The COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights the Need for Sustainable Reintegration Strategies for Returning Migrants Communities and Countries

WASHINGTON As the COVID-19 pandemic hit, millions of migrants were stranded in the countries where they work and live, and countless others were expelled or returned voluntarily to their countries of origin amid restrictions on mobility and widespread economic dislocation. Countless more migrants may yet return to their countries of origin as second and third waves of the outbreak are occurring.

Destination- and origin-country governments have engaged in chaotic and mixed policy responses to forced returns. Origin countries face the challenges of receiving returning nationals amid a public-health crisis and reintegrating them into communities and labor markets at a time of economic struggles. The experiences highlight the importance of countries along the migration continuum being better prepared for disruptions to migration patterns. A greater focus on sustainable reintegration is needed, not only for the current crisis but for the long term, Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysts argue in a new policy brief.

In Rewiring Migrant Returns and Reintegration after the COVID-19 Shock, Camille Le Coz and Kathleen Newland examine the effects of the pandemic on return, reception and reintegration. The brief also considers how to strengthen return infrastructure and partnerships between countries of origin and destination going forward.

While the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration recognized the need for international cooperation on return and reintegration, the global public-health crisis hit scarcely a year into its adoption. Governments rapidly closed borders and imposed travel restrictions in uncoordinated fashion even as many migrants were compelled to leave their jobs and, often, the countries in which they were living. And while some countries initially suspended forced removals, others exerted further pressure on origin countries by accelerating returns.

The reception of returning migrants has posed a daunting challenge. Few countries of origin, for example, had adequate quarantine facilities for returnees, and the crisis has demonstrated the importance of improving monitoring of returns and ensuring appropriate reception conditions.

Origin countries have also faced challenges reintegrating returning migrants into local communities and helping them re-establish livelihoods, with economic effects compounded by the loss of migrants remittances as well as the reallocation of humanitarian and development funds away from reintegration to support immediate COVID-19 responses.

Yet, the brief notes, some innovations have flourished during the crisis, including online training for returnees and efforts to reopen legal migration pathways in ways that are better managed and more respectful of workers rights. The authors suggest the pandemic has spotlighted the need for a broadened definition of reintegration.

The focus of reintegration programs is often on returnees themselves, but recovery from the COVID-19 crisis requires a more comprehensive approach, particularly to assist communities affected by lower levels of remittances and other economic disruptions, they write. Reintegration assistance that focuses not only on the outcomes of individuals returning but also on the economic, social and physical health of their communities and countries in short, that emphasizes the development potential of returns and returnees is the kind of assistance this crisis demands.

The policy brief is the third in the series Critical Migration Governance Issues in a Changed World, which results from a partnership between MPI and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Find this and other publications in the series here: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/international-program/critical-migration-governance-issues-changed-world.

Here is the original post:

Rewiring Migrant Returns and Reintegration after the COVID-19 Shock - World - ReliefWeb

Mufti of Biha Hafiz Mehmed ef. Kudi received yesterday Mirsad Buzar, Deputy Director of the Service for Foreigners Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mufti Kudi and Deputy Director Buzar discussed current developments regarding the migrant crisis and the organization of religious life for the migrant population, as well as other current issues within the scope of activities of the institutions they represent.

I am grateful to the Deputy Director of the Service for Foreigners Affairs, Mr. Mirsad Buzar, for his visit and the information he conveyed to us about the current situation in the Lipa camp. From the very beginning of the migrant crisis, the Islamic community has played a progressive role and has helped in various ways to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and to support the organizations in charge of distributing aid to this population, said Mufti Kudi.

At the request of institutions and organizations, we constantly responded to provide what they asked of us, and what was needed for the realization of religious activities of migrants. We told the Deputy Director that we in no way want the mosques to be used for any other purpose than as prayer spaces at the exact time indicated. I am glad that state institutions support our views on this. I am especially satisfied with the fact that state institutions have become more actively involved in this process and that they will manage this crisis in full capacity in the coming period, said Mufti Kudi, the Biha Muftis Office announced.

Buzar added that the Service would provide a space for social activities of migrants in the Lipa camp, and a space for religious activities was planned within that space.

We are grateful to the Islamic Community for supporting us in that sense and helping us to provide adequate conditions for religious activities for migrants, who express a desire for that, said Deputy Buzar.

Currently, there are more than 900 migrants in the reception center Lipa near Biha. Last Friday, more than 120 migrants prayed the Jumuah prayer in this camp.

Continued here:

Kudic and Buzar discussed Developments regarding the Migrant Crisis - Sarajevo Times

During the 2015 refugee crisis Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed refugees to enter Germany in unprecedented numbers. Her historic decision to adapt the so-called open-door policy continues to shape contemporary German politics. More precisely, it will likely define Merkels legacy and political future. This article analyzes her decision through two major IR theories: liberalism and realism. It aims to contribute to the disciplines understanding of the open-door policy by assessing what each theory can explain well and less well. While the article analyzes the decision through competing IR theories, it does not suggest that one theory is more suitable to explain the event. It rather concludes that each theory explains Merkels refugee response differently and is able to better explain some aspects of her decision than others. Thus, the article highlights the importance and significance of analyzing a global political event through multiple lenses (i.e. IR theories).

During the height of the 2015 European refugee crisis, Germanys chancellor Angela Merkel decided to allow refugees, mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, who had arrived at the German border through the so called Balkan-Route, to enter the country. Nearly one million refugees arrived in Germany during that year. Merkels decision is commonly referred to as implementing an open-door policy. At the time, the move was applauded as humanitarian by the public, media, and politicians across the political spectrum. However, years later, despite the refugee intake having declined significantly, the decision has arisen to define not only Merkels legacy but her political future. More precisely, the issue of refugee intake and immigration assimilation has become the main topic of political discourse in Germany. Merkels government coalition (grand-coalition), based on her partys alliance with the CSU, has been on the brink of collapse multiple times over disagreements on immigration. Several members of her own party, including members of her cabinet, remain opposed to her stance on immigration and have repeatedly threatened to bring her 15-yearlong chancellorship to an end. Furthermore, her open-door policy allowed the right-wing and anti-immigration party Alternative fr Deutschland to rise to political significance, fueling the growing polarization of Germanys society and politics (McAuley & Noack, 2018).

