Mauritania / Spain: AI report on arrests and collective expulsions of migrants

Amnistía Internacional publicou antonte un informe de 50 páxinas sobre Mauritania e o trato que alí reciben as persoas que intentan emigrar, polo xeral cara as Canarias (España). O informe ábrese cun graffiti escrito por un migrante no centro de detención de Nouadhibou:

“When white people first came over the sea to Africa, nobody treated them as illegal immigrants; why is it that today, when we try to go by sea to Europe, we are treated as illegal immigrants?”

O informe leva por título Mauritania: “Nobody wants to have anything to do with us”. Arrests and collective expulsions of migrants denied entry into Europe. Copio un extracto da súa introducción:

Since 2006, thousands of migrants, accused of setting out from Mauritania with the intention of entering the Canary Islands (Spain) irregularly, have been arrested, then forcibly returned to Mali or Senegal without any right of appeal to challenge the decision before a judicial authority. Many of them have been held for several days in a detention centre at Nouadhibou (in northern Mauritania), where some have been ill-treated by members of the Mauritanian security forces. Nationals of West African countries say they have been arbitrarily arrested in the street or at home and accused, apparently without any evidence, of intending to travel to Spain. Some of these people have been the victims of racketeers and many have been forcibly returned by the Mauritanian authorities to Mali or Senegal. These arrests, followed almost automatically by being returned to the border, are all the more arbitrary since it is not an offence under Mauritanian law to leave Mauritania irregularly.

This policy of arrests and collective expulsions by the Mauritanian authorities is the result of intense pressure exerted on the country by the European Union (EU), and Spain in particular, as they seek to involve certain African countries in their attempt to combat irregular migration into Europe. Mauritania, which has traditionally been welcoming in its attitude to large numbers of nationals of neighbouring countries, agreed to sign an agreement with Spain in 2003 which obliges it to readmit onto its territory not only Mauritanian citizens but also the nationals of third countries where it has been “ascertained” or “presumed” that they have attempted to travel to Spain from the Mauritanian coast. Mauritania has also agreed to the presence on its soil of an aeroplane and a helicopter, deployed in the context of an operation conducted by the EU in order to control its external borders. Moreover, members of the Spanish Guardia Civil undertake joint patrols with the Mauritanian authorities along the country’s coastline. This cooperation between the EU and Mauritania has been presented as a security and humanitarian operation designed to discourage and stop migrants who are trying to reach Europe, and to save those who are at sea in makeshift crafts and are at risk of drowning. Information gathered by Amnesty International reveals that this cooperation has given rise to the violation of certain fundamental rights of migrants in Mauritania.

The reasons that drive thousands of young Africans to face difficult times and often death in an attempt to reach Europe are linked essentially to poverty, a lack of prospects and family pressure as well as political violence and the civil wars that have affected, in particular, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire. The EU and its Member States have responded to this irregular migration by tightening up their policy on migration flow management.

In this regard, Amnesty International is extremely concerned about the security policy of the EU and its Member States, and Spain in particular. These states are in the process of externalizing their policy of migration flow management by pressing the migrants’ countries of origin, or the countries through which they pass – especially certain countries of the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa – to themselves manage the flow of migrants who attempt to reach Europe from their territory. These countries have become the de facto “policemen of Europe”.

Generally speaking, Amnesty International is opposed to the use of detention for the purpose of migration control. Migrants have a right to freedom and a right not to be arbitrarily arrested. The organization takes the view that the detention of migrants is legitimate only when the authorities can demonstrate that it is necessary and proportionate to the aim to be achieved, that alternatives would not be effective, that it is on the grounds laid down by law and when there is an objective risk of the person concerned absconding. In particular, it should be a requirement that such incarceration be the subject of a judicial review and that it should be for as short a time as possible. The person in question must also be provided with an effective opportunity to challenge the decision to detain him.

Moreover, the rights of some refugees and asylum-seekers, the majority of whom come from the countries of West Africa and Liberia and Sierra Leone in particular, are also under threat and at times denied in Mauritania. For instance, several refugees were arrested for short periods of time and at least two of them were forcibly returned to Mali. An asylum procedure was set up in 2005, but it has not yet been implemented. It is still the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that recognizes the status of refugee, but its decisions can be challenged by the new institutions that have been created by the Mauritanian authorities. In addition, there is no appeal mechanism in the event of refusal. [...]

