Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo, Unione Europea

Unione Europea. Budget 2021-27 di 1,135 mld euro. Stanziati miliardi per le ngo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-16.

Unione Europea 010 Bicchieri

L’Unione Europea vara periodicamente il budget settennale. È un piano corposo, quello odierna varrebbe circa 1,135 miliardi di euro, e per essere approvato deve sicuramente passare il vaglio del parlamento ma, soprattutto, essere approvato alla unanimità in sede di Consiglio Europeo.

Il punto centrale è che su questa stesura non solo mancherebbe la unanimità, ma persino una maggioranza.

Il budget dovrebbe entrare in discussione a maggio del prossimo ano, proprio nel mese delle elezioni europee che, stando alle previsioni, dovrebbero stravolgere gli attuali assetti politici.

«unrealistic scenario»

Il piano che ora circola in bozza, rivisto quasi giorno per giorno, sembrerebbe essere stato scritto da liberal socialisti sul letto di morte.

Fiumi di denaro si riverserebbero per finanziare le migrazioni, tanto per fare un piccolo esempio, per sovvenzionare l’agricoltura francese e quella tedesca, e così via.

Ai paesi del Visegrad ed all’Italia qualche rara briciola, inavvertitamente caduta dalla tavola degli eurocrati.

«That will be the pivotal battle between the two groups of countries»

*

«Central and eastern European states also feel targeted by the commission’s proposal on other fronts»

*

«The allocation of EU cohesion funds, aimed at poorer regions, will this time tilt towards the southern counties, such as Italy, Greece, and Spain, which have gone through a deep financial and economic crisis, while central and eastern European economies have seen growth»

*

«The commission argues this proves the success of cohesion policies: that these largely former communist economies are catching up with the richer part of the EU»

*

«However, countries that are set to lose the most, such as Hungary and Poland accuse the EU executive of attempting to punish countries that have clashed with the EU executive over political and legal issues, such as the independence of the courts. These two countries have also been the loudest critics of the EU’s migration policy»

*

«Central and eastern European countries are also worried about a possible new mechanism the EU executive wants to introduce to discipline countries where the judiciary has been put under political pressure»

*

«The commission wants to be able to “suspend, reduce or restrict access to EU funding” in a proportionate manner to protect EU investments and European taxpayers’ money. But plans for the new procedure, the so-called “conditionality” clause, are still vague»

* * *

Ma la chicca finale è da brivido.

«The MEP tasked with setting the European Parliament’s position on the EU’s planned support for NGOs has proposed a billion-euro program for promoting democratic values and civil society»

*

«The EU Commission in May in its budget plan proposed to bundle together some existing programs under the new ‘Justice, Rights, and Values Fund’ to support NGOs protecting European values – which have come under attack in several member states»

*

«We want more, in total nearly €2bn, and we have added a new strand to the proposal, which is about rights and values only»

*

Mr Soros sommessamente ringrazia e concede anche che gli si baci l’anello.


EU Observer. 2018-10-13. The big European budget battle – who is fighting for what?

The EU is gearing up for its most complex and toughest haggling – as diplomats start to discuss the next long-term EU budget that will define funding for citizens and regions.

According to the traditional dynamic of budget negotiations, participants start out with hefty calls for better, more efficient policies, high principles and common goals.

By the end, however, talks gradually descend to 28 countries bickering over money. It is not a pretty sight, but luckily only happens every seven years.

This time there will be only 27 states (with the UK leaving the bloc next March) contributing to and receiving from the budget until the end of the cycle at the end of 2020 – presuming a EU-UK divorce deal is agreed soon.

The European Commission unveiled its budget proposal in early May with the aim of wrapping up talks before the European elections in May 2019 – an unrealistic scenario.

The EU executive faced two challenges: plug the hole struck by the departure of the UK, which contributed around €14bn annually to the budget, and find money for new challenges, such as migration and security, while maintaining key traditional EU policies on agriculture and economic convergence.

Despite early warnings from some net contributor countries, such as the Netherlands and Austria, to draw up ‘a smaller EU budget for a smaller EU’, the commission increased the overall budget figures slightly.

The biggest net contributor, Germany, supported the commission’s approach, which irked fiscally disciplined allies of Berlin.

The EU executive proposed a €1,135bn budget for 2021-27 in an effort to boost funding for defence, migration, and research in the post-Brexit EU. This means a €192bn increase compared to the previous multi-annual financial framework (MFF).

In 2018 prices, it accounts for 1.114 percent of the EU-27’s gross national income (GNI), compared to the one percent under the current budget with the UK still a member of the club.

While both cohesion and agriculture policies face cuts, the commission proposed to boost funding for the Erasmus student exchange program, digitalisation, research and development, and external border security.

The Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark, all net contributors, argue that this is too much, while countries in eastern Europe which directly benefit from cohesion funds do not want to see further cuts in these two key policies of the EU – which account for about 70 percent of the total budget.

Pivotal battle

That will be the pivotal battle between the two groups of countries.

Central and eastern European states also feel targeted by the commission’s proposal on other fronts.

The allocation of EU cohesion funds, aimed at poorer regions, will this time tilt towards the southern counties, such as Italy, Greece, and Spain, which have gone through a deep financial and economic crisis, while central and eastern European economies have seen growth.

The commission argues this proves the success of cohesion policies: that these largely former communist economies are catching up with the richer part of the EU.

However, countries that are set to lose the most, such as Hungary and Poland accuse the EU executive of attempting to punish countries that have clashed with the EU executive over political and legal issues, such as the independence of the courts. These two countries have also been the loudest critics of the EU’s migration policy.

The EU commission says that GDP growth is still the main indicator when it comes to calculating allocations.

But some central and eastern European member states have criticised the introduction of new criteria to determine the sum for member states, for example introducing measures on youth unemployment, climate change and the reception and integration of migrants.

Central and eastern European countries are also worried about a possible new mechanism the EU executive wants to introduce to discipline countries where the judiciary has been put under political pressure.

The commission wants to be able to “suspend, reduce or restrict access to EU funding” in a proportionate manner to protect EU investments and European taxpayers’ money. But plans for the new procedure, the so-called “conditionality” clause, are still vague.

Rebate row?

Another front where member states are expected to clash is the issue of rebates. The UK’s controversial rebate, the partial refund for their payments into the EU budget first negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, will disappear with Brexit.

In a complex mechanism, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden, who are also net contributors, pay only a share of the UK’s rebate.

The commission is arguing that with the UK rebate gone, all rebates should be gone. Yet the net contributor countries want to retain their own rebates, arguing that they need a correction mechanism so that their contribution does not inflate.

The ever-present debate between those who want the EU to have the ability to tax independently, and those who want to keep the right to tax solely in member states competencies, is emerging again this time too.

The commission is proposing that customs duties, contributions based on value-added tax, and revenues from the emission trading scheme (ETS) to be collected at EU level, not a national level, plus revenue from the European Central Bank issuing money.

Over the summer, the commission outlined the details of its planned budget to EU diplomats – but as the European elections of May 2019 are approaching fast and the campaign intensifying, there is little chance for any significant debate until after the poll.

The new budget will then most probably be voted on by a new European Parliament – one that is expected to see a surge in populists, who have very different ideas about EU priorities.


EU Observer. 2018-10-13. MEP proposes €1bn for NGOs supporting ‘EU values’

The MEP tasked with setting the European Parliament’s position on the EU’s planned support for NGOs has proposed a billion-euro program for promoting democratic values and civil society.

The effort is part of the EU’s next long-term budget, set to start from 2021, which is under discussion among member states and the parliament.

The EU Commission in May in its budget plan proposed to bundle together some existing programs under the new ‘Justice, Rights, and Values Fund’ to support NGOs protecting European values – which have come under attack in several member states.

Swedish Green MEP Bodil Valero plans to almost double the funding for the program in her report due to be presented Wednesday (10 October) afternoon at the meeting of the EP’s civil liberties committee.

“When it comes to the support for human rights organisations outside and watchdogs and monitoring and so on, we give a lot of money [to other countries] but we have nothing for Europe. And we are in a situation where we really need a lot of money also for the human rights organisations in Europe,” she said.

The EU has launched probes to check if both Poland and Hungary have risked breaching its values and rules, and concerns have been raised against Romania and Malta. Three journalists were killed in the last year who have investigated corruption related to EU funds in Malta, Slovakia, and Bulgaria.

Valero said she wanted to add the extra funding because the commission did not propose any additional money in the budget plan, while civil organisations are having to do more as EU values are challenged across the bloc.

“We want more, in total nearly €2bn, and we have added a new strand to the proposal, which is about rights and values only,” she told EUobserver.

Valero’s draft report said “given the changed political landscape in the union and raising challenges to European values that EU is currently facing,” she deems the commission’s proposal of €642 million for seven years is “insufficient and cannot respond to the needs of EU citizens to strengthen and protect EU values, as part of pluralist, democratic, open and inclusive society”.

Valero also wants to make sure that at least 40 percent of that funding would be earmarked for NGOs.

‘Bad cycle’

She hopes to have a vote in the civil liberties committee in December and start negotiations with the member states in January.

Valero hopes to conclude before the May European elections, that would tie the hands of the next parliament, which she predicts will be more rightwing.

Populist eurosceptic parties are on the rise in the bloc ahead of the European elections next May.

The new “union values” program “should focus on protecting and promoting democracy and the rule of law,” ensuring the independence of the judiciary, providing support for independent human rights defenders and civil society organisations, whistleblower defence and “support initiatives that promote transparency, accountability, integrity and absence of corruption”.

“Anything that promotes the values of Article 2 in the treaty should be eligible,” she said referring to the EU’s fundamental values of freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, respect for human rights, pluralism, tolerance.

An NGO law curbing the rights of civil groups by Hungary’s government has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the commission for breaking EU rules. Polish NGOs also fear drying up of resources.

Valero said no country is immune from populist instincts to curb fundamental rights.

“In some countries where the NGOs are living in a very difficult situation, it [the proposal] will change their lives very much.

“I think it is the main reason why we need to have this, we would need it even before 2021, because we see so many countries are restricting the freedoms, and media freedom, not only Hungary and Poland,” she said pointing to Spain’s gag law curbing freedom of expression, and recent efforts in Denmark to restructure the media by cutting significantly funding for the public broadcaster.

She said Europe was in a “bad cycle” when member states see each other getting away with breaking EU values, emboldening others to follow suit.

Her report said: “the deterioration of those rights and values in any member state can have detrimental effects on the union as a whole”.

Valero in her report is also proposing to secure core funding for NGOs for daily expenses, and have money available not only for projects. She also wants to cut red tape to alleviate the burden on the smaller civil organisations.

The Green MEP is confident she can secure the support of the other political groups in the parliament, as she said she aligned her proposal with a previous European parliament report in April calling for a “values instrument” in the new budget for civil society in Europe.

MEP Michal Boni from the Polish opposition Civil Platform, who was in charge of that file, will oversee gathering support for Valero’s proposal among the his peers in the European People’s Party, which counts Hungary’s ruling party among its members.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata, Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo, Unione Europea

Acquarius. Nessuno stato sembrerebbe disposto a concederle la bandiera.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-24.

2018-09-24__Aquarius__001

«Karline Kleijer, MSF’s Head of Emergencies, accused European leaders of using “abusive and vicious” tactics»

*

Panama ha radiato dal proprio registro navale la nave Aquarius, una delle ultime che esercitano la tratta dei negri nelle acque del Mediterraneo.

Stando alle leggi ed ai trattati internazionali, ogni nave che solca i mari deve essere registrata presso una nazione, della quale poi batte la bandiera. In caso contrario è una semplice nave pirata. Non solo, anche l’attracco ai porti e tutte le operazioni di logistica navale le sono precluse: dai rifornimenti alla assunzione di marinai.

*

Migranti: Panama ferma Aquarius. Ong, pressioni Italia

«SOS Méditerranée e Medici Senza Frontiere sono “sconvolte dall’annuncio dell’Autorità marittima di Panama di essere stata costretta a revocare l’iscrizione dell’Aquarius dal proprio registro navale sotto l’evidente pressione economica e politica delle autorità italiane. Questo provvedimento condanna centinaia di uomini, donne e bambini, alla disperata ricerca di sicurezza, ad annegare in mare e infligge un duro colpo alla missione umanitaria di Aquarius”. Così in una nota le due organizzazioni umanitarie.

SOS Mediterrannee e MSF chiedono all’Europa di permettere all’Aquarius di poter continuare ad operare nel Mediterraneo centrale e di far sapere alle autorità panamensi che “le minacce del governo italiano sono infondate o di garantire immediatamente una nuova bandiera per poter continuare a navigare”. E’ quanto chiedono le due Ong in una nota nella quale è riportata anche una dichiarazione di Karline Kleijer, responsabile delle emergenze per Msf. “I leader europei – afferma Kleijer – sembrano non avere scrupoli nell’attuare tattiche sempre più offensive e crudeli che servono i propri interessi politici a scapito delle vite umane. Negli ultimi due anni, i leader europei hanno affermato che le persone non dovrebbero morire in mare, ma allo stesso tempo hanno perseguito politiche pericolose e male informate che hanno portato a nuovi minimi la crisi umanitaria nel Mediterraneo centrale e in Libia. Questa tragedia deve finire, ma ciò può accadere solo se i governi dell’Ue permetteranno all’Aquarius e alle altre navi di ricerca e soccorso di continuare a fornire assistenza”.»

* * * * * * *

I negrieri impediti a svolgere le loro consuete attività si dimostrano essere indignati e si appellano all’Unione Europea, che però non dispone di un registro navale.

Bene.

Vorrà dire che i santi patroni della tratta concederanno loro una bandiera sotto cui operare.

Sia più che certi che Frau Merkel e Mr Macron faranno a gara per avere l’onore di prendersi la Aquarius sotto la loro bandiera.

Notiamo anche il tono asettico con cui Bbc ne da notizia.


Bbc. 2018-09-24. The Aquarius: Migrant rescue ship has registration revoked

A rescue vessel operating in the central Mediterranean Sea has had its registration revoked, leaving its future operations in jeopardy.

When the Aquarius next docks, it will have to remove its Panama maritime flag and cannot set sail without a new one.

It is the last private rescue ship operating in the area used for crossings from Libya to Europe.

The charities who run the vessel accuse the Italian government of pressuring Panama into deflagging the Aquarius.

The two groups who lease it, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and SOS Mediterranée, say they were notified of the decision by the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA) on Saturday.

The authority is said to have described the ship as a “political problem” for the country’s government, and said Italian authorities had urged them to take “immediate action” against them, according to SOS Mediterranée.

Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, who has previously described the aid boats as a “taxi service” for migrants, denies his country put pressure on Panama.

On Sunday, he tweeted he “didn’t even know” what prefix Panama has for telephone calls.