Due to the continuous weight of Chancellor Merkels 2015 decision, explaining the dynamics behind it remains relevant. In other words, analyzing her open-door policy implementation is crucial because understanding the decision is a key component of explaining international relations and state behavior. Furthermore, it will assist in conceptualizing the legal as well as ethical obligations states have to both refugees and their own citizens. However, how do we best analyze the decision, its origins, and its consequences. More precisely, can different IR theories explain different aspects of it. Can a certain theory see things that another might not be able to?

Accordingly, the article analyses Merkels decision to allow refugees into Germany through the two major IR theories: liberalism and realism. Using texts written by the most prominent liberal and realist IR scholars as well as secondary readings, it attempts to explain her implementation of the open-door policy. While this article will draw from multiple authors of liberal and realist IR theory, it will not discuss how Merkels policy is seen through individual scholars explanations. In other words, a generic liberal and realist framework and its main assumptions which have been developed and are widely agreed upon by the discipline will be used to analyze the 2015 decision. While an analysis of individual scholars would certainly be a valuable contribution to the discipline, it would go beyond the scope of this article.

Through the relevant and contemporary case study open-door policy, this article highlights how a global event can be interpreted vastly different, if analyzed through competing IR theories. In other words, I expect that liberal and realist IR theory can explain certain parts of the decision well and others less well. More precisely, realist theory might be better in explaining aspects associated with power, rationality, national interest, and considerations of sovereignty. Contrary, liberal theorys focus on international cooperation and its study of the individual as the basic unit of political life can provide an explanation of Merkels ethical and normative considerations as well as the role of the European Union during the refugee crisis. However, while the two theories come to competing conclusions on the dynamics underlying Merkels decision, I do not suggest that one theory is more suitable than the other to explain the event. In other words, neither liberalism nor realism offer a superior explanation of the decision. Each theory just explains Merkels refugee response differently and might better explain some aspects of her decision than others.

I begin by evaluating the implementation of the open-door policy through a liberal lens. Afterwards I focus my attention on realist theory and its explanations of the decision. Each part commences with a short description of the major principles of the respective theory. Following, I analyze in greater detail what part of Merkels refugee response the theory can explain well and less well. The article concludes by discussing the similarities and differences of each approach, highlighting each theories strengths and weaknesses.

Liberal IR theory, also often referred to as idealism, focuses its analysis on the individual as the basic unit of political life. State-power is derived from individuals, who are acting independently through a social contract. Thus, the population as well as domestic policy shape states, who consequently behave differently on the international level. While states are rational actors, they are increasingly interdependent, e.g. though trade. Even though liberal scholars believe that the international system is anarchic, they share the central and optimistic outlook that state cooperation for mutual benefit is possible. Hence, change, progress, and peace in the international system is achievable. Moreover, natural laws and justices, which proceed the sovereign, exist. Liberalism suggests, that some institutions and values are normatively better, namely liberty, equality, autonomy, individual freedom, and private property. Accordingly, these values need to be protected and advanced. This can be achieved through the spread of democracy, the rule of law, and institutions. Hence, liberal thought gives considerable attention to international organizations and international law (Matthews, 2017).

To understand Merkels open-door policy we must first explain in what kind of international structure Germany operates and makes policy decisions. Liberal theory demonstrates particular strengths in such analysis. Its focus on cooperation and international organizations allows us to understand the emergence and continuing existence of the European Union. As a project of integration and collaboration, it provides an important starting point of such analysis. Peace and progress are indeed possible, highlighting a core assumption of liberal theory. In other words, the context and structure in which Germany is forced to respond to the refugee crisis can be explained well by liberalism. Furthermore, Germany, as a member of the EU and the international community, has agreed to follow universally accepted rules and definition for asylum seekers. Accordingly, Germany and the EU have a legal and moral obligation to assist refugees in their attempt to claim asylum. Thus, it is important to note not just the humanitarian aspects behind Merkels decision, but the weight the international structure and its organizations (including its rules and norms) have on German state behavior. Furthermore, international legal constraints prevent states from enacting certain policy options when responding to a refugee crisis. More precisely, according to liberal theory, due to Germanys membership to the international community, the country cannot act entirely sovereign but is expected to respond to the refugee crisis based on agreed upon norms and rules. Thus, a sovereign above the state exists, defining the legal and ethical obligations a state has not just to its own citizens but to asylum seekers (Betts, 2015).

A refugee crisis is foremost a humanitarian crisis. Thus, state behavior in response to such crises should not be guided by considerations of power but by universal norms and values. Liberal theory further suggests that some values are normatively better than others (Gibney, 1999). Merkel herself framed her decision to implement an open-door policy on normative and humanitarian grounds. Thus, liberalism is well suited to explain the moral and ethical considerations of Germanys refugee response. The theory successfully highlights how Merkels attempt to act based on European norms, was an effort to advance and protect those values (i.e. liberalism, tolerance, solidarity). Trying to show that Europes ideals are valid also in difficult times, she passionately defended her stance: If we start having to apologize for showing a friendly face in emergencies, then this is not my country (The Economist, 2015). Furthermore, she tirelessly urged other EU countries to show more international cooperation, responsibility, and solidarity. Doing so, she directly linked the EUs refugee response to Europes identity and its liberal interpretation of human rights: If Europe fails on the question of refugees, if the close link with universal civil rights is broken, then it wont be the Europe we wished for (Eddy, 2015). Accordingly, it is obvious that the refugee crisis and Germanys response to it can only be fully explained if considering normative and humanitarian aspects. That is why liberal theory is more suitable than other IR theories to shed light on such considerations.