Child Soldiers Global Report 2008

A Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, formada entre outras organizacións por Amnistía Internacional e Human Rights Watch, publicou o Child Soldiers Global Report 2008.

Neste informe (un PDF de 7,11 MB e 418 páxinas) encontraremos ós países onde os exércitos e outros grupos armados usaron a menores de 18 anos:

• Afghanistan
• Bhutan
• Burma (Myanmar)
• Burundi
• Central African Republic
• Chad
• Colombia
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• India
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Iraq
• Israel / Occupied Palestinian Territory
• Lebanon
• Liberia
• Libya
• Nepal
• Nigeria
• Pakistan
• Peru
• Philippines
• Somalia
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan
• Thailand
• Uganda
• United Kingdom
• Yemen
• Zimbabwe

E tamén encontraremos outros moitos países que recrutan a menores de 18 anos e introducen de diversas formas o militarismo na educación da xuventude.

Un “top ten” en obras arquitectónicas promovidas por megalómanos

A través de chuza! chego a unha interesante clasificación de obras arquitectónicas que destacan por seren de escasa utilidade (ou inútiles sen máis), extremadamente grandes e promovidas todas elas por políticos megalómanos en Estados cun deficiente control do gasto público.

Ó seren inútiles e extremadamente grandes xa son de por si caras de máis, pero a consecuencia realmente nefasta é que os habitantes deses Estados ven hipotecadas as súas necesidades básicas, segundo os casos a alimentación, a sanidade, a vivenda, a educación…

A clasificación está en “Top ten das mais grandiosas e incomprendidas obras de arquitectura do mundo” (Túzaro blog, 31 - VIII - 2007).

Entre esta galería dos horrores morais (e, normalmente, tamén estéticos) eu escollo:

• o proxecto, inacabado, de hotel máis alto do mundo en Corea do Norte (país que gasta moreas en desenvolver armas nucleares e ten á maioría do seu pobo morrendo literalmente de fame), promovido por Kim Il-sung
• o templo católico máis grande do mundo en Costa de Marfil (un dos países menos desenvolvidos do mundo, ver Human Development Index), promovido por Félix Houphouët-Boigny
• …
• o proxecto “Cidade da Cultura”, inacabado, promovido por Manuel Fraga Iribarne

Segundo a Plataforma Cidadá “Cultura si, mausoleo non”, na “Cidade da Cultura” xa se gastaron máis de 370 millóns de euros nas obras. Unhas obras que están sen terminar e non se sabe para que van servir…

HRW report: Côte d’Ivoire peace process fails to address sexual violence

Human Rights Watch publicou hoxe un informe titulado “My Heart Is Cut”: Sexual Violence by Rebels and Pro-Government Forces in Côte d’Ivoire.

No informe denuncian que os procesos de paz en Côte d’Ivoire (o nome deste país aparece, nalgunhas fontes, traducido como “Ivory Coast”, “Costa de Marfil”, etc.) olvidan os crimes de violencia sexual, cometidos contra nenas e mulleres, porque as dúas faccións son responsables de centos deles.

Copio e pego un extracto da introducción:

Since an armed conflict erupted in 2002 between the Ivorian government and northern-based rebel groups, girls and women in Côte d’Ivoire have been victims of brutal forms of sexual violence by armed men on both sides of the military and political divide. [...]

Some rape victims died because of the sexual violence inflicted against them. Many who did survive were raped so violently that they suffered serious bleeding, tearing in the genital area, long-term incontinence, and severe infections. While some pregnant women miscarried and other women became infertile as a result of the sexual violence they endured, yet others experienced the trauma of unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape. [...]

Determining the full extent of the problem of sexual violence is complicated by difficulties in documentation arising from the fear of perpetrator reprisals, the authorities’ lack of concern, and tremendous security risks associated with reporting or investigating crimes. Underreporting poses an additional problem, and partly reflects the low status of women and girls in Côte d’Ivoire, the cultural taboos around the issue of sexual violence, and women’s fear of rejection by family or communities. [...]

Mixed groups of Liberian and Sierra Leonean mercenaries supporting both the Ivorian government and rebel forces in the west were guilty of especially egregious and widespread sexual abuses. However, even after the end of active hostilities, from 2004 onwards, sexual violence remained a significant problem throughout both rebel- and government-held areas. [...]