Ci-dessous : planche de la BD p.18


Olivier Clochard, Julie Lemoux, « Voyager d’Alger à Marseille – Retour sur cinq décennies de dispositifs relatifs aux contrôles des migrations », L’Espace Politique [En ligne], 31, 2017-1

Recherche issue du programme MEDIMURS

(…) « L’objet de notre article concerne l’évolution des dispositifs de contrôle qui ont été adoptés vis-à-vis des Algériens souhaitant voyager vers Marseille (et plus largement la France). En adoptant une approche historique1, il s’agit de saisir les mécanismes de cette construction frontalière qui s’est mise en place après l’indépendance algérienne. Autrement dit, nous interrogeons les changements apportés à l’agencement de cette frontière, ainsi que l’évolution des pratiques prescrites dans le cadre normatif, afin de considérer les conditions administratives d’entrée à remplir avant le départ, les mesures de surveillance qui s’opèrent au moment du passage des frontières, et le traitement des migrants en situation irrégulière, soit trois dispositifs qui sont aujourd’hui imbriqués dans un jeu d’échelles multiples. Au-delà de ces transformations et des effets induits sur les flux migratoires de l’Algérie vers la France que nous rappellerons, comment l’évolution de ces différents dispositifs et leur mise en réseau se rapporte-t-elle à l’établissement d’une frontière migratoire malléable ? Cette « malléabilité́ des frontières » (Gottman, 1952, p. 59) semble refléter la volonté de la France d’externaliser ses contrôles migratoires, et faute de pouvoir y arriver, les autorités françaises font en sorte d’assouplir voire de négliger leurs obligations légales à la frontière, et dans le cas qui nous intéresse au sein du port de Marseille. Selon Jean Gottmann (1952), l’organisation politique de ces espaces frontaliers se combine nécessairement avec les questions de circulation, les mouvements des personnes ne cessant d’affecter l’organisation interne des États et celle mise en place à leurs frontières. Dans une perspective historique, la lecture de ces espaces frontaliers semble en effet montrer que les limites sont prises dans une dialectique entre le mouvement de « cloisonnement du monde » et celui de la circulation, soit une interprétation qui demeure contemporaine et permet de saisir l’évolution de cette frontière méditerranéenne. Si les évolutions techniques des dispositifs comme les procédures de demande de visa, les bases de données informatiques et les lieux de détention administrative transforment la frontière en la déplaçant de part et d’autre des limites internationales, en la dilatant à l’échelle d’une région frontalière et la connectant à d’autres lieux, il ne faut pas omettre le poids des décisions informelles ou arbitraires qui font «apparaître une certaine malléabilité des pratiques de contrôle» (Darley, 2008, p. 23) »  (…)

http://espacepolitique.revues.org/4261

carte @ Olivier Clochard, 2015
photo en une @ dossier de presse de "La traversée" de Élisabeth Leuvrey, Documentaire, France, 2012, Production : Les Écrans du large
 

Thierry Baubet, Serena Tallarico, La mer comme espace liminal, Rhizome, 63, 2017

« Étude de cas sur les aspects symboliques et magico-religieux de la traversée de la mer Méditerranée

La mer Méditerranée, dont le nom dérive du latin mediterraneus (au milieu des terres) a été depuis toujours un lieu de passage qui offrait la possibilité, à qui se risquait à traverser ses eaux, de réaliser « à la fois un changement d’État et une transformation d’état » (Green, 1999), de passer les frontières entre le familier et l’inconnu, le nous et les autres.

Notre travail dans le cadre de la clinique transculturelle, en Italie et en France, nous a amené à nous interroger sur les mécanismes de construction identitaire et sur la fonction de la rupture, de la trahison, de la violence dans cette quête de transformation sociale et psychique grâce aux rencontres avec des patients venus d’ailleurs.

Qu’en est-il donc du temps et de l’espace du passage, de nos jours, et qu’est-ce qu’il nous indique sur la souffrance psychique des personnes migrantes qui, enfin, arrivent sur nos côtes ?

La théorie de rite de passage de Van Gennep (1909), dont la liminalité constitue une phase fondamentale, nous semble avoir un fort intérêt heuristique pour analyser les processus psychologiques et symboliques qui interviennent au moment du voyage migratoire, car elle évoque à la fois des processus socio-anthropologiques, politiques et psychiques de cette transition.

Selon la définition anthropologique des rites de passage (Fabietti et Remotti, 2009) pendant la période liminale, l’individu, qui participe à un rite de transition, se retrouve dans une phase intermédiaire entre deux positions socialement définies : le vieux rôle qu’il abandonne et le nouveau qu’il doit encore obtenir. Il habite donc une situation de marge entre un état antérieur et un état postérieur.