Moreover, the liberal focus on the individual as a basic unit of political life allows an analysis of the decision conceptualizing Merkel as an individual. Even though leaders are acting in unique political environments, the role of their personality (i.e. background, beliefs, motives, personal characteristics) in decision making deserves particular attention (Sprout, 1956). During the 2015 refugee crisis, Merkel relied on her own individual policy preferences which were mostly motivated by humanitarian concerns and personal beliefs (Mushaben, 2017). Where do these values and beliefs originate from? Much attention in the literature has been given to Merkels own past, living under a communist regime. There is little doubt that her background of growing up in East Germany has significant impact on her political ideology as well as her decision making, namely her humanitarian response to the refugee crisis. Stefan Kornelius, the author of Merkels authorized biography, argues that one cannot understand Merkels political life without considering her background: The mystery that is Merkel, has its roots in that doomed republic (Kundnani, 2016). Merkel herself cited her experiences of living in East Germany as a core principle of her stance on migration. Criticizing the lack of solidarity in the EU and the national isolation of member countries during a summit in Brussels in October 2015, she tuned to Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban: I lived behind a fence for too long [] to now wish for those times to return (ibidem). To the people close to Merkel, it is clear that her decision to implement an open-door policy during the 2015 refugee crisis was based on humanitarian grounds. Her autobiographer Kornelius concludes: Angela Merkel shows a lot of understanding for people who flee from war and despair. There is no moral questioning of her motives (Lebor, 2015).

However, Chancellor Merkel was only able to implement an open-door policy because of the normative resonance between international and domestic levels in Germany. Liberal theorys attention to the impact of domestic policy on state behavior provides a compelling description of Merkels refugee response. Domestic and social factors were a central factor in the decision because they significantly influence Germanys state behavior in the international system. In other words, the state was only able to react in a humanitarian manner because of circumstances and dynamics within Germany. The country had not only the economic strength to take in a large number of refugees but a civil society who was in agreement with the decision and willing to assist in its implementation. Additionally, Merkel was on her height of power during the summer of 2015. More precisely, she knew that her institutional and political power would be able to legitimize and back her decision (idem: 46). Her unchallenged power in combination with the initial support of the German population which welcomed refugees into the country, allowed Merkel to hold a strong pro-migrant stance during the refugee crisis. There is no doubt, that Germanys history and its considerable experience of benefiting from the kindness of strangers played a part in the embracement of refugees. The world sees Germany as a country of hope and opportunity, that was not always the case, Merkel explained the significance of welcoming refugees into the country (Eddy, 2015). Moreover, civil societys importance in assisting and making up for gaps in state efforts were unquestioned. Even though the German population had no agency in the policy decision of the state, its support was crucial in providing legitimacy (Funk, 2016: 293.)

All of the mentioned dynamics within Germany are relevant in explaining the states refugee response. Liberal theory is able to see them and explain its impact on state behavior in the international system. Thats why the theory provides a unique analysis of the refugee crisis, explaining many aspects well which might be overlooked by other IR theories. However, analyzing Germanys refugee response through liberal theory also has limitations. Its focus on normative considerations and sensitivity to human security makes it easy to neglect German aspirations of power in the international system. Furthermore, its emphasis on international organizations and cooperation might lead to inattention to issues of sovereignty during the refugee crisis. Likewise, it is possible that we miss one of the core aspect of German state behavior (i.e. self-interest) when focusing too narrowly on the impact of domestic policy and the individual as a basic unit of political life.

After exploring the refugee crisis through a liberal lens, I will now turn my attention to realism, examining what the theory is able to explain well and less well. Are there key aspects of Germanys refugee response which only realist IR theory can explain?

At its core, realism suggests that no justice can exist before the sovereign and that the state of nature in the international system is a state of war. Because the international system is a state system, scholarly focus should be on individual independent states. Hence, sovereignty plays a key part in realist theory. Moreover, the international system is anarchic, making war always possible while peace is not. No sovereign to control an anarchic system exists. Accordingly, states cannot rely on one another, making cooperation and progress impossible. Due to their lack of sovereignty, international organizations, NGOs, and transnational corporations have less power in the international system and thus should be given little attention by IR scholars. States on the other hand are rational actors which act based on their national interest. Realism aims to be a theory of objective analysis. In other words, its goal is to observe and conceptualize rather than being used to advocate for change in the international system. However, two of the most prominent realist scholars, Morgenthau and Waltz, differ in their approach. Morgenthau focuses his analysis exclusively on the state and explains outcomes through the actions of sovereign states. His so-called classical realism perceives states as power maximisers and the driver of insecurity being human nature. In Waltzs structural realism, the international system is the level of analysis and the structure itself does the explanatory work. The international system is anarchic precisely because of its structure and thus states are forced to be security maximisers (Morgenthau, 1946 & Waltz, 1979).