Mr Salvini has been a prominent figure in a public immigration crackdown in Italy since his government, a coalition between the right-wing League party and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement, came to power in June.

He has frequently came into conflicts with rescue ship operators and last month was involved in a public stand-off about the disembarkation of 150 migrants on a coast guard ship on the island of Sicily.

According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018.

The Aquarius has been operating in the area since February 2016, finding itself at the centre of diplomatic stand-offs in recent months over disembarkation.

It was under the flag of the Gibraltar Maritime Administration until August this year, when it was given “notice of removal” and re-registered with Panama.

The ship’s operators say they were notified of the new decision while on a current mission, and say they have 58 survivors on board from two boats they found in distress.

Once it docks, the vessel will now be de-flagged and will not be able to set sail again without being registered with a new maritime authority.

In a joint statement, the charities insisted they were in “full compliance” with maritime law and denounced the decision as condemning hundreds to death.

The statement asks for European governments to step-in to allow the vessel to continue its operations by either reassuring the Panamanian authorities or issuing it a new flag.

Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata, Ong - Ngo

Cooperative ed ngo. Guadagni sul sangue dei migranti. Qualche bilancio. 368 milioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-10.

2018-09-06__Cooperative__000

Per usare termini politicamente corretti ed ovattati, chiunque sostenga l’immigrazione clandestina è un essere depravato e corrotto che trae il suo sostentamento dai fondi elargiti da Unione Europea e stato italiano a coloro che accogliessero i così detti ‘profughi‘. Che profughi non sono.

Parole dure?

Ministero dell’Interno. Fondi Europei.

«Il Sistema di protezione è caratterizzato da:

– il carattere pubblico delle risorse messe a disposizione e dagli enti responsabili dell’accoglienza, e dal governo centrale secondo una logica di governance multilivello;

– la partecipazione volontaria degli enti locali alla rete dei progetti di accoglienza;

– politiche sinergiche sul territorio con i soggetti del terzo settore che contribuiscono in maniera essenziale alla realizzazione degli interventi.

I progetti di accoglienza, presentati sulla scorta di appositi bandi, sono sottoposti all’esame di una Commissione di valutazione composta da rappresentanti del ministero dell’Interno, da un rappresentante dell’Associazione nazionale comuni italiani (ANCI) e da un rappresentante dell’Unione delle province d’Italia (UPI). Compongono, inoltre, la Commissione un rappresentante dell’Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i Rifugiati (ACNUR) ed un rappresentante delle Regioni.»

* * * * * *

2018-09-06__Cooperative__001

Fiumi di denaro si riversano su cooperative ed ngo che si proclamano benefattrici dei migranti per pura filantropia ascetica.

2018-09-06__Cooperative__002

Tali denari formano gli stipendi da nababbi percepiti dal personale scelto per cooptazione, ed ai migranti arrivano, forse, le sole briciole.

No migranti? Niente fondi pubblici!

Altro che buoni samaritani, gente squallida, che pur di trarre illeciti guadagni sgozzerebbe la madre.

Solo per le cooperative ed ngo riportate in tabella, si evince un fatturato di 368 milioni di euro, con un utile di 6.5 milioni: gran bella cifra poi per organizzazioni che avrebbero dovuto essere senza scopo di lucro.

* * * * * *

Per chi proprio non lo avesse ancora capito, il denaro prelevato con le tasse dai Contribuenti finisce alla fine dei giri nelle tasche dei furbastri che lucrano sulla immigrazione. Adesso dovrebbe essere chiaro perché Famiglia Cristiana ha titolato ‘Vade retro Salvini’: senza guadagni illeciti Famiglia Cristiana perderebbe la sua ragion d’essere.

Li additiamo al pubblico disprezzo.


Libero. 2017-08-31. Bechis: nomi e numeri delle coop che si arricchiscono con gli immigrati

C’è una sola cooperativa sociale di rilievo che si occupa di gestione e accoglienza dei migranti che nel 2016 non è riuscita ad aumentare il suo giro di affari: è il consorzio Eriches 29 di Roma che un tempo era guidato da Salvatore Buzzi e oggi per sua sfortuna è controllata dal tribunale di Roma che ne sequestrò le quote quando scoppiò lo scandalo di Mafia Capitale. Ma è un caso più unico che raro: perché nell’ultimo anno chi si è occupato di migranti e nella maggiore parte dei casi ha gestito gli Sprar ha fatto affari così straordinari con le cooperative sociali o i consorzi che ne raccolgono alcune che quelle imprese sembravano vivere in tutt’altra parte di Italia. Basta pensare che con le 45 più rilevanti che hanno depositato presso la camera di Commercio locale il proprio bilancio al 31 dicembre 2016 si raggiunge un fatturato di 367,7 milioni di euro. Le stesse società nel 2015 avevano complessivamente fatturato 294,5 milioni di euro. La crescita complessiva del loro giro di affari è stata dunque superiore ai 73,1 milioni di euro in un solo anno, pari ad un aumento del 24,81% sul giro di affari dell’anno precedente. Nessun altro settore produttivo italiano può vantare risultati di questo tipo in un anno dove si è cominciata a vedere una timida crescita, mai però a due cifre. 

Se si guarda l’utile netto conseguito dalle 45 coop sociali che si sono occupate di migranti il risultato è ancora più strabiliante: era di 3,4 milioni di euro nel 2015, è salito a 6,5 milioni di euro nel 2016, con una crescita assoluta di 3 milioni e percentuale del 90,5%. La cifra può sembrare esigua rispetto al giro di affari, ma qui non siamo di fronte a società per azioni o a multinazionali, e bisogna tenere presenti regole e tradizioni delle cooperative sociali, che più o meno vengono tutte dalla Lega Coop, dalla Confcooperative, dalla chiesa cattolica o da movimenti cattolici.
Fra quelle 45 coop solo 4 hanno visto nel giro dell’ultimo anno ridursi il fatturato per il taglio di alcune commesse pubbliche, ma di quelle quattro tre hanno comunque aumentato la propria redditività rispetto all’anno precedente. L’utile è aumentato per 35 cooperative, mentre per dieci si è ridotto. Ma di queste dieci ben 9 sono comunque riuscite ad aumentare il proprio giro di affari sperando di fare lievitare il margine nel 2017.

IL CASO BUZZI

La sola coop che invece è in negativo sia per fatturato che per utile è appunto la sopra ricordata Eriches 29 che oggi viene gestita dal tribunale di Roma che ha nominato alcuni professionisti al vertice. Forse è un caso, ma forse non lo è che la sola coop di settore per cui i migranti non siano un business è quella su cui è strettissimo il controllo di legalità. Anche per la Eriches 29 però nel 2017 la situazione potrebbe cambiare in meglio. Lo si legge nella relazione di bilancio in cui gli amministratori fanno una sostanziale rivelazione. «Si precisa», scrivono, «che nei primi mesi del 2017 la Società ha chiesto ed ottenuto dalla stazione appaltante Comune di Roma-Dipartimento Politiche Sociali di rinegoziare la percentuale del co-finanziamento relativo alla commessa Sprar. dal 20% al 5%. Come noto, il 20% del co-finanziamento che rimane a carico del gestore costituisce la principale causa della marginalità negativa della commessa; la riduzione al 5% consente il riequilibrio della stessa, e di tale riequilibrio la Società ne trarrà beneficio seppure limitato al secondo semestre del 2017».

Cosa è accaduto? Che l’ex coop di Buzzi si è portata di proroga in proroga fino al giugno 2017 le regole del vecchio contratto. Ma nel frattempo è intervenuta una novità legislativa, di cui ha beneficiato probabilmente qualche altra coop che gestiva gli Sprar dei migranti già nella seconda parte del 2016: dipende dalla scadenza dei loro contratti e dalle trattative avviate con gli enti locali controparte.

La legge prevedeva che per il finanziamento degli Sprar per l’accoglienza diffusa dei profughi e richiedenti asilo l’80% fosse a carico dello Stato e il 20% a carico degli “enti”. In teoria quel 20% doveva essere finanziato dagli enti locali in cui venivano istituiti i centri di accoglienza, ma in quasi tutti i casi i comuni hanno traslato quella norma sugli enti privati che vincevano le gare: le coop sociali che gestiscono quei centri.

Il governo di Matteo Renzi nell’agosto del 2016 ha varato un nuovo decreto che ha portato quella percentuale dal 20% al 5%, e di conseguenza le coop hanno avuto direttamente o indirettamente (attraverso il Comune) un 15% inatteso di redditività in più.

Le due più grandi coop sociali che si occupano di migranti sono la Auxilium e la Senis Hospes entrambe con sede legale a Senise, in provincia di Potenza. Più volte finite entrambe sotto tiro della magistratura (anche in alcuni scampoli della inchiesta su Mafia Capitale), sono legate alla storia di una cooperativa bianca un tempo legata alla compagnia delle Opere: La Cascina, che fa ristorazione. Gestiscono i Cara più importanti, e una sfilza. Ma i problemi giudiziari non hanno intralciato evidentemente i loro affari: l’Auxilium in un anno ha visto aumentare il proprio fatturati da 56,2 a 61,1 milioni di euro e anche l’utile è cresciuto lievemente: da 529mila a 543mila euro. La performance è stata ancora più straordinaria per la Senis Hospes: il fatturato è salito da 26,2 a 42,1 milioni di euro e l’utile da 80mila a 109mila euro. Il risultato straordinario arriva dalla gestione del Cara di Mineo, dal Cara di Foggia e di alcuni Sprar a Roma, Teramo e altri 13 comuni minori. È stata acquisita la gestione anche di un ulteriore Sprar nel comune di Messina. La previsione degli amministratori è di affari a gonfie vele anche nel corso del 2017: «La gestione 2017», scrivono nella relazione sulla gestione, «evidenzia un livello di servizi resi e marginalità in linea con quelle già registrate nel 2016. Nel corso dell’esercizio 2017 la Cooperativa ha in animo in particolare di intensificare i propri servizi resi nel campo socio assistenziale».

Molte cooperative sociali affiancano al business dei migranti anche altro tipo di attività nel campo dell’assistenza sociale: minori, anziani, case famiglia anche per gli italiani. Alcune di loro sono nate in quel settore, e poi hanno colto al volo l’occasione di business che presentavano i rifugiati. Ma non poche sono nate solo negli ultimi anni proprio per esercitare in via esclusiva nel settore dei migranti.

Fra quelle che hanno avuto negli ultimi dodici mesi risultati eclatanti c’è anche la Lai Momo di Sasso Marconi in provincia di Bologna: ha quasi raddoppiato il fatturato (da 3,2 a 5,3 milioni di euro) e più che raddoppiato l’utile netto (da 309 mila a 883 mila euro). È la coop balzata al disonore delle cronache negli ultimi giorni per quell’improvvido commento sui social del proprio mediatore culturale Abid Jee sullo stupro in spiaggia a Rimini, in cui sosteneva che la donna violentata dopo il primo brusco impatto provava piacere. La Lai Momo ha vinto l’appalto per la gestione dello Sprar di Bologna insieme ad altre coop, e si è creata in questi giorni tensione con il committente. Ma non può lamentarsi, visti i risultati.

Fra le performance più incredibili quella della Ruah di Bergamo, che ha visto lievitare il proprio fatturato da 4,8 a 9,2 milioni di euro, quasi quadruplicando l’utile: da 82 mila a 284 mila euro.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Ong - Ngo, Senza categoria

Salvini denunciato. Cognome e nomi degli eventuali giudici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-02.

Pavlov Ivan. Premio Nobel

Ivan Pavlov. Premio Nobel 1904 per la Medicina. Scopritore dei riflessi condizionati.


Per gli austriaci Oberdan, Sauro e Battisti erano traditori della patria e come tali li impiccarono. Per gli italiani erano invece degli irredentisti, additati come martire della patria ed insigniti di medaglia d’oro alla memoria.

Ogni azione ed ogni persona può essere considerata da punti di vista differenti, talora anche opposti.

Nel caso della Diciotti, per i liberal socialisti essa svolgeva azioni umanitarie e perfettamente legali, per quanti non condividano tali ideologie la Diciotti esercitava la tratta dei negri a fine di lucro alimentando l’immigrazione illegale in Italia.

«Sono contenute in circa 50 pagine di relazione le accuse al vicepremier e ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini e al suo capo di gabinetto Matteo Piantedosi, indagati nell’ambito dell’inchiesta sulla nave Diciotti per sequestro di persona, sequestro di persona a scopo di coazione, arresto illegale, abuso d’ufficio e omissione d’atti d’ufficio»

*

«Alla relazione il procuratore capo di Agrigento Luigi Patronaggio ha anche allegato una memoria. Il fascicolo, come apprende l’Adnkronos, è stato inviato questa mattina da Agrigento a Palermo»

*

«A questo punto, il Procuratore capo Francesco Lo Voi ha quindici giorni di tempo per trasferire gli atti al Tribunale dei ministri»

* * * * * * *

Cosa sia e come funzioni il Tribunale del Ministri è già stato chiarito:

Magistratura iscrive il Ministro degli Interni nel registro degli indagati.

«Il Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri ed i Ministri, anche se cessati dalla carica, sono sottoposti, per i reati commessi nell’esercizio delle loro funzioni, alla giurisdizione ordinaria, previa autorizzazione del Senato della Repubblica o della Camera dei deputati, secondo le norme stabilite con legge costituzionale»

*

Innanzitutto prendiamo atto di alcuni dati di fatto.

Con le elezioni del 4 marzo 2018 gli Elettori hanno dato il loro voto in questa maniera:

– Movimento Cinque Stelle, 221 / 630 deputati, 109 / 318 senatori;

– Lega, 125 / 630 deputati, 58 / 320 senatori.

Queste due forze politiche hanno formato un governo giallo-verde, che dispone di 346 / 630 deputati e di 167 / 320 senatori.

Il partito democratico dispone di 111 / 630 deputati e di 52 / 320 senatori.

Almeno da un punto di vista meramente numerico, sia la Camera sia il Senato potrebbero non dar seguito alla denuncia sporta contro il Ministro Salvini.

È infatti posizione governativa una ferma opposizione alla immigrazione illegale e clandestina: sarebbe ben difficile che il Governo si smentisca.

*

Il cuore del problema tuttavia sembrerebbe essere decisamente molto più generale, e verte sulla visione illuminista della divisione dei poteri e della presunta indipendenza della Magistratura.

Se sicuramente vi siano molti giudici che operano in modo indipendente applicando le leggi dello stato, altrettanto sicuramente ve ne sono molti altri che interpretano le leggi secondo i loro schemi ideologici.

Costoro sono una larga maggioranza nella Magistratura italiana: si evidenzia quindi uno scollamento tra la realtà parlamentare e la Weltanschauung dei Magistrati. Non diatriba giurisprudenziale, di per sé lecita e benvenuta, bensì mera lotta politica partitica, ove una minoranza cerca di imporre con le sentenze la propria visione ideologica.

