Une place Bouazizi à Paris mais toujours pas de solution pour les migrants tunisiens du Botzaris 36

Une place Mohamed Bouazizi sera inaugurée le 30juin dans le 14ème arrondissement de Paris. Avec ce petit bout de Paris qui portera le nom du jeune vendeur ambulant dont l’immolation a été le point de départ de la révolution tunisienne, la France veut donc rendre hommage à un peuple qui se dressa comme un seul homme pour demander sa liberté. On s’attend à ce que lors de la cérémonie Bertrand Delanoë nous fasse part avec éloquence de tout son amour pour la Tunisie et les Tunisiens, de son admiration pour cette révolution pacifique, et même qu’il nous glisse sur le ton de la confidence une phrase ou deux d’un de ses nombreux potes tunisiens opposants politiques au régime Ben Ali exilés jusqu’à la chute du tyran (toute ressemblance avec Marzouki n’est que fortuite!).

Au même moment, dans le 19ème arrondissement, continuera de sonner un autre son de cloche, alors qu’on ne cherche ni trouve aucune solution pour les migrants tunisiens du 36, rue Botzaris. Ces Tunisiens arrivés en Europe via Lampedusa avaient squatté ce bâtiment qu’occupait la branche française du parti RCD de Ben Ali, avant que les forces de l’ordre françaises sollicitées par l’ambassade de Tunisie et le gouvernement tunisien ne les en déloge, et ce plusieurs fois.

Pour les représentants des gouvernements tunisien et français, c’est que le sort des quelques dizaines de migrants tunisiens du 36, rue Botzaris est infiniment moins important que celui de ceux dont les noms apparaissent dans les archives du RCD. La coopération des gouvernements français successifs avec le régime autoritaire de Ben Ali est de notoriété publique, bien sûr, mais des documents attestant de l’étroitesse de ces liens et des personnalités mises en cause sont des inconvénients que certains, qu’ils soient du gouvernement tunisien actuel ou du gouvernement français, aimeraient bien pouvoir s’épargner. Au final, les Tunisiens du 36, rue Botzaris n’ont pu compter que sur la mobilisation d’internautes français et tunisiens et de quelques associations, qui cherchent une solution, peu aidés en cela par la lâcheté et l’autisme des officiels français et tunisiens.Les politiciens ont beau nous avoir fait des beaux discours sur le rôle des médias sociaux dans les révolutions arabes, ils nous offrent actuellement en live une belle démonstration de leur mépris pour cette affaire qui n’a pu sortir de l’ombre que par la volonté de la scène virtuelle française et tunisienne (grâce au hashtag #botzaris36).

Dans les mots, dans les discours, la France, comme quand elle inaugure une place Bouazizi à Paris, aime se proclamer du côté du peuple tunisien et de ses revendications légitimes. Dans les faits, la France continue à n’apporter de soutien qu’au gouvernement tunisien, quand bien même celui-ci agit contre ses propre citoyens.

Mohamed Bouazizi est mort et le “Printemps Arabe” est certainement le plus bel hommage que les peuples auraient pu lui rendre; il est mort et il n’a certainement pas besoin que Monsieur Delanoë nous verse une petite larme pendant l’inauguration d’une place portant son nom; les Tunisiens du 36, rue Botzaris sont eux bel et bien là et attendent toujours qu’on décide de leur sort.

Dying of thirst in the middle of the Sea: a history of indifference

As war goes on in Libya, the flow of refugees to the neighbouring countries doesn’t stop. Estimations are difficult to do, but we know that besides the massive number (nearly one million) of foreign workers who left Libya at the beginning of the conflit and already went back to their country (let it be in Subsaharian Africa, North Africa or Asia), more than 150’000 Libyans crossed the frontiers with Tunisia, Egypt or Niger (for example nearly 40’000 Libyans have been quickly “absorbed” by the South Tunisian population , most of them hosted and provided in essential needs in Tunisian families although they are themselves in need, with such a fluency that even the International Organizations and the NGOs were amazed of the solidarity of the local population). A few thousands fled to Europe, generally through the Italian island of Lampedusa with their boats from Mistrata or other local ports. Men, women and children take board in overcrowded boats that sometimes fail in crossing the Mediterranean Sea and sink.