While it is certainly true that the EU as an international institution was meant to foster cooperation between member states, realism can explain well why that did not occur during the refugee crisis. Sovereign states were the entities reacting to the crisis because in times of emergencies states always act in their self-interest. Moreover, they do not follow normative considerations, particularly when they derive from international institutions not domestic ones. The EU itself is lacking a strong sovereign leader and hence could not consolidate a singular position. When discussing the refugee crisis, member states followed realist principles and preferred to maintain their sovereignty (Hellman, 2016: 4). Some realist scholars like Waltz go even further, arguing that because of the European Unions lack of sovereignty it is of no interest to IR: Europe will only become interesting when it forms a genuinely unified sovereign country (idem: 5). The refugee crisis could have brought European integration, but it did the opposite, precisely because member states wanted to vigorously keep their sovereignty. Thus, realism is well suited to contextualize the lack of European cooperation in response to the crisis as well as the erosion of the EU. Founded on shared principles and values (i.e. tolerance, human rights, solidarity) the project was doomed to fail because of the anarchy of the international system and the unfeasibility of cooperation. No realist is surprised that the international community and the EU were unable and unwilling to respond collectively to the worst refugee crisis since WW II. Even Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, resented the inability of the European Union to respond to the crisis at a panel discussion in Rome: In former times, we were working together []. This has totally gone. While proponents of the EU might argue that the refugee crisis was a singular incident highlighting a lack of willingness to work together, realism suggests that the envisioned cooperation was never feasible in the first place. One example which emphasizes that international cooperation does not work in the long-term is the suspension of the Schengen agreement during the refugee crisis. Furthermore, the European Union is facing historic challenges: the increasing support of far-right parties, historic unemployment in some member states, Brexit, and a persistent questioning of European identity and values. According to realism, none of these challenges can be solved through international cooperation. In the contrary, they might even be a result of an international organization which acts on normative grounds without any form of sovereignty. Any organization which lacks legitimacy and the ability to act in concert can only be described as weak. Even threats of the EU to withhold EU transfers to member countries not taking in their fair share of refugees had virtually no impact (Funk, 2016: 295). That is why during the refugee crisis Germany was forced to respond as a sovereign state without putting any trust into the assistance of other states or the institutions of the European Union. Hence, Merkels attempt to work towards a European solution was not only naive but impossible to achieve in an anarchic international system (Hellmann, 2016: 15).

Realism suggests that states always act based on their self-interest to strengthen and increase their power. Thus, Merkels refugee response could have been underlined by just that, Germanys national interest. It can be explained as an attempt to solidify its leadership in Europe. Germanys response to the refugee crisis reinforced Chancellor Merkels image as the leader of Europe. In the months after the decision to implement an open-border policy, she was even frequently called the leader of the free world by the international media. Following the decision, Germany was perceived as becoming a global player, increasing its power in the international system (Steinmeier, 2016). However, it is important to note that this understanding of power is more sensitive to human security and based on moral humanitarian action not military strength. Thus, it stands in sharp contrast to a realist definition of power. Nevertheless, realist theory provides a compelling explanation of Germanys push for an EU-wide solidarity solution to the refugee crisis. It might have been an attempt to strengthen the countrys leadership in the region and to mold European institutions, processes, and decisions to serve its interest and preferences (Hellmann, 2016: 9).

Furthermore, Germanys refugee response can be explained by examining not only the countrys economic capabilities but its potential economic gains from implementing an open-door policy. Germany desperately needs migrants to fill a growing shortage in the workforce due to an aging population and chronically low birthrates. Projections by Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, suggest that Germanys population will decline from 82 million to 65.4 million by 2080 (Lebor, 2015). Thus, Merkels response to the refugee crisis might have little to do with humanitarian concerns but the countrys long-term economic interests. In other words, it was the rational response to the crisis because the positive economic ramifications outweighed the costs. Because of it, Germany would acquire additional material capabilities and power, in terms of labor force and population. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 40% of Syrian refugees entering Europe at the time were university educated (idem). While Merkel never explicitly referred to the economic benefit of welcoming refugees, she argued that her decision would be in Germanys long-term interest if shaped so that it grows into something that is of benefit to us all (Connolly, 2015). Thus, the sharp reversal of policy in regard to Germanys refugee response was only possible because it was in alignment with the countrys national interest.

Moreover, realist theory provides a suitable explanation why Merkel called for a European solution to the crisis while defying European regulations as well as striking bilateral treaties with individual EU member countries, namely, Spain, Italy, and Greece. According to the EU Dublin III agreement, every refugees asylum claim has to be processed in the EU member country in which he/she first arrives. However, Merkel suspended the agreement on August 24, allowing all refugees who arrived in Europe to enter Germany. Whether her decision was grounded on humanitarian grounds or national interest is irrelevant. Important to note is, that she found Germanys sovereignty to exceed any international agreement, constituting a core realist assumption. Additionally, the Dublin agreement in itself can hardly be described as a product of solidarity and international cooperation as it pushes the burden onto the Mediterranean EU member states where nearly all refugees first arrive. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Germany valued its sovereignty more than any international agreement and that the suspension of the Dublin rule was in the countrys self-interest.

Furthermore, once Germanys willingness to accept refugees diminished, Merkel was instrumental in negotiating international treaties on the behalf of the EU to prevent further migration into Europe. Most notably, Merkel and the EU signed a treaty with Turkeys President Erdogan to prevent refugees from entering the EU through Greece. Turkey would monitor its coastline to avert further refugee migration into Europe and admit rejected asylum seekers from Greece. In return, Erdogan would receive six billion euros for the care of refugees and a pledge from the EU that it would consider visa free EU entry for Turks. This deal with an increasingly repressive leader on the back of refugees can hardly be explained normatively. However, realisms focus on power, security, and self-interest offers a rational for such agreement. Precisely, it was in the interest of Germany to prevent and discourage further refugees from taking a journey to the EU. With that goal in mind, there was no room for normative or humanitarian considerations (Funk, 2016: 290).

Realism offers a thorough and compelling explanation of Germanys response to the refugee crisis. It was in Germanys national interest to welcome refugees, because it would solidify its leadership in Europe and be of economic benefit. Moreover, the European Union and international cooperation should be neglected in the analysis as it had little to no impact on Merkels refugee response. Realism is well suited to explain why the international community failed to respond collectively. Furthermore, Germanys attempt to maintain its sovereignty played a key role in its policy considerations during the refugee crisis. Nevertheless, while realist IR theory provides a convincing explanation, significant shortcomings are visible. The theory is unable to make normative considerations, which is inadequate when analyzing a refugee crisis which is at its core a humanitarian crisis. Additionally, realism fails to see domestic factors within Germany which allowed Merkel to make the decision to implement an open-door policy.

After analyzing Germanys response to the 2015 refugee crisis through a liberal and realist lens, this article will conclude by contrasting each theorys findings. More precisely, it will outline each theorys strength and weaknesses, assessing what it can explain well and less well.