È amara constatazione quanto siano politicizzate le indagini e le sentenze.

Noti i nomi dei giudici, le sentenze possono essere tranquillamente scritte ancor prima del rimando a giudizio: i Giudici politicizzati agiscono con un riflesso condizionato degno dei cani di Pavlov.


Adnk. 2018-08-31. Diciotti, in 50 pagine l’atto di accusa a Salvini

Sono contenute in circa 50 pagine di relazione le accuse al vicepremier e ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini e al suo capo di gabinetto Matteo Piantedosi, indagati nell’ambito dell’inchiesta sulla nave Diciotti per sequestro di persona, sequestro di persona a scopo di coazione, arresto illegale, abuso d’ufficio e omissione d’atti d’ufficio. Alla relazione il procuratore capo di Agrigento Luigi Patronaggio ha anche allegato una memoria. Il fascicolo, come apprende l’Adnkronos, è stato inviato questa mattina da Agrigento a Palermo. A questo punto, il Procuratore capo Francesco Lo Voi ha quindici giorni di tempo per trasferire gli atti al Tribunale dei ministri .

Il ministro dell’Interno, sui social, commenta così la notizia della trasmissione degli atti: “50 pagine di accuse nei miei confronti, 5 reati contestati (sequestro di persona!), 30 anni di carcere come pena massima. Voi pensate che io abbia paura e mi fermi? Mai“. “So che in Italia ci sono tanti giudici liberi, onesti e imparziali, per me ‘prima gli Italiani’ significa difendere sicurezza e confini, anche mettendosi in gioco personalmente. Di politici ladri, incapaci e codardi l’Italia ne ha avuti abbastanza. Contate su di me, io conto su di voi”, conclude. Fonti del Viminale precisano in merito all’inchiesta che “non è ancora arrivata alcuna notifica ufficiale”. “Gli interessati – si chiarisce – stanno apprendendo le presunte accuse a proprio carico solo attraverso la stampa”.

Sarà il Tribunale dei ministri a valutare, entro 90 giorni, se ascoltare Salvini e Piantedosi o fare ulteriori accertamenti. Il Tribunale è la sezione specializzata del tribunale ordinario competente per i reati commessi dal presidente del Consiglio e dai ministri nell’esercizio delle loro funzioni. Il Presidente è Fabio Pilato, 52 anni, che fino a poco tempo fa aveva ricoperto la carica di giudice tutelare proprio presso il Tribunale di Palermo. Qui è stato tra gli ideatori del protocollo d’intesa siglato insieme con l’amministrazione comunale di Palermo per garantire l’accompagnamento ai minori sbarcati da soli sulle coste siciliane. Prima ancora si è anche occupato di rifugiati e riconoscimento di status e protezione sussidiaria.

L’altro giudice è Filippo Serio che proviene dal Tribunale del Riesame. Nel 2011 il suo nome è finito in una lista nera di “amici degli immigrati” pubblicata su un sito neonazista (Stormfront). Il suo nome finì su quella lista perché aveva annullato la misura cautelare per un migrante perché l’ordinanza non era stata tradotta in lingua inglese. Inoltre il giudice è stato anche in prima linea nelle inchieste sulle spese pazze dell’Assemblea regionale siciliana. Infine c’è Giuseppe Sidoti che ha una esperienza di magistrato fallimentare.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Medio Oriente, Ong - Ngo

Arabia Saudita sospende i voli per il Canada. Considerazioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-08-07.

2018-08-07__dionysius_i_of_syracuse

Moneta raffigurante Dionisio (Dionigi) I tiranno di Siracusa, circa 405 a.C.


Arabia Saudita e Canada. Congelati gli accordi commerciali. Espulsi gli Ambasciatori.

Riassumiamo.

«Canada is gravely concerned about additional arrests of civil society and women’s rights activists in #SaudiArabia, including Samar Badawi. We urge the Saudi authorities to immediately release them and all other peaceful #humanrights activists.vists.».

Così scriveva la Ministra degli Esteri Canadese Mrs Chrystia Freeland.

Così rispondeva l’Arabia Saudita.

«The negative and surprising attitude of #Canada is an entirely false claim and utterly incorrect. ….

We have been briefed by what the #Canadian foreign minister and the Canadian embassy to the #Kingdom released on what they named “civil society rights activists”, and we affirm that this negative and surprising attitude is an incorrect claim. ….

The Canadian position is an overt and blatant interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of #SaudiArabia and is in contravention of the most basic international norms and all the charters governing relations between States. ….

The Canadian position is a grave and unacceptable violation of the Kingdom’s laws and procedures. In addition to violate the Kingdom’s judiciary and a breach of the principle of #sovereignty. ….»

*

«We consider the Canadian ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia persona non grata and order him to leave within the next 24 hours.»

* * * * * * *

Di oggi una nuova escalation nel contenzioso.

Saudi Arabia suspends Toronto flights in row with Canada

«The leading Saudi women’s rights campaigner Manal al-Sharif thanked Canada for “speaking up” and asked when other Western powers would do the same. ….

In what appeared to be a further sign of deteriorating relations between the two countries, a verified Twitter account, which is reportedly linked to Saudi authorities, shared an image of a plane flying towards Toronto’s famed CN Tower.

The image was overlaid with text, including a quote which read “he who with what doesn’t concern him finds what doesn’t please him”. ….

Ms Badawi was given the US International Women of Courage Award in 2012 and is known for challenging Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system.

Her brother Raif was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam” online back in 2014, while his wife, Ensaf Haidar, lives in Canada and recently became a Canadian citizen.»

* * * * * * *

Qualche precisazione.

– Una cosa è il non condividere una posizione politica di uno stato sovrano ed una ben differente è ordinare  a questo di variarla. Gli ordini si danno solo ed esclusivamente quando si sia investiti dell’autorità di emetterli, e poi di farli anche rispettare.

Il Canada non ha alcun diritto di immettersi negli affari sauditi.

– La diplomazia è un’arte delicata e sottile, molto ossequiosa alle forme. Il post twitter di Mrs Chrystia Freeland suona agli orecchi dei diplomatici come uno schiaffo insultante, di poco sotto ad una dichiarazione di guerra.

*

Il dramma degli autori illuministi consiste nel fatto che quasi nessuno ha letto i loro scritti, accontentandosi di riassunti e, soprattutto, di commenti. La differenza è evidente: sarebbe come guardare la cartolina del Cervino oppure esserselo scalato. Senza poi contare che la pletora dei commenti in realtà propugnano cose mai dette, edulcorando gli aspetti più aspri.

La storia insegna come l’illuminismo sia alla fine culminato nel movimento giacobino, di infausta memoria.

Quasi invariabilmente, quando sento parlare degli illuministi mi domando di cosa stiano parlando: chiaramente li ignorano. E questo sarebbe ancora il meno: sono anche convinti di conoscerli a menadito.

Il cuore dell’illuminismo risiede nel fatto di aver rigettato l’uso della logica non contraddittoria, del principio di non contraddizione. Tendenza questa che alla fine culminerà nella dialettica di Hegel, per cui:

«se i fatti conttaddicono la teoria, tanto peggio per i fatti»

I liberal ed i socialisti ideologici hanno assorbito appieno codesto modo di concepire il pensiero. Loro si credono di essere gli “illuminati” dalla dea ragione, fatto questo che li autorizzerebbe a sentirsi le guide naturali ed incontestabili di un popolo bue. È nel pensiero e nei fatti una visione prettamente razzista: al posto del discrimine razziale biologico è posta l’aderenza o meno alla dottrina liberal. Non solo, ma deriva sequenzialmente che chiunque non aderisca alla dottrina liberal non è un avversario politico, bensì un nemico da conculcare ed estirpare. Da sopprimere dapprima con la morte civile, quindi con quella fisica. Sotto questa ottica la dottrina liberal differisce da quella nazionalsocialista solo per l’oggetto da odiare. I liberal sono nazionalsocialisti.

Così i liberal hanno sviluppato nel tempo un superbia luciferina, per cui hanno una considerazione talmente alta di sé stessi da giungere al punto di stimarsi come principio e fine del proprio essere.

Alla luce di quanto sopra detto, risulta ben chiaro il perché Mrs Chrystia Freeland si sia comportata in codesta maniera. Crede semplicemente di essere dio sulla terra. Non vuole cercare di convincere alla propria Weltanschauung: la vuole semplicemente imporre.

Il brano del Grande Inquisitore de I Fratelli Karamazov di Fëdor Dostoevskij è chiarissimo ed auto esplicativo. Dostoevskij ha descritto i liberal con un secolo di anticipo per il semplice motivo che ciò sarebbe stato facilmente prevedibile a chiunque avesse ragionato: però, lo ha fatto con una penna grandiosamente bella e con una penetrazione psicologica di rara acutezza. I russi son sempre stati grandi pensatori: Vladimir Sergeevič Solov’ëv descrisse l’impero liberal in modo talmente perfetto da lasciare esterrefatti che sia stato possibile farlo con un secolo di anticipo.

Ma questa superbia riesce a reggersi solo ed esclusivamente conservando il potere, the power that be.

In altri tempi il diktat canadese avrebbe dovuto essere eseguito perché imposto, ma il Canada oramai vale ben poco, così come l’ideologia liberal in piena devoluzione.

* * * * * * *

«civil society and women’s rights»

Chiariamo subito due grossolani equivoci, dapprima logici e quindi concettuali.

La società civile sono gli Elettori che si esprimono nell’urna, non gruppuscoli che alle elezioni non riescono a far eleggere nemmeno un deputato. Né, tanto meno, sono un’orda di erinni urlanti nelle strade: la piazza è incivile, e lo è perché cerca di imporre il volere di una sparuta minoranza. Una cosa è la dimostrazione ed una completamente differente la sommossa.

I women’s rights semplicemente non esistono. Esistono, e son cose ben serie, i diritti della persona umana. Ma questi diritti sono tali perché corrispondono a ben precisi doveri e non urtano né conculcano il proprio prossimo.

La neolingua liberal, culminante nel politicamente corretto, è roba da infingardi.

Troppo forte questa frase?

Pensiamoci sopra.

Vi sembra forse che quanto detto da Mrs Chrystia Freeland sia stato politicamente corretto?

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo

Soros e liberal sarebbero politicamente morti. – The New York Times.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-26.

Animali_che_Ridono__007_Gufo

Il The New York Times è uscito con un editoriale di ben nove pagine in cui intona il De Profundis per l’ideologia liberal.

Non è ancora il certificato ufficiale di avvenuto decesso constatato dall’anatomopatologo, dal clinico e dal medico legale, ma ben poco ci manca.

È una trenodia singhiozzata da prefiche liberal disperate, cui si associa una pletora di persone perse e senza speranza: disperate.

*

Un segno inequivocabile del vicino naufragio è dato da ratti e sorci che abbandonano in fretta e furia la nave, magari cercando di portarsi appresso qualche souvenir.

The New York Times. La Voce del Nuovo Padrone.

Midterm. Repubblicani apparentemente in testa.- New York Times.

Trump. La Suprema Corte libera i lavoratori dalla malversazione dei sindacati.

Rivolta dei liberals democratici. ‘Siamo peggio di Trump’. – New York Times

David Rockefeller è morto. Elogio funebre del The New York Times.

Procuratore Generale NY, Schneiderman, dimissionario per abusi sessuali.

* * *

Per quanto riguarda Mr Soros, abbiamo già pubblicato molti articoli.

Soros George. Uno stato negli stati. Ecco i suoi principali voivodati.

Soros George. Uno stato negli stati. Ecco i suoi principali voivodati.

Cina. Una nuova legge sulle Ong (Ngo).

Russia. Nuova legge sulle ong (ngo). Povero Mr Soros.

Orban scaccia Soros e vince la Unione Europea. E siamo solo agli inizi.

Polonia. Scacciare le ong (ngo) di Mr Soros.

Ungheria. Mr Orban mette fuori leggi le ngo pro-immigrazione.

* * *

Trump attacca frontalmente Mr Soros come un toro infuriato

La società civile, ossia il corpo degli Elettori, da anni nega la propria preferenza ai partiti politici che si basano sulla ideologia liberal patrocinata da Mr Soros.

Se però la vittoria elettorale è tappa fondamentale verso il governo, essa è presupposto necessario ma non sufficiente: l’impero di Mr Soros non sarò debellato fino a tanto che le sue creature, le ngo (ogn) non saranno state messe in condizioni di non nuocere ulteriormente.

«Quando Mr Soros ha deciso di conquistare il mondo occidentale ha concepito un piano virtualmente perfetto e davvero geniale. Soros ha fondato una miriade di organizzazioni seguendo uno schema ripetitivo, acutamente penetrante la società  nella sua semplicità e mimetismo.

In primo luogo si fonda e finanzia una organizzazione che patrocini un qualcosa di apparentemente degno per ogni persona: “diritti della gioventù”, “protezione dei più deboli”, etc. Dirigenza e personale è nominata da Soros in persona.

In secondo luogo, si scatena un’offensiva mediatica che sensibilizzi l’opinione pubblica al problema e ne evidenzi l’assoluta emergenza in atto.

In terzo luogo, governi amici riconoscono tale organizzazione e, soprattutto, la dotano di fondi.

In quarto luogo, tali governi amici stabiliscono anche che tale organizzazione debba essere obbligatoriamente consultata prima di prendere decisioni in materia.

In quinto luogo, governi amici costituiscono delle agenzie indipendenti dal governo stesso, strutturate attorno all’organizzazione in oggetto, che ne assume de facto la dirigenza. Parte del personale dell’organizzazione transita nei quadri burocratici di queste agenzie, così da averne il governo indipendentemente da chi le dovesse dirigere.

In sesto luogo, governi amici deliberano fondi per la risoluzione di un qualche problema, la gestione dei quali fondi è affidata a codeste agenzie od anche direttamente a quella organizzazione.» [Fonte]

*

2018-07-25__Soros__Ngo__001

Il sito della Unione Europea è paradigmatico per comprendere cosa siano e come funzionino le ngo di Mr Soros.

L’Unione Europea, come pure tutti gli stati membri, traboccano di proposte di fondi dedicati alle ngo. La sola Unione Europea eroga a codeste associazioni quasi 41 miliardi di euro, ai quali se ne devono aggiungere altrettanti erogati dai singoli stati membri. Poi si dovrebbero conteggiare anche i fondi ottenuti dalle organizzazioni internazionali.

 

Un gran bel business pagato con il sangue dei Contribuenti: taluni di essi sono candidi come Biancaneve, ma moltissimi altri sono semplicemente complici, correi.