The sadest of these stories was reported by the guardian two days ago, about a boat that left Misrata with 72 refugees on board that came to visual contact with a NATO aircraft carrier, supposed to be the french Charles-de-Gaulle, and that made several attempts to drag attention (including a phone call to a Erithrean priest in Rome that alerted the italian coastguards that launched an alarm to urge any vessel in the neighbourhood of the boat of the refugees to rescue, following the law o the Sea that applies as well to military ships). Although these signals to the aircraft carrier and the two military planes/helicopters passing over the boat at low altitude, no help was given to the refugees. Ater the fuel tank emptied and the food and water stock finished, the boat drifted backwards towards Libya, and meanwhile 61 from the initial 72 people on bord died of hunger and thirst.

The NATO investigation is going on. Regardless of the details it will reveal, the conclusion will forever stay the same: 72 people escaped for saving their lives from the madness of war and 61 of them ended dying because of the indifference of those who were mobilized to protect them, because although they clearly saw them and have clearly received the signal of their presence, somewhere, the decision to not rescue them was taken. Let it be a dysfunctional  procedure or not, it is very likely that the ship’s company didn’t intend to let the refugees die but just weren’t keen to endorse the responsability of these 72 people. One can imagine they might well have thought the boat would have easily reached Lampedusa or any other Italian shore, letting to the staff on the ground take care of welcoming the refugees; in consequence they reached the conclusion that they can avoid dealing with a boat full of refugees. At every stage of the concerned hierarchy, then, there wasn’t the will – or the courage – to endorse the responsability of the migrants. Were simply the members of the staff of the aircraft carrier “afraid” to become a plateform used by Africans to reach Europe? After all, indifference to dramatic situations is sometimes no more than a shunning, a strategy to avoid the answers to the questions we fear.

If it is to be stated that, indeed, the aircraft carrier envolved in this event was the french Charles-de-Gaulles, it would become extremely revelant. France called for a freeze of the Schengen Agreement in order to close their frontiers to the Tunisian migrants given 6-months visas by the italian authorities, and the denial of assistance to the 72 refugees escaping Libya would be simply the continuation on sea of the official new French policy towards migrants. If the refugees were to be saved by the Charles-de-Gaulle, in stepping on the aircraft carrier, according to the International Law of the Sea, they would be considered as under the French law; in short France would have been forced to welcome the refugees, given the fact they cannot send them back to their country at war (a war to which France is participating). By letting the refugees on the Sea, thinking they’d continue to Lampedusa, they certainly hoped that the migrants would be welcomed by the Italian authorities. The question that remains would then be simple: were the members of the staff fully responsible of the decision of ignoring the refugees, or were they told/forced to ignore them?

Tunisian migrants of Lampedusa: France is shivering

During the last few weeks, Lampedusa was often quoted in European newspapers headlines. After the Tunisian Jasmine Revolution, an increase in the number of Tunisian migrants reaching by boat Europe through the little Italian island at South of Sicily was observed. Reading the news, it looks almost like an invasion: how is Europe going to deal with this massive wave of migration? What is the appropriate thing to do? Issueing to the Tunisian migrants residence permits in the European Union, at the cost of encouraging more and more North Africans to cross the Mediterranean? Or send them back to their currently unstable homeland at the cost of having to face critics for treating African people without any sense of responsability or dignity after being life long partners of dictators such as Ben Ali or Gaddafi? Tunisian migrants, while waiting for the outcome of the debate over their fate, see themselves becoming a point of focus: journalists are almost as many as them in Lampedusa, protests of angry Italian are almost daily, Libyan migrants, escaping war, begin to arrive at the accomodation.