There is no doubt that the 2015 refugee crisis was a defining moment for Germanys position in the international system and Chancellor Merkels political future and legacy. However, liberalism and realism offer different explanations for Germanys response to the crisis. Liberal theory is well suited to highlight the moral and humanitarian considerations, while realism is unable to see any such concerns. Furthermore, both theories offer an explanation for the role of the European Union. However, while liberalism explains aspects of international cooperation and international norms and rules well, realisms strengths are in conceptualizing the lack of a unified European response to the refugee crisis. Moreover, realism provides a compelling analysis of issues linked to EU member states understanding of sovereignty. Nevertheless, realist theory is unable to see any factors within Germany which might have influenced the decision to implement an open-door policy. Chancellor Merkels individual policy preferences and her own beliefs, characteristics, and background can only be seen through a liberal analysis.

Liberalism and realism are both well suited to examine Germanys response to the 2015 refugee response. While they come to different conclusions on the dynamics behind Merkels decision, they are equally valid to offer an explanation. In other words, each theory can see some aspects well and others less well. Thus, this article highlights the importance of analyzing a global event through competing IR theories. Nevertheless, it has limitations due to its lone focus on liberal and realist theory. Future research is advised to examine the 2015 refugee crisis through other IR theories, including non-traditional ones (i.e. post-colonial, feminist). Moreover, an analysis of Germanys refugee response through the literature of individual IR scholars theoretical frameworks could offer additional interesting insight.

Betts, Alexander. The Normative Terrain of the Global Refugee Regime. Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 29 (4), 2015: 363-375.

Connolly, Kate. Refugee crisis: Germany creaks under strain of open door policy. The Guardian, 8 October 2015.

Eddy, Melissa. Angela Merkel Calls for European Unity to Address Migrant Influx. The New York Times, 31 August 2015.

Funk, Nanette. A spectre in Germany: refugees, a welcome culture and an integration politics. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 289-299.

Gibney, Matthew J. Liberal democratic states and responsibilities to refugees. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93 (1), 1999.

Hellmann, Gunther. Germanys world: power and followership in a crisis-ridden Europe. Journal of Global Affairs, 11 May 2016: 3-20.

Kornelius, Stefan. Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography. (London: Alma Books Ltd, 2014).

Kundnani, Hans. Angela Merkel: enigmatic leader of a divided land. The Guardian, 13 March 2016.

Laegaard, Sune. Misplaced idealism and incoherent realism in the philosophy of the refugee crisis. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 269-278.

Lebor, Adam. Angela Merkel: Europes Conscience in the Face of a Refugee Crisis. Newsweek Magazine, 5 September 2015.

Matthews, Elizabeth G. & Callaway, Rhonda L. Liberalism in International Relations Theory: A Primer. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Morgenthau, Hans (1946). A Realist Theory of International Politics. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

McAuley, James and Noack, Rick. What you need to know about Germanys immigration crisis. The Washington Post, 3 July 2018.

Mushaben, Joyce Marie. Angela Merkels Leadership in the Refugee Crisis. Current History, Vol. 116 (788), March 2017: 95-100.

Ostrand, Nicole. The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 3 (3), 2015: 255-279.

Sprout, Harald and Sprout, Margaret. Man-Milieu Relations Hypothesis in the Context of International Politics. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956).

Steinmeier, Frank-Walter. Germanys New Global Role: Berlin Steps Up. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 95 (4), 2016.

The Economist Group Limited. Merkel at Her Limit. The Economist, 10 October 2015.

Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

Betts, Alexander. The Normative Terrain of the Global Refugee Regime. Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 29 (4), 2015: 363-375.

Connolly, Kate. Refugee crisis: Germany creaks under strain of open door policy. The Guardian, 8 October 2015.

Eddy, Melissa. Angela Merkel Calls for European Unity to Address Migrant Influx. The New York Times, 31 August 2015.

Funk, Nanette. A spectre in Germany: refugees, a welcome culture and an integration politics. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 289-299.

Gibney, Matthew J. Liberal democratic states and responsibilities to refugees. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93 (1), 1999.

Hellmann, Gunther. Germanys world: power and followership in a crisis-ridden Europe. Journal of Global Affairs, 11 May 2016: 3-20.

Kornelius, Stefan. Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography. (London: Alma Books Ltd, 2014).

Kundnani, Hans. Angela Merkel: enigmatic leader of a divided land. The Guardian, 13 March 2016.

Laegaard, Sune. Misplaced idealism and incoherent realism in the philosophy of the refugee crisis. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 269-278.

Lebor, Adam. Angela Merkel: Europes Conscience in the Face of a Refugee Crisis. Newsweek Magazine, 5 September 2015.

Matthews, Elizabeth G. & Callaway, Rhonda L. Liberalism in International Relations Theory: A Primer. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Morgenthau, Hans (1946). A Realist Theory of International Politics. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

McAuley, James and Noack, Rick. What you need to know about Germanys immigration crisis. The Washington Post, 3 July 2018.

Mushaben, Joyce Marie. Angela Merkels Leadership in the Refugee Crisis. Current History, Vol. 116 (788), March 2017: 95-100.

Ostrand, Nicole. The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 3 (3), 2015: 255-279.

Sprout, Harald and Sprout, Margaret. Man-Milieu Relations Hypothesis in the Context of International Politics. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956).

Steinmeier, Frank-Walter. Germanys New Global Role: Berlin Steps Up. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 95 (4), 2016.

The Economist Group Limited. Merkel at Her Limit. The Economist, 10 October 2015.

Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

Go here to see the original:

Liberal and Realist Explanations of Merkel's "Open-Door Policy" During the 2015 Refugee Crisis - Inquiries Journal

I can hardly wait for the day when I will wake up from this nightmare, said Xiomara, 34, who spoke on condition that she be identified only by her first name because of security concerns.