Cette phase se déroule dans un espace extra-ordinaire (hors de l’ordinaire), comme c’est le cas pour la mer. Ce lieu liminal nous renvoie à la fois à une condition de suspension, d’entre-deux, et en même temps à des dynamiques de transition des limes (frontières), de rupture, de déconstruction – suspension – reconstruction à travers l’abandon de l’identité et la rencontre avec l’altérité. Pour y accéder, la personne doit sortir du territoire de la communauté pour demeurer un certain temps dans un espace potentiellement dangereux, étrange. » (…)

http://www.ch-le-vinatier.fr/orspere-samdarra/rhizome/anciens-numeros/rhizome-n-63-cliniques-et-migrations/la-mer-comme-espace-liminal-2042.html

photo@ Lisa Ritaine, Sculpture de Folon "Partir" , Giardino delle rose, Firenze, Italia,juin 2012, avec autorisation.

H. Crawley, F. Düvell, N. Sigona, No direct flight: new maps show the fragmented journeys of migrants and refugees to Europe, theconversation.com, 02/11/2016

Politicians across Europe have talked about the arrival of refugees and migrants in 2015 and 2016 as if it were an unprecedented “event”, a single coherent flow of people “heading for Europe”. There is a focus on the beginning and end of peoples’ journeys – at the expense of almost everything in between.

Our new research with 500 refugees and migrants in Italy, Greece, Turkey and Malta reveals a much more complicated picture of protracted, fragmented journeys. Between them, our respondents travelled along nearly 100 different routes before eventually reaching Europe, sometimes having spent months or even years living elsewhere. The convergence of these routes in Turkey and Libya helps us to understand why the number of migrants heading to Europe increased to just over a million in 2015.

Although there were two main countries – Turkey and Libya – from which refugees and migrants departed towards Europe, the “back story” to this migration was actually composed of an intricate network of varied routes. This can be clearly seen in the first of two maps we have created by charting the routes of 122 of the 500 people we spoke to between September 2015 and January 2016.

Routes into Europe. MEDMIG., Author provided

For some – mainly those from Iraq and Syria – the journey to Europe was relatively direct. Of the Iraqis we interviewed in Greece, 86% had arrived less than one month after leaving their home country. But for many, the decision to travel to Europe was a much longer process. This was particularly the case for Afghans arriving in Greece, many of whom had lived in Iran for many years or had even been born there, and for Eritreans arriving in Italy, many of whom had lived for extended periods in Sudan, Egypt or Israel.

For many people, the countries to which they originally travelled – including Iran, Sudan, Libya, Turkey – were initially perceived as places where they could settle and live. This is why the vast majority of the world’s refugees remain in low- and middle-income countries. These countries include Turkey, which for the second year running hosted the largest number of Syrian refugees in 2015 – an estimated 2.7m. This compared to Pakistan (1.6m), Lebanon (1.1m), Libya (up to 1m), Iran (979,400), Ethiopia (736,100) and Jordan (664,100). It was only when people found themselves unable to rebuild their lives in these places that they made the decision to move on.

The decision to move, and move on

In previous reports on the Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes, we identified the significant factors driving people to leave their home countries. These included conflict and political persecution, the activities of terrorist and insurgency groups such as Islamic State. Kidnapping and the threat of forced – sometimes indefinite – military conscription, as well as dire economic conditions were also factors.

But if we want to understand the dynamics of migration to Europe we need to differentiate between the initial drivers of migration from countries of origin and those which propel people onwards beyond the immediate neighbouring countries. Some of these drivers reflect the ongoing desire to be safe: Syrians, for example, living in Lebanon who felt too close to the ongoing conflict or feared they might be located by Assad government officials. Or Eritreans who had left due to indefinite military conscription but were unable to rebuild their lives in Sudan due to the civil war there.

But they also relate to an individual’s inability to build or rebuild a life due to a lack of rights and opportunities for employment, particularly where there is protracted conflict.

While all Afghans experience varying degrees of discrimination in Iran, the situation is particularly difficult for those from the ethnic Hazara minority who are more easily identifiable due to their distinctive physical appearance. Those we spoke to had experienced severe discrimination in Iran, had no citizenship rights and faced a shortage of education for their children. Combined with increasing anxieties about what would happen to them if they were forced to return to Afghanistan where Hazara are subject to increasing attacks, this had made life in Iran intolerable. News that they might finally be able to secure protection in Europe propelled those we interviewed to move on.

Libya had also been a destination country for many of those we interviewed in Italy who thought that it would provide opportunities for work, as it has done for many years. But the violent, chaotic reality of everyday life in the country was very different from what they had expected. Those who had little intention of staying in Libya often found their journeys interrupted and stays extended as a result of kidnapping and violence. Others who had intended to settle, work and live in Libya came to realise that they would have to move on again to find somewhere safe.

It was the combination of these different factors – conflict and insecurity in the home country but also in the countries to which refugees and migrants then moved – that led to the convergence of flows in Turkey and Libya and, in turn, the very significant increase in arrivals during 2015, as our second map shows.