Adesso dovrebbe essere chiaro il perché i liberal si stiano strappando i capelli dalla testa e quale infernale meccanismo sia stato bloccato, sia pure parzialmente, dall’Italia.

Per dirla in termini politicamente corretti, chi sostenga le ngo o è fesso oppure è in perfetta malafede. Alterum non datur.

* * *

«It is an embattled cause these days. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has reverted to autocracy, and Poland and Hungary are moving in the same direction.»

*

«With the rise of Donald Trump in the United States, where Soros is a major donor to Democratic candidates and progressive groups, and the growing strength of right-wing populist parties in Western Europe, Soros’s vision of liberal democracy is under threat in its longtime strongholds.»

*

«Nationalism and tribalism are resurgent, barriers are being raised and borders reinforced and Soros is confronting the possibility that the goal to which he has devoted most of his wealth and the last chapter of his life will end in failure. Not only that: He also finds himself in the unsettling position of being the designated villain of this anti-globalization backlash, his Judaism and career in finance rendering him a made-to-order phantasm for reactionaries worldwide.»

*

«“I’m standing for principles whether I win or lose,” Soros told me this spring. But, he went on, “unfortunately, I’m losing too much in too many places right now.”»

* * * * * * *

Lasciamo il Lettore alla compitazione di questo mastodontico editoriale del The New York Times, giornale da sempre liberal democratico di specchiatissima fede. Gli articolisti tutto le mattine accendono i ceri degli altarini eretti a Mr Soros, poi si mettono il grembulino a vanno in loggia a prendere gli ordini. Scrivono un politicamente corretto ineccepibile. Poi passano in banca a prelevare l’emolumento.

Il loro punto di vista è della massima importanza per cercare di comprendere i loro moduli mentali.


The New York Times. 2018-07-18. George Soros Bet Big on Liberal Democracy. Now He Fears He Is Losing.

His enemies paint him as all-powerful, but the billionaire philanthropist believes that his political legacy has never been in greater jeopardy.

*

On a clammy Tuesday morning in Paris at the end of May, George Soros, the world’s second-most-vilified New York billionaire (but worth many billions more than the other one), addressed the European Council on Foreign Relations, an organization he helped found a decade ago. Described by the woman who introduced him as a “European at heart,” the Hungarian-born Soros, who made his fortune running a hedge fund and is now a full-time philanthropist, political activist and freelance statesman, was there to share his thoughts on salvaging the European Union.

Wearing a dark suit, tieless and with the collar of his blue shirt outside the lapel of his jacket, Soros took the stage with the determined stride of an 87-year-old who still plays tennis a few times a week. But there were some concessions to age. He gave his speech sitting down and used a desk lamp to illuminate the text. (In fairness, the hotel conference room hosting the event was morosely dark.) He turned the pages with his right hand while keeping his left hand on his left knee, as if propping himself up. There were moments when he seemed on the verge of losing his place, although he never did.

In person, Soros is quite charming, with a wry sense of humor. But his writings — he has published 14 books — and speeches can be a little wooden, and this occasion was no exception. He barely acknowledged the audience, which included the president of Serbia and the prime minister of Albania, except to say, “I think this is the right place to discuss how to save Europe.” But apart from urging the European Union to direct more aid to Africa, which he said would ameliorate the refugee crisis that has led to so much of the recent political upheaval in Europe, his remarks were more descriptive than prescriptive. The European Union, he said, faced an “existential crisis.”

Briefly touching on Europe’s economic outlook, he said, “We may be heading for another major financial crisis.” Partly in response to his warning, the Dow fell nearly 400 points that day. Soros is generally considered the greatest speculator Wall Street has known, and though he stopped managing other people’s money years ago, the reaction was a real-time display of his continued ability to move markets. The attention given to that comment also underscored, in a subtle way, an enduring frustration of his life: His financial thoughts still tend to carry more weight than his political reflections.

Yet the political realm is where Soros has made his most audacious wager. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, he poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the former Soviet-bloc countries to promote civil society and liberal democracy. It was a one-man Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, a private initiative without historical precedent. It was also a gamble that a part of the world that had mostly known tyranny would embrace ideas like government accountability and ethnic tolerance. In London in the 1950s, Soros was a student of the expatriated Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, who championed the notion of an “open society,” in which individual liberty, pluralism and free inquiry prevailed. Popper’s concept became Soros’s cause.

It is an embattled cause these days. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has reverted to autocracy, and Poland and Hungary are moving in the same direction. With the rise of Donald Trump in the United States, where Soros is a major donor to Democratic candidates and progressive groups, and the growing strength of right-wing populist parties in Western Europe, Soros’s vision of liberal democracy is under threat in its longtime strongholds. Nationalism and tribalism are resurgent, barriers are being raised and borders reinforced and Soros is confronting the possibility that the goal to which he has devoted most of his wealth and the last chapter of his life will end in failure. Not only that: He also finds himself in the unsettling position of being the designated villain of this anti-globalization backlash, his Judaism and career in finance rendering him a made-to-order phantasm for reactionaries worldwide. “I’m standing for principles whether I win or lose,” Soros told me this spring. But, he went on, “unfortunately, I’m losing too much in too many places right now.”

The night before his speech in Paris, I had dinner with Soros in his suite at the Bristol Hotel, where he usually stays — and one of the city’s most elegant addresses, conveniently located just up the street from the Elysées Palace (although on this trip Soros had no plans to see France’s president, Emanuel Macron, whom he knows and admires). An aide took me up to the suite and ushered me into the dining room, where Soros was already seated at the table with his wife, Tamiko (Soros has been married three times and has five children — though that is where the similarities to Donald Trump end). It was after 8:30, but he seemed eager for conversation. He spoke slowly, in a still-thick Hungarian accent, moving his cupped hand in a semicircle as if summoning his words. As we talked over a first course of tomato-and-avocado salad, a thunderstorm swept across Paris, rattling the windows. One especially violent thunderclap struck as we were discussing Russia. “That’s Putin,” another aide joked. In 2015, Putin expelled Soros’s philanthropic organization, the Open Society Foundations, from Russia, claiming it was a security threat, and Russian state media churn out a steady flow of anti-Soros content. (At a recent joint press conference with Trump in Helsinki, Putin spoke scornfully of Soros.)

Paris was the first stop for Soros on a monthlong spring trip to Europe. He normally would have visited Budapest, but not this time. Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, a former Soros protégé, was re-elected in April after running a campaign in which he effectively made Soros his opponent. Orban accused Soros, who is an American citizen, of plotting to overwhelm Hungary with Muslim immigrants in order to undermine its Christian heritage. He attacked Soros during campaign rallies, and his government plastered the country with anti-Soros billboards. In the aftermath of the election, the O.S.F. announced that it was closing its Budapest office because of concerns for the safety of its employees. The fate of the Soros-founded Central European University, based in Budapest, was also in doubt.

Soros said he couldn’t visit Hungary under present circumstances: “It would be toxic,” he said. He told me that Orban’s campaign was “a big disappointment,” but quickly added, “I think I must be doing something right to look at who my enemies are.” Last autumn, he signaled that same sense of defiance when he announced that he was in the process of transferring the bulk of his remaining wealth, $18 billion in total at the time, to the O.S.F. That will potentially make it the second-largest philanthropic organization in the United States, in assets, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is already a sprawling entity, with some 1,800 employees in 35 countries, a global advisory board, eight regional boards and 17 issue-oriented boards. Its annual budget of around $1 billion finances projects in education, public health, independent media, immigration and criminal-justice reform and other areas. Organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood are among its grantees.

Soros originally planned to close the O.S.F. in 2010. He didn’t want it to outlive him, because he feared it might then lose its dynamism and entrepreneurial spirit. But he changed his mind when he realized that, as he put it, “I had more money than I can realistically or usefully spend in my lifetime.” He also saw that, with liberal values and civil society fragile in so many places, the O.S.F.’s work was becoming ever more essential. “I found a mission, a niche, that I felt could be carried on,” he said as we finished dinner.

A few minutes later came an unexpected reminder of what he and the O.S.F. are up against. A Soros aide and I took the elevator back down together, and when we stepped into the Bristol’s lobby, we found ourselves in the middle of a reception line that stretched the length of the room. It had formed there to greet one of Africa’s longest-serving autocrats, Denis Sassou Nguesso, the president of the Republic of Congo. The next day, a few hours after Soros spoke to the European Council on Foreign Relations, Roseanne Barr went on a Twitter rant that served as a vivid demonstration of what he is up against personally. Soros was maneuvering to bring about “the overthrow of us constitutional republic,” Barr tweeted. She also claimed that Soros, a Holocaust survivor, had actually been a Nazi. Among those who retweeted the Nazi gibe was Donald Trump Jr.

According to Soros, 1944 was the formative year of his life. The Nazis invaded Hungary and immediately began deporting Jews. To save his family, his father, Tivadar Soros, a lawyer, obtained false identities for George, who was then 13, and his older brother, Paul. One day, George was ordered to deliver summonses on behalf of the Jewish Council. Tivadar, recognizing that they were essentially deportation notices, instructed his son to tell the recipients not to heed them. Soon after, Tivadar arranged for Paul to move into a rented room and sent George to live with a Hungarian agricultural official, who passed him off as his Christian godson. The official’s job included taking inventory of a confiscated Jewish-owned property; he took George with him. These episodes have become the basis for the claim that George was a Nazi collaborator. In fact, though, there is no credible evidence that he collaborated with or was sympathetic to the Nazis. George, his brother and his parents all survived the war. Soros says that he came out of the experience with a strong defiant streak, a contempt for tribalism and a propensity to side with the oppressed.

In 1946, as Communists were rising to power in Hungary, Soros fled to England. He earned a degree from the London School of Economics, where Karl Popper was a professor. In 1945, Popper published a political treatise, “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” a fierce assault on totalitarianism, in both its fascist and Marxist forms, and a ringing defense of liberal democracy. Soros left Popper’s classroom with not only the idea that would later animate his philanthropy but also the desire to live a life of the mind. He had to make money first, though. When he moved to New York in 1956 to take a job on Wall Street, his goal, he told me, was to sock away $100,000 in five years, which would allow him to quit finance and turn to scholarly pursuits. But instead, he quipped during our dinner, “I overperformed.”

In 1969, Soros formed what would become the Quantum Fund. It was one of a new breed of investment vehicles known as hedge funds, which catered to institutional investors and wealthy individuals and which used leverage — borrowed money — to make huge bets on stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities. Quantum was wildly successful from its start, delivering 40 percent annual returns. Soros would later attribute his knack for playing the markets to what he called his “theory of reflexivity” — basically, the idea that people’s biases and perceptions can move prices in directions that don’t accord with the underlying reality. Soros claimed his strength as an investor was in recognizing and acting on what he referred to as “far from equilibrium” moments. (His oldest son, Robert, once claimed the “reflexivity” explanation was bunk; he said the tip-off for his father that the market was nearing a major move was when his bad back flared up.)

——

‘I think I must be doing something right to look at who my enemies are.’

——

By the late 1970s, Soros had become a very wealthy man. Now he had the means to make himself an agent of history. He was frank about his ambition, though also self-deprecating. As he wrote in his 1991 book, “Underwriting Democracy”: “I was a confirmed egoist but I considered the pursuit of self-interest as too narrow a base for my rather inflated self. If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me into trouble. But when I had made my way in the world I wanted to indulge my fantasies to the extent that I could afford.”

He decided that his goal would be opening closed societies. He created a philanthropic organization, then called the Open Society Fund, in 1979 and began sponsoring college scholarships for black South African students. But he soon turned his attention to Eastern Europe, where he started financing dissident groups. He funneled money to the Solidarity strikers in Poland in 1981 and to Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia. In one especially ingenious move, he sent hundreds of Xerox copiers to Hungary to make it easier for underground publications to disseminate their newsletters. In the late 1980s, he provided dozens of Eastern European students with scholarships to study in the West, with the aim of fostering a generation of liberal democratic leaders. One of those students was Viktor Orban, who studied civil society at Oxford. From his Manhattan trading desk, Soros became a strange sort of expat anticommunist revolutionary.

In the meantime, Quantum grew into a multibillion-dollar colossus. Soros made his most famous trade in 1992, when he bet against the British pound. The currency was vulnerable because it had been pegged at what seemed an unsustainably high rate against the German mark; with Britain in recession, Soros reasoned, the British government would ultimately choose to see the pound devalued rather than maintain the high interest rates needed to defend it from speculative investors. Soros’s terse command to his head trader, Stanley Druckenmiller, was to “go for the jugular.” Druckenmiller did, and on Wednesday, Sept. 16 — Black Wednesday, as it came to be known — the Bank of England stopped trying to prop up the pound’s value. It promptly sank against the mark, falling out of Europe’s Exchange Rate Mechanism and dealing a setback to the push for greater European integration. The sterling crisis turned hedge funds into the glamorous rogues of finance and demonstrated the punitive power that they could wield against policymakers in a world of free-flowing capital. The trade made $1.5 billion for Quantum, and Soros, whom the British tabloids dubbed “the man who broke the Bank of England,” became a household name.

By then, the Soviet empire had collapsed, and Soros was devoting huge sums of his own money to try to smooth its transition from Communist rule. For example, he donated $100 million to support Russian scientists and keep them from selling their services to countries hostile to the West; he spent $250 million on a program to revise Russian textbooks and train teachers to promote critical thinking. While the era was one of Western triumphalism, when it was widely assumed that Russia and other newly freed countries would inevitably embrace liberal democracy — a view most famously expressed in Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 essay, “The End of History” — Soros did not share that certitude. This part of the world had little tradition of civil society and liberal democracy, and in his view these needed to be nurtured if the region was to avoid backsliding into autocracy. “I generally have a bias to see the darkest potential,” he told me. “It is something that I have practiced in the financial markets to very good effect, and I have transferred it to politics.”

During the 1990s, Soros toggled between his day job and his philanthropy, and it was not always easy to disentangle his dual roles. For a time, Quantum and O.S.F. were run out of the same offices. In December 1992, three months after his bet against the British pound, Soros announced a $50 million donation to build a water-treatment facility in war-ravaged Sarajevo, and it was hard not to see that money as having been sucked straight from the British treasury. Soros once described his bifurcated existence rather graphically, writing that he “felt like a giant digestive tract, taking in money at one end and pushing it out at the other.”

If that was the case, indigestion was inevitable, and it came in 1997, when Quantum was at the center of a speculative attack on the Thai baht. The episode was a nearly identical reprise of what happened to the British pound. (Quantum made roughly $750 million this time.) There was one critical difference, however: While Britain was a major industrialized country that ultimately had little trouble absorbing the blow to its currency, Thailand was an emerging economy for which the consequences were devastating. Economic output plunged, banks and businesses folded and huge numbers of people were thrown out of work. The baht crisis rippled into other Asian economies. Malaysia’s prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros and other speculators “unscrupulous profiteers” whose immoral work served no social value. Soros publicly rejected the criticism, but when investors took aim at the Indonesian rupiah in the fall of 1997, Quantum was not among them. Nor did it join other hedge funds when they targeted the Russian ruble the following year. Having already invested hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stabilize Russia, Soros would have been undercutting his own work by betting against the Russian currency. He ended up taking a $400 million loss.