One of her last acts of motherhood was to bathe and dress her daughter, after being told by border officials that Briselda, then 8, would be taken away. She said she watched helplessly as officials escorted Briselda to join a line of children, most of them crying, who were waiting to board a van bound for the airport.

For her daughters safety, Xiomara said she had preferred that Briselda remain in the United States with family rather than return to her in El Salvador. They are in regular contact over WhatsApp, she said, but the distance has taken an emotional toll, and Xiomara has battled depression and recently started seeing a therapist.

Others continue to suffer repercussions despite being reunited.

Fifteen days passed before Oscar, an immigrant from Honduras who was locked up in McAllen, Texas, heard from his son, Daniel, then 8, from whom he had been separated.

I felt mad. I was going crazy, recalled Oscar, 35, who spoke on condition that he be identified only by his middle name.

On a tearful call, his son told him he was staying in a shelter in Houston. Father and son were reunited after 33 days, thanks to a judges order, and they moved to Charlotte, N.C.

Since then, Oscar has been grappling with how to help his son, whom he described as not the same boy since we were separated. Daniel runs away whenever he sees someone in police uniform and wakes up screaming at night, Oscar said.

See the original post here:

Biden Inherits Family Separation Crisis From Trump - The New York Times

Leaders Message

The COVID-19 pandemic is ravaging the world physically, emotionally, and economically. And Latin America has been hit particularly hard. Migrant and refugee populations are feeling it the worst especially the children among them. Hunger and hardship reign as living conditions deteriorate for millions of families.

As of November 2020, nearly 5.5 million Venezuelans have ed the country seeking food, work, protection, and a more stable life. And about 7 million people inside Venezuela need humanitarian assistance. A recent World Vision survey of Venezuelan children in seven countries revealed that one in three of them goes to bed hungry. For those living in Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Venezuela, a lack of food and basic hygiene supplies, the fear of being evicted, and the absence of education is their everyday reality. We believe that restoring hope to the most vulnerable is the key to reversing this tragic trend of poverty and heartache brought on by societal collapse and a global pandemic.

Our multi-country response to the Venezuela crisis, Hope Without Borders, has brought hope to more than 455,000 Venezuelans and host-community residents since January 2019. Over the past two years, more than 115 World Vision staff and countless partners, community leaders, and volunteers expanded our response from one to six host countries and registered and grew our presence in Venezuela. The global response remains one of the least-funded crises in the world$648 million (U.S.) received of $1.4 billion required. For our part, World Vision has managed to nearly triple our budget from about $12 Million in 2019 to almost $34 million in 2020.

This report is testimony of the effectiveness of collaboration to ease the burden for and bring hope to those suffering most in this crisis. It is also proof of the overwhelming needs still at hand. The backbone of our work in Venezuela is the collaboration with Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs). In the midst of institutional failure, churches and other FBOs act as lifelines close to the needs of the most vulnerable.

Well-intentioned efforts to help struggling families endure this double crisis and break out of the cycle of poverty must be met with serious funding commitments by donors, private and public alike. As you read the following pages highlighting two years of impact by World Visions Venezuela Crisis Response, we hope you will be moved to walk with us to continue to bring hope to the most vulnerable children and families caught up in the Venezuela crisis.

Joao Diniz,Regional Leader World Vision Latin America

Fabiano Franz,Director World Visions Venezuela Migrant and Refugee Crisis Response

More:

Two years on: Hope in the midst of heartache - Venezuela Crisis Response Report 2019-2020 - Colombia - ReliefWeb

Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina Zoran Tegeltija talked yesterday with the Special Representative for Migration and Refugees of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe Drahoslav Stefanek about the current situation in BiH in the context of overcoming the migrant crisis.

Stefanek informed Tegeltija about previously held meetings, as well as his visits to migrant camps, emphasizing that the situation on the ground is significantly better compared to his findings based on media reports.

On this occasion, Chairman Tegeltija pointed out that BiH, as one of the countries particularly affected by the migrant crisis from the last quarter of 2017, pointing to the need for greater European Union solidarity on this issue.

The interlocutors agreed that greater coordination and joint cooperation of all relevant institutions and security agencies in the region would significantly contribute to improving the solution of the issue of illegal migration.

Follow this link:

Tegeltija: BiH unjustifiably bears a too heavy Burden of the Migrant Crisis - Sarajevo Times

New York, NY, February 2, 2021 The International Rescue Committee (IRC) welcomes the news today that President Joe Biden has signed multiple Executive Orders (EO) outlining a vision for renewed humanitarian focus seeking to reverse Trump-era immigration policies which needlessly criminalized asylum-seekers, separated families and damaged the US long-standing role and bipartisan tradition of providing safe haven for the worlds most vulnerable. The IRC applauds the Biden administrations measures, including:

Hans van de Weerd, Vice President for Resettlement, Asylum and Integration of the International Rescue Committee, said: With 80 million forcibly displaced people worldwide and counting-- the largest number since the Second World War-- restoring a humane and competent asylum system is absolutely indispensable. The past four years of the Trump Administration were a lesson in how not to tackle this crisis humanely and competently, cruelly separating families and penalizing them for fleeing violence and persecution, and strong-arming countries in Central America already in the midst of humanitarian emergencies. The Biden-Harris Administrations latest suite of executive orders are a moral necessity and a return to US traditions -- and a visible example of the values-based domestic and foreign policy to which the Administration has committed itself.

We look forward to continued reform of an unsafe, unfair and broken asylum system which has caused incredible and unnecessary damage to thousands of lives and the US legacy. We equally look forward to an immediate increase in the number of refugees allowed into America this year, an increase to a minimum of 125,000 in FY22, alongside continued policies for diplomacy and development that tackle displacement crises at their source.

About the IRC

The International Rescue Committee responds to the worlds worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is at work in over 40 countries and over 20 U.S. citieshelping people to survive, reclaim control of their future, and strengthen their communities.Learn more at http://www.rescue.org and follow the IRC on Twitter & Facebook.