When finally Italy issued 22’000 3 months-visas to the migrants, allowing them to travel in Europe before to settle for a final destination, according to Schengen Agreement, a wave of panick sweeped all over Europe. France, where about 3/4 of the migrants plan to go, promptly reacted: first by stopping the trains between Vintimille (Italy) to France carrying migrants as well as Italian activists, then by calling for a temporary suspension of Schengen Agreement. Never in the history of European Union did one of the Member States ask for such a extraordinary measure. By acting so, France would threaten the unity of Europe, create a diplomatic conflict with another Member State, Italy, and deliberately get in the way of European economy, favorited by the open intra-European borders.

The Schengen Agreement defines itself which kind of circumstances allows a suspension of the Convention: when security of a Member State asks for it. To be able to ask for a suspension of the Schengen Agreement in order to prevent a massive migration from Tunisia, France normally should be able to demonstrate the direct link between the 22’000 migrants and security of the French territory.

As a physicist, I always felt confortable with demonstrations: in general, numbers lie much less than politicians. I tried to figure out how 22’000 people could threaten France’s security.  For the sake of the argument I assumed that 100% of the Tunisian migrants would try to settle in France; the French population would then increase by 0.03% = 3 Tunisians per 10’000 people. Each Tunisian has then to represent a significant change in the life of approximatively 3’300 people in France.

The impact of the Tunisian migrants cannot be as dramatic as depicted by politicians. Nevertheless, integrating them into national statistics is an easy way to show evaluate their contribution to France. For example, unemployment in France represents 9.6% of active population, and the 22’000 Tunisians would not even represent 0.01% of the active population, and more keen to work in the main understaffed sectors in France (catering/food industry, construction industry, etc). The median age of Tunisians in Tunisia is about 30 years in total and 29.6 years for men. The migrants of Lampedusa are in huge majority young men, perfectly healthy, so to say coming to Europe to work. Most of them speak French and come from rural regions of Tunisia, where the biggest part of the economy is provided by agriculture; it is to be noted that agriculture is the most understaffed sector in France.

So in the best case these Tunisians would be able to find a job and participate in France’s economical growth. French GDP per person was of 28’123 € in 2010. In the worst case they would not find any job and would benefit from the french social welfare (known as the Revenu de Solidarité Active, RSA). The RSA is a monthly fare of 466.99 € per person (=5’603 € per year). Meaning that a negative impact of the 22’000 Tunisian migrants in France can be possible if and only if for one finding a job and producing a substantial yearly wealth of 28’123 € worth, there should be at least 6 Tunisians not finding jobs and costing each 5’603 € in social welfare.

In other words, unless the unemployment rate of the newcomers is higher than 85% their contribution to the French economy would be positive. A realistic scenario would admit an unemployment rate for Tunisian newcomers a bit above national rate, certainly around 20% during the first year. By closing their borders to Tunisian migrants and putting in question Schengen Agreement, France is, in consequence, depriving the national economy from a very welcome help. Not only the immediate needs in workers in some sectors where French people don’t want to work would be partly fulfilled, but also in a demographic point of view, their presence can only be a good thing for the aging French population (amongst the oldest in Europe with a serious deficit of young people, only two decades before the “Baby-Boomers” reach age of retirement). History even already shown us that there is nothing to fear from this migration: after all, after the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolutionnary chain reaction it induced in Eastern Europe, Romanians, Hungarians or Polish massively migrated; 20 years later, it is pretty clear that no invasion or negative concequence was observed in Western Europe.

There is certainly no reason to think that French authorities are not aware of these facts: for France, as well as for the rest of Europe, blocking the migration process could be painful more than anything else. The opposition to Tunisian migration can then only be ideological: fear from the Foreigners, from the unknown and misuse of this fear for electoral reasons. By calling to the suspension of the Schengen Agreement to avoid the Tunisian migrants and insinuating a revision should be undertaken, French President Sarkozy might well open the Pandora box.  At his own risks.