“That was where the crossroads between the philanthropist and the investor became difficult,” says Rob Johnson, a longtime Soros associate who worked as a portfolio manager at Quantum in the 1990s. But by then, according to Johnson, the only reason that Soros was still running a hedge fund was to generate more money for his causes.

In a speech to students and faculty at Moldova University in 1994, Soros described in strikingly personal terms why he became a political philanthropist. His objective, he said, was to make Hungary “a country from which I wouldn’t want to emigrate.” To that end, he showered Hungary with money and resources in the years after the Berlin Wall fell. In the early 1990s, the O.S.F. gave $5 million to a program that offered free breakfasts to Hungarian schoolchildren. It spent millions to modernize Hungary’s health care system. In all, Soros has funded around $400 million worth of projects in Hungary since 1989 — and that figure doesn’t include the initial $250 million that he gave to endow Central European University, which opened in Prague in 1991, moved to Budapest two years later and has since graduated more than 14,000 students drawn from across Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Soros also cultivated a number of young activists he believed could advance his dream of remaking Hungary as a place he would never again feel compelled to leave. Among them was Viktor Orban, a bright, charismatic student who was ardently pro-democracy, or so it seemed. In addition to providing Orban with a scholarship at Oxford, Soros donated money to Fidesz (the Alliance of Young Democrats), a student organization that Orban helped found and that evolved into his political party.

ut during the 1990s, Orban drifted to the right. Elected prime minister in 1998, he governed as a mainstream conservative, emphasizing patriotism and traditional values. Outwardly, he remained pro-Western. Under his leadership, Hungary entered NATO, and he also laid the groundwork for its admission to the European Union. But a shock defeat in the 2002 election seemed to radicalize Orban. When he reclaimed the prime minister’s office in 2009, he began ruthlessly consolidating power. He packed the courts with Fidesz loyalists, and various independent media were bought out by Orban supporters. At the same time, he turned away from the West and drew close to Vladimir Putin. Orban was re-elected in 2014. The following year, the European refugee crisis hit. Tens of thousands of refugees passed through the Balkans and arrived on Hungary’s border. Orban’s government erected a 109-mile fence in order to keep them out, and it later refused to comply with a European Union quota plan that would have required it to take in asylum-seekers.

Groups that received financial support from the O.S.F. were providing assistance to the refugees massed along Hungary’s border, and this became a pretext for Orban’s war on Soros. The Hungarian Parliament enacted legislation requiring NGOs to register with the government and disclose foreign sources of income above a certain threshold; it passed a bill that would have stripped Central European University of the right to award diplomas in Hungary. Orban’s government introduced what it called the “Stop Soros” bill making it a crime to assist illegal immigrants. (Parliament passed the bill last month.)

In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as “Uncle George,” telling tens of thousands of supporters that “we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the world.” Along with the fiery speeches, there were the billboards, which featured a picture of a smiling Soros and the message, “Let’s not let George Soros have the last laugh.” The laughing Jew had been a trope of Nazi propaganda, but Orban denied that the billboards were anti-Semitic.

Orban’s coalition won 49 percent of the vote, enough to give it a supermajority in Parliament. But the anti-Soros campaign didn’t end with the election. Days after the vote, a magazine owned by a pro-Orban businesswoman published the names of more than 200 people in Hungary that it claimed were Soros “mercenaries.” The list included representatives of human rights groups, anticorruption watchdogs and Central European University faculty members and administrators. In mid-May, the O.S.F. announced that it was closing its Budapest office, which was responsible for almost half its international grants. Patrick Gaspard, the O.S.F.’s president, says that the language and imagery Orban used to go after Soros was “nothing short of violent” and that the Hungarian prime minister’s threat to turn the country’s intelligence services on the O.S.F. made it impossible to remain in Budapest. “I have the habit of taking autocrats at their word,” Gaspard says. “We have to protect the security of our staff and of our data.” The office is relocating to Berlin.

In recent years, governments throughout Eastern Europe have attacked Soros. But why Orban, personally popular and facing hopelessly divided opponents, chose to make Soros-bashing the centerpiece of his campaign puzzled many observers. Orban “is extremely successful,” Michael Ignatieff, the president of Central European University and the former leader of Canada’s Liberal Party, told me in London in April. “He’s a much better politician than any of his opposition. He has intelligence and charm. He’s funny and reads a room well. What’s crazy is that he feels he needs to delegitimize Soros in order to win an election.” Some observers offered a psychological explanation: Noting that Orban had had a turbulent relationship with his own father and a tendency to chafe under authority, they suggested that bludgeoning Soros was a form of patricide, a way of slaying his political godfather. But Thomas Carothers, a senior vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes that Soros was simply a useful cudgel for Orban. Civic groups were the last source of potential opposition, he says, and because some of them were backed by the O.S.F., going after Soros was a way to undermine their credibility. “Strongman leaders want to de-universalize human rights and civic liberties,” says Carothers, who has served on various O.S.F. advisory boards. “It is much harder for Orban to say that he rejects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is much easier to say, ‘I push back against this intrusive man sitting in New York.’ Soros is a very convenient bogeyman.”

——

‘I’m opposed to the extreme left. It should stop trying to keep up with the extremists on the right.’

——

Given that Orban ran and won on a xenophobic platform, it seems fair to wonder if Soros’s work in Hungary — and in much of Eastern Europe — was doomed from the start. With Putinism and Orbanism on the rise and the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall approaching, there is renewed debate about the import of the events of 1989 and whether Russians, Poles and Hungarians really intended to embrace the full menu of Western liberal values. Francis Fukuyama is among those who have doubts today. “There’s now a lot of evidence that a lot of that turn toward liberal democracy in the early days, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, really was driven by a kind of educated, very pro-Western elite,” he told me recently. But less-educated people who lived outside large urban areas “didn’t really buy into liberalism, this idea that you could actually have a multiracial, multiethnic society where all these traditional communal values would have to give way to gay marriage and immigrants and all this stuff. That they definitely did not buy into.”

But Fukuyama went on to say that it takes events and skillful manipulators to rouse the forces of intolerance. In Hungary, the global financial crisis and the refugee crisis were the fuses, and Orban proved very adept at providing the spark. Leonard Benardo, the vice president of the O.S.F., made a similar observation. He said resentment of the European Union, which came to be seen as an “emasculating force of Hungarian identity,” as he put it, coupled with economic anxiety, left Hungarians receptive to Orban’s appeal. “Hungarians are not irredeemably racist,” Benardo said. “Ethnic entrepreneurs like Orban play upon the darkest fears of people to produce political support and an us-versus-them mentality.”

In contrast to Benardo, my grandfather was not a social scientist. But like Soros, he was a Hungarian-born Jew who ended up in the United States, and he believed that anti-Semitism was a habit of mind that Hungarians would never kick. He admired Soros, but thought he was wasting his money in Hungary. When I told Soros about my grandfather, he smiled and shook his head knowingly. He said that his brother, a shipping magnate, had felt the same way. Soros did not.

“I don’t blame the Hungarian people at all,” he said. “In fact, I admire them for their willingness to stand up to oppression and to fight for their freedom.” He added: “We have to distinguish between the people and the government.”

He then told me a story from 1944, about a Nazi officer his father met in a cafe. During the course of the conversation, the officer quietly admitted to misgivings about the orders he was obliged to carry out. His father, a Jew in hiding and virulently opposed to the Nazis, tried to comfort the officer, telling him that it was a difficult situation. Throughout his life, the elder Soros shared this story to make the point that circumstances matter and that how people act isn’t necessarily how they feel, a lesson that his son was now applying to Orban’s Hungary. I asked him if he expected to visit Hungary again in his lifetime. “I hope so,” he said, but without much conviction.

Two weeks later, President Trump called Orban to congratulate him on his re-election.

Soros became a major political donor in the United States during George W. Bush’s presidency. Angered by what he saw as an effort by the Bush administration to use the war on terror to stoke fear and stifle dissent, he began donating vast sums to Democratic candidates and progressive causes. He helped fund the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, as well as MoveOn.org, and spent more than $20 million backing John Kerry’s unsuccessful bid to deny Bush a second term. In addition to being a generous donor, he was an outspoken one. He accused the Bush administration of employing Nazi propaganda techniques, and later said that the United States would need to undergo “a certain de-Nazification process” after Bush left office.

Soros was an early backer of Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. In Paris, Soros told me that Obama was “actually my greatest disappointment.” Prompted by an aide, he immediately qualified himself, saying that he hadn’t been disappointed by Obama’s presidency but felt let down on a professional level. While he had no desire for a formal role in the administration, he had hoped that Obama would seek his counsel, especially on financial and economic matters. Instead, he was frozen out.

After Obama was elected, “he closed the door on me,” Soros said. “He made one phone call thanking me for my support, which was meant to last for five minutes, and I engaged him, and he had to spend another three minutes with me, so I dragged it out to eight minutes.” He suggested that he had fallen victim to an Obama personality trait. “He was someone who was known from the time when he was competing for the editorship of The Harvard Law Review to take his supporters for granted and to woo his opponents,” Soros said.

During the 2016 election cycle, Soros contributed more than $25 million to Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes. While he had foreseen the possibility of a Trump-like figure emerging (“The American public has proven remarkably susceptible to the manipulation of truth, which increasingly dominates the country’s political discourse,” he wrote in The Guardian in 2007), he was as surprised as everyone else that the Trump-like figure turned out to be Donald Trump. Soros told me that he had known Trump casually and had even socialized with him (about 30 years ago, a friend of Soros’s dated one of Trump’s senior people, and they all went out for dinner a few times). “I had no idea he had any political ambition,” Soros said. Trump had tried to coax him into becoming the lead tenant in one of his commercial buildings, he said. “I told him I couldn’t afford it,” Soros recalled with a chuckle.

He said that he had been “very afraid” that Trump would “blow up the world rather than suffer a setback to his narcissism” but was pleased that the president’s ego had instead led him to reach out to North Korea. “I think the danger of nuclear war has been greatly reduced, and that’s a big relief.” In his annual state-of-the-world speech in Davos this year, Soros said Trump “would like to establish a mafia state, but he can’t, because the Constitution, other institutions and a vibrant civil society won’t allow it.” He also characterized Trump as a “purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner,” and predicted a Democratic landslide in the 2018 midterm elections. Five months on, he was sticking by those predictions. “For every Trump follower who follows Trump through thick and thin, there is more than one Trump enemy who will be more intent, more determined,” Soros told me. He is doing his part to shorten the Trump era: In advance of the midterm elections, Soros has so far contributed at least $15 million to support Democratic candidates and causes.

Asked if he would support Bernie Sanders if the Vermont senator won the Democratic nomination in 2020, Soros said it was too soon to say. He expressed displeasure with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, another possible candidate, over her role in ousting Al Franken from Congress: “She was using #MeToo to promote herself.” He said his main goal as a political activist was to see a return to bipartisanship, a surprising claim in light of his lavish support for the Democrats. It was the extremism of the Republican Party that had prompted him to become a major Democratic donor, he said; he wanted the Republican Party to reform itself into a more moderate party. He said he was not especially partisan himself: “I don’t particularly want to be a Democrat.” He spoke of his respect for John McCain. He even said he would be inclined to give financial support to moderate Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, although he quickly walked back that comment: “I shouldn’t say that. That would hurt them.” And while the Republicans had made bipartisanship impossible, he didn’t want to see the Democrats become more ideologically rigid and confrontational.

If Soros views his relationship with the Democratic Party as mostly transactional, for some Democrats the feeling appears to be mutual. While his money is welcome and needed, there seems to be a certain ambivalence about Soros within Democratic circles. It is partly because of his outspokenness. As Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a longtime Democratic strategist, puts it, “The best donors are silent donors; not talking is good.” A bigger issue is that the Democratic Party remains committed to campaign-finance reform and abhors the effect that the Citizens United decision has had on American politics. That 2010 Supreme Court ruling gave billionaires like Soros the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. Kamarck says that in the post-Citizens United world, Democrats “can’t unilaterally disarm” and spurn donations from plutocrats like Soros, but they are conflicted about billionaire donors in a way that the Republicans are not.

Although Soros is squarely on the left on many issues — he supports a single-payer health care system and is a longtime advocate of criminal-justice reform — some on the left have long been dubious of him. In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros’s Wall Street background has always been a mark against him. There is also discomfort with his philanthropy — not its goals, certainly, but what it is seen to represent. Soros is at the vanguard of what has come to be known as “philanthrocapitalism,” essentially large-scale social investing by billionaires like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Soros. (Last year Forbes magazine ranked Soros the 20th-richest American.) To those who object, this represents the privatization of social policy and, through the substantial tax benefits that charitable donations receive, it deprives the public sector of money that could be used to promote social welfare.

When I asked Soros to describe himself ideologically, he laughed. “My ideology is nonideological,” he said. “I’m in the club of nonclubs.” When I suggested that “center-left” might characterize his views, he demurred; he said it wasn’t clear where he stood now because the left had moved further left, a development that did not please him. “I’m opposed to the extreme left,” he said. “It should stop trying to keep up with the extremists on the right.”

One morning in Paris, I had coffee with Alex Soros, who is 32 and the second-youngest of George’s five children. Bespectacled, wiry and careful with his words, he had recently earned a doctorate in history from the University of California, Berkeley, and was now running his own philanthropy while also working with the O.S.F. He was a little groggy, having been up late the night before writing an op-ed for The Daily News rebutting Roseanne Barr’s Nazi tweet. (His father’s lawyers also filed a cease-and-desist order against Barr; she issued an apology two weeks later.) When the caffeine finally kicked in, Alex told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

But Soros’s Jewish identity, coupled with his status as a Wall Street billionaire, gave those disinclined to support his agenda an easy means to foment suspicion and resentment, and from the moment that he became involved in Eastern Europe, he was confronted with anti-Semitism. The dog-whistling has not abated with time; some would argue that anti-Semitism directed at Soros has become, at least under Orban, a state-sponsored contagion. But it has also lately taken some bizarre twists. Last year, a son of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, posted an anti-Semitic cartoon of Soros on his Facebook page. (Netanyahu has frequently disparaged Soros because of his financial support for groups critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.) And, of course, Soros is also routinely accused of having been a Nazi.