View post:

With new suite of immigration Executive Orders, Biden is restoring humanity and competence to Americas asylum system - International Rescue Committee

An Afghan girl pulls her baby sister along in a pram through the mud and snow. Saman is six and baby Darya is 10 months old. They and their family have been pushed back into Bosnia 11 times by the Croatian police, who stripped Darya bare to check if the parents had hidden mobile phones or money in her nappy.

They searched her as though she were an adult. I could not believe my eyes, says Daryas mother, Maryam, 40, limping through the mud and clinging to a stick.

The Guardian followed the journey of Darya and that of dozens of other migrant children who, every day, walk, or are carried on their parents backs through the snowy paths that cross the woods around Bosanska Bojna, the last Bosnian village before the Croatian border, in an attempt to reach an increasingly inhospitable central Europe. Few families are successful. Most of them are stopped by Croatian police, searched, allegedly often robbed and, sometimes violently, pushed back into Bosnia, where, for months, thousands of asylum seekers have been stranded in freezing temperatures, without running water or electricity.

In December, fire destroyed a migrant camp in Bosnia, making the situation worse.

Out of a total of about 8,000 migrants in Bosnia, about 2,000 people are basically left to fend for themselves in abandoned buildings, squats, makeshift settlements and in forests, Nicola Bay, the Danish Refugee Councils Bosnia director, says. These people include families, children and unaccompanied minors that have practically no shelter, no access to basic services and no access to proper healthcare.

According to the council, in 2020 more than 800 children were pushed back by the Croatian authorities, including many under the age of six. The number of families living on the border between Croatia and Bosnia has increased considerably in recent months, and thus the number of children.

Most of those in transit have come from Greece, where a new law approved by Athens last year has stymied the administrative procedures for the recognition of refugee status. Tired of waiting, just when they thought their odyssey had ended, it has pushed many to get back on the road and try to reach the heart of the European Union through the Balkans.

Its very difficult to have a complete overview on the motivations pushing people to leave Greece and move north to the Balkan road to reach other destinations in Europe, says Stephan Oberreit, head of mission at Mdecins Sans Frontires (MSF) in Greece, but its clear that increasing delays in the asylum processes and in family reunification claims, the appalling living conditions, and lack of protection and integration lead people to continue their perilous journeys until they find safety and dignity.

It is a strenuous journey, crossing mountains and snow-covered forests, with virtually no welcoming facilities for migrants. Many of the children of the migrant crisis living in abandoned or destroyed houses in Bosanska Bojna today were born along the route, like Darya, whose name means sea, and who was born in Lesbos before a blaze in September destroyed the Moria camp.

We were tired of waiting for the Greek authorities to consider our asylum application, says Hasan, 52, the father of Darya and her six siblings, who left Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, a year and a half before. Hasan says that if there had been no war in his country, he would never have found himself in these forests, watching Croatian policemen search Daryas nappy the searching of babies being a common practice, according to the watchdog organisation Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN).

Although, in most cases, women and children are not directly subjected to physical violence by the Croatian authorities, they are still subjected to what can be described as psychological violence, abuse and humiliation, a field coordinator for BVMN, says. Women and young girls have reported being searched everywhere by male Croatian police officers. Moreover, there are incidents in which the police have searched childrens clothes or babies nappies, thinking their parents have hidden phones or money.

On 16 October 2019, two Palestinian and Syrian families were stopped near the village of Glina, Croatia, and forced to undress. The children were also searched and the babies diapers had to be removed. They were naked, in the forest, in the middle of the night, one told BVMN. In October, BVMN reported the case of an Afghan mother who described feeling uncomfortable when the male officers touched her body to look for phones and money, and then when an officer stuck his hand into the nappy of her 11-month-old baby boy.

We also have had a significant number of cases of women, some of them underage girls, being forced to strip by the Croatian police, Bay says. Their father is asked to cover them with a blanket. When you listen to their testimonies, they say, Im covering my teenage daughter with a blanket, but theres obviously one part of the blanket where you can see through, because you cant pull it all the way around and theres a policeman standing right there.

Numerous women say they were beaten in front of their children, who were also pushed around.

During the last pushback, my four-year-old son, Milad, asked the police for water, Maryam tells the Guardian. But the Croatians denied him, took him by the shoulder and pushed him away. I tried to react and explain to them that they couldnt do it. Then they kicked me on the back and I rolled to the ground. Today, we will try to cross the border again and inshallah, we hope to make it.

On the road that leads from the Bosanska Bojna valley to the Croatian forest trails, other families leave their shelters and set off again with their entourage of children and strollers. Today, we go for game! yells a smiling six-year-old.

Although there is little fun, the game is what migrants call the crossing from Bosnia into Croatia so that their children see it as a sort of adventure, with the aim of not being caught by the men in black uniforms who hide in the woods. The goal is to reach an elusive place called France, Italy or the UK. In the frost and the mountains, they are encouraged by their parents to play, chasing each other and climbing trees.

But in the late evening, when the children return to their wet and crumbling shelters in Bosanska Bojna, after being pushed back once again by Croatian police, it is easy to see that they did not have fun.

Families including children, the elderly, women and young men who experience this brutality will carry the psychological trauma with them for years, says Maham Hashmi, an MSF humanitarian officer. They will always have in mind that Europe brutalised them instead of protecting them and their right to seek asylum.

The most common mental health issues that we observe among children on the move are related to symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress as a result of the violence they have witnessed and that can potentially leave long-term consequences on their mental health, says Tatiana Olivero, a coordinator in Bosnia and Herzegovina for Mdecins du Monde (Doctors of the World). These children have been through highly stressful experiences, such as war and persecution in their country of origin, and have witnessed violence during their path towards Europe, including the abusive treatments imposed on their parents during multiple pushbacks. Some are losing hope for the future and see their childhood denied.

Zohra, 33, a Kabul lawyer and mother of four, says her children are struggling: When we get our things ready for the crossing, my children dont want to go. They cry because they are afraid of being pushed back, or being kicked, like last time.