Routes into Europe converge. MEDMIG., Author provided

Beyond push and pull

Migration across the Mediterranean in 2015 did not consist of a single coherent flow but rather was made up of a number of distinct sub-flows from many countries and regions. It included both individuals and families with diverse migration histories and experiences. The situation has not changed in 2016 except, of course, that the route from Turkey to Greece and onwards into other EU Member States has now largely closed as a result of the EU-Turkey agreement which provides for the return of those crossing the Mediterranean by boat.

The vast majority of those arriving in Europe during 2015 came from countries in which there was well-documented conflict and human rights abuse. But it is impossible to fully appreciate the complex drivers of migration without examining the ways in which political, economic and social factors come together to shape the experiences of those on the move. The longer people are on the move, the more complicated – and difficult to unpack – these factors become.

The solution to the “crisis” lies not only in opening up, and significantly expanding, safe and legal routes to protection for refugees and migrants, but also addressing the problems faced by those living in countries outside of Europe for whom access to rights, employment, education – and hope – remain elusive.

https://theconversation.com/no-direct-flight-new-maps-show-the-fragmented-journeys-of-migrants-and-refugees-to-europe-67955

photo à la une @Tracking the long and complex journey of refugees and migrants. © Heaven Crawley , Author provided

 

 

Patrick Timmons, How Richard Nixon’s Operation Intercept laid the foundation for decades of U.S.-Mexico border policy, including Donald Trump’s wall, nacla.org, 03/27/2017

« Richard Nixon was the first U.S. president who made a promise to close the U.S-Mexican border to illegal drugs and unwanted people part of an election-winning strategy. Speaking on the campaign trail from Anaheim, California, in 1968, Candidate Nixon promised to deal with the “marijuana problem” protested by parents of California’s youth by intercepting Mexican drugs at the border. Then, on September 21, 1969, just eight months after his inauguration, President Nixon’s Treasury and Justice Departments launched Operation Intercept along the almost 2,000 miles of southern border in a supposed attempt to enforce federal narcotics laws.

Spending $30 million USD, Intercept staffed the border with thousands of federal law enforcement agents who were charged with executing intense, time-consuming customs inspections. Nixon’s bottlenecks at the international bridges disrupted life and business on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. They also provoked resistance. The Mexican Chamber of Commerce led a brief U.S.-travel boycott on behalf of merchants who had lost trade in Mexican border communities, including Ciudad Juárez. Then Mexican president Gustavo Díaz Ordaz said Intercept “raised a wall of suspicion” between the two countries. Indeed, for almost three weeks, Intercept created a “wall effect” as the U.S. government turned a fluid border into an obstacle course.

Although the U.S. government officially ceased the operation of the program in October 1969, Intercept’s principles have guided border policy for every president since Nixon. In the late 1970s, Kent State University political scientist R. B. Craig called Intercept “a benchmark in United States-Mexico narcotics policy.” In 1999, U.S. Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-El Paso) remembered Intercept because it “initiated new approaches to a problem of national magnitude.” Reyes would know. Prior to Congress, he was the El Paso sector Border Patrol chief, and in 1993, he designed and executed Operation Blockade/Hold-the-Line, placing agents at roughly 50-yard intervals along the urban border between El Paso and Juárez to stop smuggling and unauthorized immigration. Reyes immediately followed Hold-the-Line with an attempt to build a fence on the western outskirts of Juárez/El Paso. Similarly, law-and-order politicians, like former Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, fondly remember Intercept. As the New Yorker’s William Finnegan reported in 2009, Arpaio, who worked on Intercept with erstwhile Nixon operative G. Gordon Liddy, said the operation “nearly closed the border with Mexico.” The no-exceptions customs inspections became permanent after September 11, 2001.

Today, Donald Trump’s threatened U.S.-Mexico border wall—like Nixon he wants to keep unwanted elements from Mexico out of the U.S.—comes straight from Nixon’s playbook. As Grace Slick of the rock band Jefferson Airplane sang in 1970 in response to the dearth of marijuana in the U.S. for the months after Intercept, “Mexico is under the thumb of a man we call Richard.” As with Nixon, so too with Trump. And now, perhaps more than ever, Mexico must beware of the United States’ longstanding inclination for unilateral action on the two nations’ shared border. After all, Trump won’t so much build the wall as complete it: at present, a fence 18 feet tall lines 650 miles of the southern border. »  (…)

https://nacla.org/news/2017/03/27/trump%27s-wall-nixon%27s-border

Click here to read the rest of the article, or

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2017.1298238

Trump’s Wall at Nixon’s Border Patrick Timmons NACLA Report on the Americas Vol. 49 , Iss. 1,2017

photo@ Border-bottleneck-Bridge-of-the-Americas-CBP-wikimediacommons