Anti-Soros sentiment is a more recent phenomenon in the United States. Soros became a focal point of right-wing vitriol when he started contributing to the Democrats. In an appearance on Fox News in 2004, Dennis Hastert, who was at the time the speaker of the House, suggested that Soros was involved with drug cartels, telling Chris Wallace that “I don’t know where George Soros gets his money. I don’t know where — if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from.” The effort to demonize Soros has been unrelenting and quite successful. In suggesting that Soros was plotting a coup against the American government, Roseanne Barr was repeating a claim made by, among others, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who had posted a meme on her Facebook page suggesting that Soros was conspiring to topple President Trump and “our constitutional republic.”

Soros is regularly portrayed as the deus ex machina of American politics, a vast left-wing conspiracy unto himself. His wily hand — and wallet — have been blamed for the national-anthem protests in the N.F.L.; the unrest in Ferguson, Mo.; and the violence in Charlottesville. On Twitter, Soros haters trace virtually every national trauma, as well as every setback for conservatives, to him, or anything with the flimsiest connection to him. This stuff isn’t confined to the digital fringes either. The claim about Charlottesville, for instance, was leveled by Paul Gosar, a Republican member of Congress. After news broke of a sex scandal involving the former governor of Missouri, Eric Greitens, that state’s Republican Party issued a statement claiming that he had fallen victim to a “political hit job” orchestrated by Soros.

At this point, it is fair to say that “Soros” has eclipsed even “Hillary” as a trigger for a certain large subset of Republicans and conservatives. In April, conservative media outlets reported that Kimba Wood, the judge presiding over the case of President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, had officiated at Soros’s third wedding, in 2013. None of them attempted to explain why this was a problem; it was apparently self-evident. In 2014, Mark Malloch-Brown, a former United Nations deputy secretary general and a longtime Soros protégé, became head of a company called Smartmatic, which specializes in electronic voting technology. Soros obsessives eventually seized on this as proof that he was now intent on manipulating election outcomes. In response, the company felt obliged to post a disclaimer on its website stating that Soros had no stake in Smartmatic and that its technology was not used during the 2016 United States presidential election. When I spoke with Malloch-Brown, he told me that this was the price of being associated in any way with Soros. “It’s a badge I wear with honor,” he said, “but it attaches to everything I do.”

Much of what is said about Soros on Facebook, Twitter and in right-wing media outlets is not overtly anti-Semitic, and it is possible that some of the people pushing these views are not even aware that he is Jewish. But the echoes are there. Glenn Beck used his show on Fox to peddle wild conspiracy theories about Soros. In 2010, he aired a multipart special called “George Soros: The Puppet Master,” which was widely condemned for its anti-Semitic overtones, beginning with its title (the Jew as puppet master, pulling the strings of humanity, is another age-old anti-Semitic trope). In recent years, the so-called alt-right has become a key driver of Soros paranoia. Breitbart portrays him as an arch-“globalist” who backs unrestricted immigration and a border-free world. (Neither claim is true.) Soros was one of the prominent Jews featured in the last ad of Trump’s 2016 campaign, which many regarded as anti-Semitic. Steve Bannon, formerly the head of Breitbart, led Trump’s campaign at the time. On a trip to Europe in March, Bannon lauded Viktor Orban as a “hero” and “the most significant guy on the scene today.”

Although the broadsides at Soros are often highly suggestive, the people behind them are usually careful to maintain a degree of deniability when it comes to the question of anti-Semitism. But not always. On his radio show last year, Alex Jones, who runs the conspiracy website Infowars, told listeners, “there is undoubtedly a Jewish mafia” and that it was headed by Soros. Offering the same twist that would later appear in Roseanne Barr’s tweet, Jones said that “one of the biggest enemies of Jews was the Jewish mafia” and that Soros was “out to get Jews.”

——

At this point, ‘Soros’ has eclipsed even ‘Hillary’ as a trigger for a large subset of Republicans and conservatives.

——

Britain’s vote in 2016 to leave the E.U. was a personal blow to Soros, an Anglophile but also a staunch supporter of European integration. Afterward, he donated more than $500,000 to a group called Best for Britain, led by Malloch-Brown, that plans to push for a second referendum to undo Brexit. In a tart response, Norman Lamont, who was chancellor of the Exchequer during the 1992 pound-devaluation crisis and, as such, the person on the losing end of Soros’s most celebrated trade, told a reporter, “George Soros is a brilliant financier, but he should stick to finance and stay out of British politics.”

In April, I met with Lamont. Now a member of the House of Lords and an ardent Brexit supporter, he insisted that he bore no ill will toward Soros because of Black Wednesday. But he regarded Brexit as a domestic political matter in which foreign money should play no part. That Soros had a home and office in London was irrelevant. “He can’t vote here,” Lamont said. In his view, Soros’s effort to get a do-over vote was undermining British democracy. “I think there would be incredible disillusionment with the political process if this vote was annulled,” he said.

During my dinner with Soros, I pointed out that some political observers drew a straight line from Black Wednesday to Brexit, in that the 1992 crisis strengthened the position of the Euroskeptics in Britain’s Conservative Party, the faction that ultimately pushed for and prevailed on the vote to leave the European Union. I asked Soros what he would say to a Brexit supporter puzzled by his seemingly contradictory roles in Black Wednesday and Brexit. His reply suggested he thought the answer was obvious. “This is the difference between my engagement in the markets, where my only interest is to get it right and make money, and my political engagement, where I stand for what I really believe in,” he said.

It is a comment that gets to the heart of the Soros conundrum. Even if you concede that policymakers are ultimately to blame for the income inequality that has fueled so much of the current backlash against globalization, the financial sector has had a major role in worsening it, and hedge-fund titans like Soros are powerful symbols of that inequality. And while Soros has written very candidly and persuasively about the pitfalls of casino capitalism — most notably in a 1997 Atlantic essay, subsequently expanded into a book called “The Crisis of Global Capitalism,” in which he acknowledged the destabilizing effect of financial markets — that doesn’t make him any less of a symbol. When pressed, Soros has said that if he hadn’t gone after the British pound or the Thai baht, someone else would have. That is unquestionably true (and in fact, Quantum was not the only hedge fund targeting those currencies). But that is not a particularly satisfying answer, and certainly not after the Great Recession, in which investment banks and hedge funds played such a destructive role. The industry that made him a billionaire contributed significantly to the circumstances that now imperil what Soros the philanthropist has tried to achieve.

On the other hand, if Soros’s riches had gone to someone else, would that person have put the money to the same use? It might have gone to a noble cause, but almost certainly not to something as ambitious and quixotic — or as dangerous — as the promotion of liberal values and democracy. (As Putin and Orban have shown, independent civil society is inevitably regarded as oppositional by governments that don’t want their powers checked.) Most plutocrats measure progress in numbers, but the kind of work that Soros, through the O.S.F., has done generally defies quantification. And as Leonard Benardo, the vice president of the O.S.F., noted when we spoke a few months ago, that work can be unpopular in the countries where it is done.

Soros’s efforts on behalf of one group in particular, the Roma, seem especially germane right now. In June, the new Italian interior minister, Matteo Salvini, the head of the far-right League party, commissioned a census of the country’s Roma. As an “answer to the Roma question,” as he menacingly phrased it, Salvini vowed to expel all non-Italian Roma and added, “Unfortunately, we will have to keep the Italian Roma.” Even in the age of Trump, his words were shocking, but he has refused to disavow them or back down. Improving the status of Europe’s estimated 10 to 12 million Roma has been a major priority for Soros and the O.S.F. since the early 1990s. The organization has contributed more than $300 million to projects combating discrimination against the Roma and providing them with greater education, employment and civic opportunities. It is a struggle because anti-Roma sentiment remains a potent force, a reality underscored by Salvini’s actions and statements. Given the political currents in Europe, this is another battle that Soros may well be losing. Salvini’s popularity has soared.

But it is also a clarifying battle. Setting aside all of the complications that come with being George Soros, would you rather live in the world that he has tried to create, or in the world that Salvini and Orban (and, for that matter, Trump) seem to be pushing us toward? In the aftermath of the Great Recession, it can certainly be argued that how Soros earned his money, and the fact that he accumulated such wealth, ought to carry more moral opprobrium in 2018 than maybe it did in 2008. But there is also a case to be made that in the present moment, with its echoes of the 1930s, how he amassed his fortune matters a lot less than what he has chosen to do with it.

There have been mistakes; by his own admission, Soros erred in championing Mikheil Saakashvili, the mercurial former president of Georgia, and also became too directly involved in the country’s politics in the early 2000s. He clearly misjudged Orban. But as Victoria Nuland, a former American diplomat who worked for both Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, put it when I spoke to her recently, “George is a freedom fighter.”

On the morning of July 5, I visited Soros at his home in the Hamptons. He had returned from Europe the week before and was spending the rest of the summer at El Mirador, as his Mediterranean-style villa is known. For years, Soros has used the 10-bedroom, 15,000-square-foot complex as a salon of sorts, entertaining a revolving cast of writers, academics and political activists. Back in the day, Soros could often be found playing chess outside with dissidents from Eastern Europe.

A household employee showed me to a table in the dining room and offered me some ginger tea: “a specialty of the house.” A few minutes later, Soros walked in. He was dressed in a white linen shirt, dark trousers and sandals. He hadn’t been on the tennis court that morning; he was busy with phone calls instead.

In the five weeks since I had seen Soros in Paris, the Trump administration had slapped new trade sanctions on China and imposed tariffs on goods from Canada and the European Union. I asked why the markets and the broader economy were holding up so well in the face of a possible global trade war, the breakdown of the trans-Atlantic alliance and the political turmoil in Washington. Soros said these developments would eventually drag down the market, but he couldn’t say when. “I’ve lost my capacity to anticipate the markets,” he said, adding with a smile, “I’m an amateur now.” It was like hearing Roger Federer saying he had lost his touch around the net. Soros claimed that because the financial world was no longer his main focus, he was unable to time the markets the way that he used to. Politics now commanded his attention.

Soros was in a reflective mood. He said democracy was in trouble because in many countries it had become sclerotic, insufficiently responsive to the public’s needs. “It’s losing out,” he said. Illiberal democracy, of the sort that Orban had fashioned in Hungary, was proving to be “more effective,” for the time being at least. The new-age autocrats had shown themselves to be particularly cunning in going after civil society as a means of consolidating their power. “It’s a less abrasive way of exercising control than actually killing people who disagree with you,” he said.

It had become clear to him that his mentor and inspiration, Karl Popper, had been wrong in one critical respect. In a democratic society, politics wasn’t ultimately a quest to arrive at the truth; it was about gaining and holding power and manipulating public sentiment in order to do that. “He was a philosopher of science, and science is a search for reality,” Soros said. “He did not understand politics. In politics, you are spinning the truth, not discovering it.” I asked what Popper, who died in 1994, had thought of his political philanthropy. “He was very supportive, which means he didn’t take me seriously,” Soros said, laughing. “I don’t think Popper would be so happy with my current position, because I’m critical of him.”

Soros acknowledged that he had said things in the past that he now regretted — not necessarily the sentiments, but the way he had expressed them. Referring to the Nazi comments that he made during the Bush years, he said, “That was probably a mistake.” He told me that he was now choosing his words more cautiously, eschewing comparisons to the Third Reich and the use of the word “fascism” to describe political conditions in the United States and Europe.

In Paris, Alex Soros had told me that his father, while an excellent parent, had been emotionally distant. It was, he said, a defense mechanism born of his wartime experience: “To be emotional, to give off emotion, could be a sign of vulnerability.” But he said his father had started to open up in recent years.

As my conversation with Soros in Southampton drew to a close, I thought I picked up a little vulnerability. He was talking about his wealth and the opportunities it had given him. “For me, money represents freedom and not power,” he said. For a long time, money had given him the freedom to do and say what he pleased, and also the freedom not to care what other people said and thought about him. But he conceded that he had started to care. “I have become a bit more concerned about my image, because it is disturbing to have those lies out there,” he said, citing Roseanne Barr’s tweet as an example. He also admitted that being the anointed villain for so many people around the world was unpleasant. “I’m not happy to have that many enemies,” he said. “I wish I had more friends.”

Pubblicato in: Cina, Ong - Ngo

Hong Kong verso il bando dei secessionisti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-20.

Pechino-Cina

Nessuno si stupisce più di tanto nello studiare nei libri di storia la Guerra di Secessione Americana. Gli stati del sud si separarono alla federazione ed i rimanenti stati entrarono in guerra con loro per ricostituire l’integrità nazionale.

Per fatti più recenti, il tentativo di secessione catalano può essere visto da molte differenti angolature, ma nessuno potrebbe negare alla Spagna il diritto di difendere la propria unità nazionale.

I problemi poi si complicano quando le secessioni interessino politicamente anche altri stati, che sottobanco fomentano questi fenomeni nel tentativo sia di generare problemi sia di destabilizzare le situazioni in essere.

*

L’Hong Kong National Party (HKNP) è dichiaratamente secessionista, e questo non è fatto facilmente tollerabile da parte cinese.

Nei fatti, gli aderenti ed i simpatizzanti sono ben pochi. Hanno invece una risonanza del tutto spropositata sui media internazionali per motivi di politica più dell’Occidente che per la loro effettiva azione politcia.

La stampa liberal tende a scrivere in modo tale che il lettore sia indotto a credere che dietro all’HKNP vi siano milioni di persone. Ma ciò non è vero.

Il titolo era altisonante:

A Hong Kong la comunità LGBT in piazza per la parità di genere

«Striscioni e bandiere arcobaleno per le strade di Hong Kong. La comunità LGBT ha sfilato per le vie della città per protestare e criticare la posizione delle autorità, in ritardo in materia di uguaglianza di diritti e parità di genere.»

Poi le fotografie rappresentavano un noto caratterista tedesco, che parlava anche un inglese fluente: ben difficile credersi che fosse un cinese. I cinesi patrocinano a tal punto l’omofilia da dover importare gli agitatori per le sfilate lgbt, che altrimenti sarebbero deserte.

Hong Kong. Guarda guarda chi si rivede.

Anche le menzogne bisogna saperle dirle bene.

*

Hong Kong. Edward Leung condannato a sei anni per rivolta. – Aljazeera.

Mr Edwars Leung, un po’ strano un cinese con un nome occidentale, è stato condannato non tanto in quanto secessionista, quanto per il fatto di aver fomentato una rivolta durante la quale

«About 130 people, mostly police, were injured when masked protesters tossed bricks and set rubbish cans alight to vent their anger against what they saw as mainland Chinese encroachment on the city’s autonomy and freedoms»

Serve davvero una buona dose di immaginazione raffigurarsi un processo democratico basato sullo spedire 130 persone in ospedale.

*

«Amid growing concern for Hong Kong’s freedoms, the territory’s police has sought to ban a pro-independence group»

Adesso le autorità cinesi stanno valutando l’ipotesi di mettere al bando il movimento secessionista.

Se per “freedom, human rights, equality and dignity” si intende il fracassar crani a mattonate i cinesi ne fanno volentieri a meno.


Deutsche Welle. 2018-07-17. Hong Kong police seek ban on pro-independence party

Amid growing concern for Hong Kong’s freedoms, the territory’s police has sought to ban a pro-independence group. The move comes as China attempts to tighten its grip on the semi-autonomous region.

*

Hong Kong police on Tuesday commenced action to shut down a pro-independence party that promotes secession from China.

The Hong Kong Security Bureau sent a letter to Hong Kong National Party (HKNP) founder Andy Chan telling him he had until August 7 to “make representations in writing” as to why it should not be banned, according to the party’s social media page, which posted photos of the letter.

The letter said the secretary for security had received a recommendation that it was “necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of human rights” to prohibit the operation of the HKNP.

Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous territory within China that is governed under a “one country, two systems” principle.

It is the first time since the former British colony’s return to Chinese rule in 1997 that it has attempted to ban a political organization.

Hong Kong’s secretary for security, John Lee, said Tuesday he was considering the request made by police to ban the HKNP, which is one of the leading groups in Hong Kong’s pro-independence movement.

“In Hong Kong we have freedom of association, but that right is not without restriction,” Lee told reporters.

‘I will never stop’

Chan, 27, told news organization Reuters that he would need to consult lawyers on his next step, but pledged to continue pushing for independence.

“I will never stop in my pursuit of freedom, human rights, equality and dignity,” Chan said.

While Hong Kong enjoys a high level of autonomy and freedoms China doesn’t have, such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, there is increasing concern that those rights are under threat from a forceful China under President Xi Jinping.

Hong Kong’s independence movement gained momentum following mass pro-democracy rallies in 2014 that failed to win reforms.

Pro-independence campaigners have been barred from running for office and others disqualified from the legislature, including Chan, who was blocked from standing for a seat in the city’s Legislative Council.

Leading independence activist Edward Leung was jailed for six years in June on rioting charges after clashes with police in 2016.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Ong - Ngo, Unione Europea

Ong (ngo). Cosa dicono il codice di navigazione e le norme internazionali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-08.

Animali_che_Ridono__007_Gufo

Il professor Augusto Sinagra, docente di diritto internazionale. ha pubblicato un interessante studio, che riportiamo a seguito in abstract.

«Cercherò di fare una riflessione esclusivamente tecnico-giuridica di diritto internazionale di cui sono stato Professore Ordinario nell’Università.

  1. Le navi che solcano i mari battono una Bandiera. La Bandiera non è un oggetto meramente folkloristico o di colore. La Bandiera della nave rende riconoscibile lo Stato di riferimento della nave nei cui Registri navali essa è iscritta (nei registri è indicata anche la proprietà pubblica o privata).

  2. La nave è giuridicamente una “comunità viaggiante” o, in altri termini, una “proiezione mobile” dello Stato di riferimento. In base al diritto internazionale la nave, fuori dalle acque territoriali di un altro Stato, è considerata “territorio” dello Stato della Bandiera.

Dunque, sulla nave in mare alto si applicano le leggi, tutte le leggi, anche quelle penali, dello Stato della Bandiera.

  1. Il famoso Regolamento UE di Dublino prevede che dei cosiddetti “profughi” (in realtà, deportati) debba farsi carico lo Stato con il quale essi per prima vengono in contatto. A cominciare dalle eventuali richieste di asilo politico.

  2. Non si vede allora quale sia la ragione per la quale una nave battente Bandiera, per esempio, tedesca, spagnola o francese, debba – d’intesa con gli scafisti – raccogliere i cosiddetti profughi appena fuori le acque territoriali libiche e poi scaricarli in Italia quando la competenza e l’obbligo è, come detto, dello Stato della Bandiera.

  3. Da ultimo è emerso che due navi battenti Bandiera olandese e con il solito carico di merce umana, non si connettano giuridicamente al Regno di Olanda e né figurino su quei registri navali, come dichiarato dalle Autorità olandesi.

Allora, giuridicamente, si tratta di “navi pirata”, le quali non sono solo quelle che battono la bandiera nera con il teschio e le tibie incrociate.

  1. Ne deriva il diritto/dovere di ogni Stato di impedirne la libera navigazione, il sequestro della nave e l’arresto del Comandante e dell’equipaggio.

Molti dei cosiddetti “profughi” cominciano a protestare pubblicamente denunciando di essere stati deportati in Italia contro la loro volontà. Si è in presenza, dunque, di una nuova e inedita tratta di schiavi, con la complicità della UE, che offende la coscienza umana e che va combattuto con ogni mezzo.»

* * * * * * *

È un testo estremamente chiaro, che non dovrebbe necessitare di commenti.

*

Una lettura interessante potrebbe essere il trattato

Zanarelli, Comentale, Pinto. Manuale di diritto della navigazione e dei trasporti. 2016. III Ed. Cedam.

Seguono alcuni excerpta.

*

«Se si parla di “nazionalità” in ordine alla nave e all’aeromobile, ci si riferisce al criterio di collegamento di tali beni con l’ordinamento giuridico di un determinato Stato: lo Stato, perciò, esercita la sovranità su quelle navi e quegli aeromobili che battono la bandiera di quest’ultimo.

È da considerare che la libertà di navigazione marittima e aerea appartiene allo Stato sotto la cui bandiera e la cui responsabilità i mezzi di navigazione si muovono e non all’individuo. Attraverso l’iscrizione nei registri dello Stato, come ribadito nella Convenzione UNCLOS (art. 91) e nella Convenzione di Chicago del 1944 (art. 17) le navi e gli aeromobili ottengono la concessione della nazionalità dello Stato. Tuttavia, si nota che, per quanto concerne le navi, la Convenzione UNCLOS nell’art. 93 stabilisce che tali mezzi possano battere bandiera di altri soggetti dotati di personalità giuridica di diritto internazionale, quali le Nazioni Unite, le sue agenzie specializzate e l’Agenzia Internazionale per l’Energia Atomica.

Sull’attribuzione della nazionalità a navi e aeromobili, la dottrina ha sottolineato un “accentuato intervento pubblico” nel settore dei trasporti la cui conseguenza è stata quella di ritenere che soltanto una nazionalità possa essere concessa ad una nave e, quindi, che le navi apolidi non possano godere della libertà di navigazione.

In particolare, in merito al possesso di più nazionalità, sia la Convenzione UNCLOS sia la Convezione di Chicago del 1944 prevedono espressamente il divieto di possedere più di una nazionalità per nave o per aeromobile, rispettivamente nell’art. 92, comma 1 e nell’art. 18. Parimenti, nel diritto interno il codice della navigazione, con gli artt. 145 per le navi e 751 per gli aeromobili, sancisce il divieto di iscrizione nei registri italiani per quei veicoli che sono già in possesso della nazionalità di altri Stati perché già iscritti. Possibile deroga a tale regime si verifica nei casi di bare-boat charter registration, nei casi di locazione a scafo nudo del veicolo: in tali casi, infatti, i soggetti che sono in possesso dei requisiti per ottenere la registrazione e quindi l’attribuzione della nazionalità possono chiedere la sospensione temporanea dell’iscrizione delle navi nei registri di uno Stato per iscriversi temporaneamente nei registri di un altro.

Nell’ordinamento giuridico italiano, come anche negli altri paesi di tradizione marittima, la nazionalità è legata alla proprietà nazionale e, dopo diversi interventi di riforma, alla proprietà di cittadini ed enti di altri Stati europei.

L’art. 143 del codice della navigazione, come modificato dall’art. 7, d.l. 30 dicembre 1997, n. 457, convertito in legge 27 febbraio 1998, n.30, elenca i requisiti per chiedere l’attribuzione della nazionalità alla nave e stabilisce che “Rispondono ai requisiti di nazionalità per l’iscrizione nelle matricole o nei registri di cui all’articolo 146: le navi che appartengono per una quota superiore a dodici carati a persone fisiche giuridiche o enti italiani o di altri Paesi dell’Unione europea; le navi di nuova costruzione o provenienti da un registro straniero non comunitario, appartenenti a persone fisiche, giuridiche o enti stranieri non comunitari i quali assumano direttamente l’esercizio della nave attraverso una stabile organizzazione sul territorio nazionale con gestione demandata a persona fisica o giuridica di nazionalità italiana o di altri Paesi dell’Unione europea, domiciliata nel luogo di iscrizione della nave, che assuma ogni responsabilità per il suo esercizio nei confronti delle autorità amministrative e dei terzi, con dichiarazione da rendersi presso l’ufficio di iscrizione della nave, secondo le norme previste per la dichiarazione di armatore”.

Per quanto concerne gli aeromobili, invece, l’art. 756 del codice della navigazione al comma 1 prevede che “Rispondono ai requisiti di nazionalità richiesti per l’iscrizione nel registro aeronautico nazionale gli aeromobili che appartengono in tutto od in parte maggioritaria: a) allo Stato, alle regioni, alle province, ai comuni e ad ogni altro ente pubblico e privato italiano o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea; b) ai cittadini italiani o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea; c) a società costituite o aventi una sede in Italia o in un altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea il cui capitale appartenga in tutto od in parte maggioritaria a cittadini italiani o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea, ovvero a persone giuridiche italiane o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea aventi le stesse caratteristiche di compagine societaria e il cui presidente, la maggioranza degli amministratori e l’amministratore delegato siano cittadini italiani o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea”.

L’art. 143 del codice della navigazione, come modificato dall’art. 7, d.l. 30 dicembre 1997, n. 457, convertito in legge 27 febbraio 1998, n.30, elenca i requisiti per chiedere l’attribuzione della nazionalità alla nave e stabilisce che “Rispondono ai requisiti di nazionalità per l’iscrizione nelle matricole o nei registri di cui all’articolo 146: le navi che appartengono per una quota superiore a dodici carati a persone fisiche giuridiche o enti italiani o di altri Paesi dell’Unione europea; le navi di nuova costruzione o provenienti da un registro straniero non comunitario, appartenenti a persone fisiche, giuridiche o enti stranieri non comunitari i quali assumano direttamente l’esercizio della nave attraverso una stabile organizzazione sul territorio nazionale con gestione demandata a persona fisica o giuridica di nazionalità italiana o di altri Paesi dell’Unione europea, domiciliata nel luogo di iscrizione della nave, che assuma ogni responsabilità per il suo esercizio nei confronti delle autorità amministrative e dei terzi, con dichiarazione da rendersi presso l’ufficio di iscrizione della nave, secondo le norme previste per la dichiarazione di armatore”.

Per quanto concerne gli aeromobili, invece, l’art. 756 del codice della navigazione al comma 1 prevede che “Rispondono ai requisiti di nazionalità richiesti per l’iscrizione nel registro aeronautico nazionale gli aeromobili che appartengono in tutto od in parte maggioritaria: a) allo Stato, alle regioni, alle province, ai comuni e ad ogni altro ente pubblico e privato italiano o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea; b) ai cittadini italiani o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea; c) a società costituite o aventi una sede in Italia o in un altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea il cui capitale appartenga in tutto od in parte maggioritaria a cittadini italiani o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea, ovvero a persone giuridiche italiane o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea aventi le stesse caratteristiche di compagine societaria e il cui presidente, la maggioranza degli amministratori e l’amministratore delegato siano cittadini italiani o di altro Stato membro dell’Unione europea”.

L’iscrizione nei registri: i criteri

I requisiti per ottenere l’attribuzione della nazionalità variano a seconda delle leggi dello Stato in modo non omogeneo: è la Convenzione di Montego Bay, all’art. 91, comma 2, che stabilisce il principio della libertà degli Stati di determinare le condizioni di iscrizione delle navi nei propri registri.

È noto, infatti, che alcuni Stati siano particolarmente disponibili e richiedano requisiti elastici tali essere classificati come “bandiere di comodo”, “bandiere ombra o di convenienza”. Tale prassi permette di ottenere una registrazione più agevole, laddove altre nazioni possiedano regole più ferree e vincolanti, e viene spesso utilizzata per godere di un regime fiscale di favore, pur compromettendo la sicurezza e le condizioni di lavoro a bordo. L’ITF[6] aggiorna costantemente una lista composta dalle nazioni che utilizzano le proprie bandiere a questo scopo.

Sebbene non ci sia una definizione a livello internazionale dei requisiti necessari [7], la Convenzione UNCLOS stabilisce, all’art. 91, che per l’attribuzione della nazionalità tra la nave e lo Stato della bandiera dovrebbe esistere un collegamento effettivo, il c.d. genuine link. Tuttavia, diverse sono le difficoltà che si riscontrano nell’attuazione di tale principio dal momento che, nell’assenza di sanzioni per le navi che battono bandiere di convenienza, gli Stati possiedono giurisdizione esclusiva e non permettono alcuna interferenza di terzi sui mezzi.

La tendenza attuale degli Stati tradizionalmente marittimi, utilizzata per arginare il fenomeno dell’outflagging, o meglio la fuga verso i registri di convenienza, è stata quella di prevedere dei registri internazionali da affiancare a quelli ordinari con requisiti meno rigidi per la concessione della nazionalità. Anche l’Italia, con il d. l. 457 del 1997, convertito in l. 30 del 1998, ha previsto sgravi fiscali e contribuitivi, nonché facilitazioni per l’imbarco di marittimi non comunitari. Tuttavia, va sottolineato che l’imbarco in tale registro internazionale è ammesso solo per le navi adibite a traffici commerciali internazionali.

Il problema della giurisdizione delle navi

Le navi sono sottoposte esclusivamente al potere dello Stato di bandiera, perciò rappresentano un’estensione della nazionalità anche al di fuori del limite delle acque territoriali. Il principio di giurisdizione esclusiva dello Stato di bandiera, eppure, subisce delle deroghe nel momento in cui la nave entra nelle zone sottoposte alla sovranità dello Stato costiero o portuale.

Le eccezioni sono previste nei casi di: pirateria, dal momento che la nave pirata che compie violenze contro le altre navi, può essere catturata da ogni Stato e può essere sottoposta a misure repressive; contrabbando di guerra in tempo di pace, laddove sia in corso una guerra civile, lo Stato può visitare e catturare, anche in acque internazionali, qualsiasi nave che abbia intenzione di supportare gli insorti; diritto di visita, che consente a navi da guerra di vistare navi in alto mare, quando vi è un fondato sospetto che la nave pratichi  la pirateria o la tratta di schiavi, che faccia partire trasmissioni radio-televisive non autorizzate, che adoperi la bandiera in maniera fraudolenta.

Nella zona economica esclusiva, oltre a quanto detto, le eccezioni aumentano e comprendono la facoltà di esercitare sulla  nave straniera tutti i poteri connessi alla regolamentazione dello sfruttamento delle risorse proporzionalmente alle infrazioni commesse. Nel mare territoriale vige il principio del passaggio inoffensivo e della sottrazione penale dello Stato costiero ai fatti puramente interni: laddove una nave straniera che abbia violato le leggi di uno Stato, le navi da guerra o di servizi pubblici la possono inseguire purché l’inseguimento abbia avuto inizio nelle acque interne o nel mare territoriale. Tuttavia, l’’inseguimento deve essere necessariamente continuo e potranno essere esercitati solo quei poteri ammessi nella zona in cui ha avuto inizio l’inseguimento, ma deve cessare se la nave entra nel mare territoriale di un altro Stato.

Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata, Ong - Ngo

Dopo Lifeline ora Malta sequestra la Sea Watch.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-02.

Execution-Dock-a-Londra-4

Execution Dock di Londra. I pirati erano impiccati oppure rinchiusi in gabbie finché morti li avesse colti.


Nel medioevo la Repubblica di Genova aveva leggi blande nei confronti dei pirati e di quanti esercitassero la tratta.

Quando li pescava, ed accadeva spesso, i pesci piccoli li metteva al remo, affidandoli alle amorose cure degli aguzzi scelti tra le loro vittime. I pesci grandi dapprima li accecava, poi li castrava ed infine tagliava loro le mani. Dopo un congruo lasso di tempo li scuoiava vivi, molto lentamente.

Per molto tempo i pirati si guardarono bene di cercare di far bottino sulle rotte dei genovesi. Quando vedevano la bandiera genovese, viravano rattamente di bordo.

La situazione cambiò quando il Bay di Algeri dette ai pirati una copertura politica e militare, facendoli assurgere al livello di corsari.

I genovesi allora si videro costretti ad affondare le navi corsare, avendo avuto la precauzione di rinchiuderne l’equipaggio nella stiva. Il Bey si affrettò a dire che lui non ne sapeva proprio nulla: niente di niente. Con le buone maniere si ottiene sempre tutto.

*

Il problema delle navi delle ngo è semplice. I loro mandanti siedono nel Consiglio Europeo: a parola le condannano ma le finanziano ed anche lautamente.

La debolezza interna di Frau Merkel, i continui trionfi elettorali dei populisti, non ultimo quanto successo in Italia il 4 marzo, hanno mutato le carte in tavola: non completamente come alcuni avrebbero desiderato, ma in ogni caso in modo consistente.

Il Ministro Salvini ha chiuso i porti italiani alle ngo che praticano la tratta.

Immediati gli urli e gli strepiti di tutti coloro che lucravano sul traffico umano.

Malta ha dapprima adescato le navi ngo, quindi le ha bloccate e messo in stato di fermo gli equipaggi.

«Tira una brutta aria, in questi giorni, per le Ong del Mediterraneo»

*

In un comunicato pubblicato sul proprio sito, Sea Watch non si capacita del motivo del fermo. “Poiché Sea-Watch 3 non è registrata nel registro di sportboat, come nel caso di Lifeline e Seefuchs – si legge – ma è elencato nel registro di navigazione reale come una nave di navigazione olandese, pienamente abilitata a battere bandiera olandese, la mancanza di permesso di Malta risulta non essere un problema di registrazione, ma una campagna politica per fermare il salvataggio civile in mare”. E, ricordando i morti in mare di questi giorni, l’Ong tedesca “sollecita vivamente il governo maltese a non ostacolare i soccorritori, dato che le vite umane sono a forte rischio”. L’associazione accusa i leader Ue di aver raggiunto, al vertice sui migranti della scorsa settimana, “un accordo disumano” per “porre il controllo delle frontiere al di sopra dei diritti umani”. “I governi – attacca il presidente di Sea-Watch, Johannes Bayer – stanno impedendo ai soccorritori di svolgere il loro compito di salvare la vita”. Gli fa eco il comandante Pia Klemp: “Mentre ci è impedito di lasciare il porto, la gente sta affogando, questo è assolutamente inaccettabile. Ogni ulteriore morte in mare è sul conto di coloro che impediscono il salvataggio. Quanti altri naufragi ci vorranno prima che l’Europa, ancora una volta, si renda conto che salvare vite umane in mare deve rimanere non negoziabile?”.

Immediato, invece, è arrivato il plauso del ministro dell’Interno italiano: “Prendo atto del fatto che grazie all’orgoglio italiano anche Malta si è ricordata di essere un Paese sovrano e ha bloccato oggi la nave di un’altra Ong nei porti maltesi, quindi bene. Meno navi Ong ci saranno in giro, meno gente partirà e meno gente morirà”, ha detto Salvini.

In un comunicato pubblicato sul proprio sito, Sea Watch non si capacita del motivo del fermo. “Poiché Sea-Watch 3 non è registrata nel registro di sportboat, come nel caso di Lifeline e Seefuchs – si legge – ma è elencato nel registro di navigazione reale come una nave di navigazione olandese, pienamente abilitata a battere bandiera olandese, la mancanza di permesso di Malta risulta non essere un problema di registrazione, ma una campagna politica per fermare il salvataggio civile in mare”. E, ricordando i morti in mare di questi giorni, l’Ong tedesca “sollecita vivamente il governo maltese a non ostacolare i soccorritori, dato che le vite umane sono a forte rischio”. L’associazione accusa i leader Ue di aver raggiunto, al vertice sui migranti della scorsa settimana, “un accordo disumano” per “porre il controllo delle frontiere al di sopra dei diritti umani”. “I governi – attacca il presidente di Sea-Watch, Johannes Bayer – stanno impedendo ai soccorritori di svolgere il loro compito di salvare la vita”. Gli fa eco il comandante Pia Klemp: “Mentre ci è impedito di lasciare il porto, la gente sta affogando, questo è assolutamente inaccettabile. Ogni ulteriore morte in mare è sul conto di coloro che impediscono il salvataggio. Quanti altri naufragi ci vorranno prima che l’Europa, ancora una volta, si renda conto che salvare vite umane in mare deve rimanere non negoziabile?”.

Immediato, invece, è arrivato il plauso del ministro dell’Interno italiano: “Prendo atto del fatto che grazie all’orgoglio italiano anche Malta si è ricordata di essere un Paese sovrano e ha bloccato oggi la nave di un’altra Ong nei porti maltesi, quindi bene. Meno navi Ong ci saranno in giro, meno gente partirà e meno gente morirà”, ha detto Salvini.

*

Aspettiamo con calma e pazienza che in Germania cambi il Cancelliere, poi si potrà iniziare a regolare i conti.

Per esempio, rimettendo in vigore il codice marittimo della Repubblica di Genova.

*


Giornale.  2018-07-02. Un’altra Ong nei guai: Sea Watch sottoposta a fermo a Malta

Dopo l’indagine su Lifeline, fermata l’altra Ong tedesca. Sea Watch: “Una deliberata restrizione della nostra libertà”.

*

Ennesimo caso che investe le Ong. Dopo la decisione italiana di chiudere i porti a tutte le organizzazioni umanitarie, dopo l’indagine di Malta su Mission Lifeline e il fermo del capitano della nave, ora arriva un’altra tegola sui natanti umanitari.

A essere investita, secondo quanto annuncia la stessa Ong sul suo profilo Twitter, è la Sea Watch, associazione tedesca.

“Alla richiesta di lasciare il porto – si legge si profili social – apprendiamo che la nave è sottoposta a fermo. L’autorità portuale non fornisce motivazioni tecnico-legali. La riceviamo come una deliberata restrizione della nostra libertà volta a impedire l’attività di soccorso”. Dure le lamentele da parte di Pia Klemp, capitano del Sea-Watch 3: “La nostra nave ha una registrazione adeguata e ha il pieno diritto di battere la bandiera olandese. Saremmo la squadra di soccorso meglio equipaggiata e addestrata nell’area di operazione e non ci sono finora basi legali per giustificare la detenzione della nostra nave. Ci aspettiamo che le autorità ci permettano di navigare immediatamente”.

Tira una brutta aria, in questi giorni, per le Ong del Mediterraneo. Il balzo in avanti del ministro dell’Interno italiano, che ha deciso di precludere l’approdo nel Belpaese alle imbarcazioni umanitarie (sia per lo sbarco dei migranti che per gli scali tecnici) ha smosso le acque in tutta Europa. Prima la Aquarius di Sos Mediterranée e Msf è stata costretta a dirigersi in Spagna per far scendere a terra oltre 600 immigrati. Poi la Mission Lifeline è rimasta giorni al largo di Malta prima di ricevere l’autorizzazione di La Valletta all’ingresso in porto (e il suo comandante indagato per aver “ignorato le istruzioni dategli dalle autorità italiane secondo le regole internazionali”).

Sea Watch è nota per aver più volte “litigato” in mare con la Marina di Tripoli. Come quando, nell’ottobre del 2017, la Guardia costiera libica accusò l’Ong di essersi messa di traverso per impedire il salvataggio di alcuni immigrati che, ovviamente, sarebbero stati riportati indietro. “L’equipaggio della Ras Jadir ha cominciato a recuperare i migranti, ma la gente di Sea watch si è piazzata a dieci metri nonostante le ripetute richieste del comandante di collaborare”, spiegava al Giornale il Capitano di vascello Abujela Abdelbari. “I migranti illegali è ovvio che vogliono andare in Italia e non tornare indietro in Libia. La vicinanza del gommone della Ong ha provocato il disastro. A decine si sono tuffati anche a rischio di annegare”.

In un comunicato pubblicato sul proprio sito, Sea Watch non si capacita del motivo del fermo. “Poiché Sea-Watch 3 non è registrata nel registro di sportboat, come nel caso di Lifeline e Seefuchs – si legge – ma è elencato nel registro di navigazione reale come una nave di navigazione olandese, pienamente abilitata a battere bandiera olandese, la mancanza di permesso di Malta risulta non essere un problema di registrazione, ma una campagna politica per fermare il salvataggio civile in mare”. E, ricordando i morti in mare di questi giorni, l’Ong tedesca “sollecita vivamente il governo maltese a non ostacolare i soccorritori, dato che le vite umane sono a forte rischio”. L’associazione accusa i leader Ue di aver raggiunto, al vertice sui migranti della scorsa settimana, “un accordo disumano” per “porre il controllo delle frontiere al di sopra dei diritti umani”. “I governi – attacca il presidente di Sea-Watch, Johannes Bayer – stanno impedendo ai soccorritori di svolgere il loro compito di salvare la vita”. Gli fa eco il comandante Pia Klemp: “Mentre ci è impedito di lasciare il porto, la gente sta affogando, questo è assolutamente inaccettabile. Ogni ulteriore morte in mare è sul conto di coloro che impediscono il salvataggio. Quanti altri naufragi ci vorranno prima che l’Europa, ancora una volta, si renda conto che salvare vite umane in mare deve rimanere non negoziabile?”.

Immediato, invece, è arrivato il plauso del ministro dell’Interno italiano: “Prendo atto del fatto che grazie all’orgoglio italiano anche Malta si è ricordata di essere un Paese sovrano e ha bloccato oggi la nave di un’altra Ong nei porti maltesi, quindi bene. Meno navi Ong ci saranno in giro, meno gente partirà e meno gente morirà”, ha detto Salvini.

Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata, Ong - Ngo

Macron. Il Fregoli della politica europea. Ha cambiato idea un’altra volta.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2016-08-27.

Pagliaccio 001

La donna è mobil, qual piuma al vento. Ma gli alteramente pensanti ….


«France will be one of six EU countries to take in the 233 migrants aboard the NGO boat Lifeline»

*

«while accusing the rescue ship of “playing into the hands of (people) smugglers»

*

«Each country will take “a few dozen individuals»

*

«the French president criticised the German NGO Mission Lifeline saying it had defied all the rules by coming to the migrants rescue when the Libyan coastguard was already intervening»

*

«We cannot permanently accept this situation, …. in the end we are playing into the hands of smugglers by reducing the risks of the journey »

*

«Europe wanted to strengthen its cooperation with the Libyan coastguards to limit the movements of migrants»

*

«The ability to close this route is the most effective and also the most humane»

* * * * * * * *

Il Presidente Macron ha la dote di mutare idea ogni femtosecondo.

È semplicemente impossibile poter predire quale sarà il punto di vista francese che esporrà in sede di Consiglio Europeo, ma ci si aspetti qualcosa di stravagante.

Nel discorso riportato emergono alcuni elementi.

– Le navi delle ong (ngo) fanno il gioco dei trafficanti di schiavi (sic! ha detto proprio questo).

– La nave Lfeline ha sfidato tutte le regole, raccogliendo i migranti quando la guardia costiera libica era già intervenuta. 

– “in the end we are playing into the hands of smugglers by reducing the risks of the journey“: l’Unione Europea è nelle mani di contrabbandieri di esseri umani.

– Alla fine delle fini “The ability to close this route is the most effective and also the most humane“. Chiudere queste rotte, ossia bloccare le navi ngo.

*

Quando questo lo dicevano Mr Conte e Mr Salvini, per non parlare poi di Mr Orban, erano oscene prese di posizioni razziste, xenofobe: tutte propalate da gentaglia “vomitevole”, untori della nuova lebbra che affligge l’Unione Europea, ossia il ‘populismo’.

Adesso invece, grazie alla presa di posizione di Mr Macron, possiamo tranquillamente affermare come le ngo (ong) siano solo e semplicemente organizzazioni criminali a scopo di lucro estorsivo, tramite la tratta degli schiavi.

*

Aspettiamo però di vedere come Mr Macron si comporterà: un fatto vale mille parole.


The Local. 2016-06-27. France to take in some Lifeline migrants but Macron blasts rescue ship

France will be one of six EU countries to take in the 233 migrants aboard the NGO boat Lifeline, French President Emmanuel Macron announced Tuesday, while accusing the rescue ship of “playing into the hands of (people) smugglers”

The Lifeline has been stranded for days in the Mediterranean without a port to dock at after picking up the migrants in distress off the Libyan coast last week.

Each country will take “a few dozen individuals,” said Macron at a press conference in Rome.

But the French president criticised the German NGO Mission Lifeline saying it had defied “all the rules” by coming to the migrants rescue when the Libyan coastguard was already intervening.  

“We cannot permanently accept this situation,” he warned, adding “in the end we are playing into the hands of smugglers by reducing the risks of the journey.”

Macron said that Europe wanted to “strengthen its cooperation with the Libyan coastguards” to “limit the movements” of migrants.

“The ability to close this route is the most effective and also the most humane,” he said.

“Europe can take its share but it cannot take more than its share”, he added. 

“These young people leave because they have no hope… We will be there to live up to our principles but without saying that anything is possible and that Europe is a new Eldorado,” Macron said.

The Maltese government has agreed to take in the Lifeline on condition that an agreement to distribute the migrants among EU member countries was reached.

Portugal, France and Italy are among the countries involved in the negotiations.