In 2016, a bomb attack during Ramadan killed her seven-year-old son. His twin, Nourin, now 11, was paralysed on one side of her body. Last November alone in Kabul, a series of bomb attacks launched by insurgents left at least 88 people dead and more than 193 injured. But many European countries continue to repatriate asylum seekers to Afghanistan.

During the lastest attempt at crossing, captured on Guardian cameras, Nourin and her siblings remained hidden for almost an hour in a dried-out ditch at the side of a trail, as two Croatian policemen guarded the area from a hill less than 200 metres away. Zohra and her husband, Ibrahim, later decided this was too much of a risk and not a good time to move on. They will try again tomorrow. During their five-month stay in Bosnia, they have been pushed back 37 times, despite informing the border authorities of their request for asylum.

The pushback record in Bosanska Bojna is held by Fariba Azizi and his three children who, at around 7pm on 22 January returned from the Bosanska Bojna woods after their 54th pushback. When they got back, they found their shelter reduced to rubble: Bosnian special forces that week burned all the informal migrant camps in Bosanska Bojna. According to charities, citizens in the area had protested over the presence of migrants in those places. But mostly the inhabitants of the villages around Bosanska Bojna offer food, blankets and clothing to the migrants. Memories of the war are still fresh in many Bosnians minds. They know all too well what it means to be forced out of their homes.

Of at least eight families the Guardian followed over five days last week, only two managed to cross the border into Croatia. On 28 January, Daryas family informed the Guardian they had made it to Zagreb. It is an important step, but not the last. There are many cases of migrants who reach Croatia and are sent back to Bosnia by the authorities there. The same happens in Slovenia and Italy, where, last week, the court of Rome declared more than 700 pushbacks perpetrated by Italian police in Slovenia illegal.

Pushbacks are illegal, whether they are violent or not, it doesnt matter, says Bay. They fundamentally undermine the right to international protection. Croatian pushbacks are a consequence of EU policy aimed at transferring the responsibility for protecting people outside of the EU. It has become a situation in which member states regularly ignore, circumvent or directly violate EU law, and this has [become] a standard way of managing borders.

The perpetrators need to be held accountable. For member states that dont comply with these measures, there have to be real consequences. There have to be sanctions of some form. Up until now, for years, essentially, there has been impunity for violations of European [Union] laws.

The Croatian ministry of the interior told the Guardian said they will thoroughly investigate the incidents, including alleged violence against children. However, a spokesperson said in order to achieve their goal, migrants are willing to use all means necessary, including bringing their own lives and the lives of their family into danger, knowing that if they find themselves in such a dangerous situation that the Croatian police will save their lives. Likewise, if the Croatian police prevents them in their attempt of illegal entry, they are ready to falsely accuse the same Croatian police of violence and obstruction of access to the system of international protection.

We would like to point out that the Croatian police are authorised to check persons and their luggage in order to find items which may be used to escape, attack or inflict self-harm. This is a legal power, which police officers regularly exercise during their work in order to protect themselves and to establish general security, they added.

In the email, the minister announced that a group of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) intended to visit Croatia to observe the Croatian polices anti-immigration practices.

The delegation of Italian MEPs, belonging to the parliamentary group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), arrived in Zagabria last Saturday. They decided to visit the Bosnian border area that same day to witness migrants as they make their way into Europe. But their plans were immediately thwarted as Croatian police chased and stopped them just as they reached the check-point at the Bosnian border, sparking a row in Italy.

This is a grave act, without precedent, the MEPs told the guards as the Italian newspaper Avvenire filmed the exchange. Whats beyond that border? What do you want to hide from us?.

Bosanska Bojna, with hundreds of children stranded in the snow, lies just on the other side.

Some names have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals.

Sign up for the Global Dispatch newsletter a fortnightly roundup of our top stories, recommended reads, and thoughts from our team on key development and human rights issues:

Originally posted here:

Police searched my baby's nappy': migrant families on the perilous Balkan route - The Guardian

During the springtime lockdowns in Europe, a poem-turned-video you clap for me now, went viral. Its message was to protect the migrants in the EU, who work to keep home-office populations safe, but who often face discrimination and stigmatization.

Between 13% and a third of essential workers are migrants.

Many are left behind in terms of access to unemployment benefits and spiral into hunger, poverty, isolation, and illness. Out of 250,000 undocumented migrants in Switzerland, 90,000 have not accessed healthcare during the pandemic, for fear of being detected, denounced and deported.

Migrants are at a triple loss by the pandemicnot only are their jobs more precarious, their journeys more perilous, but they also face twice the risk of contracting the virus than non-migrant populations.

At the peak of the refugee crisis in 2015/16, some EU Member States raised the resettlement conflict to the UN in the hopes that sharing responsibility for large population movements would be resolved more evenly at the global level. This led to the formation of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM). The GCM figures as the first UN-led global instrument entirely devoted to international migration, which, even if not legally binding, restates the existing international legal obligations on migration and provides a benchmark of where the protection of migrants human rights currently stands at.

The UN Agenda 2030, is a non-binding UN instrument, adopted in 2015, which commits states to achieving 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Though the Agenda does not have a particular focus on migration, it does address issues that are vital to migrant rights such inequality, labor and education, calling for well-managed migration policies that facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility. Other goals include eradicating poverty and hunger, achieving gender equality as well as health, and well being.

In 2020, COVID-19 was a big test for these UN initiatives. But have they proven useful in the response to the global pandemic especially in protecting migrants?

Surprisingly little can be found in the GCMs 23 objectives about mitigating the effects of a public health emergency, including COVID-19 on migrants. Data about how COVID-19 affects the migration lifecycle is still scant. The GCMs objectives are still far from being achieved, especially when it comes to access to basic services, empowering migrants or eliminating discrimination. In its current form, the GCM is more set to strengthen the global governance of migration under the auspices of the International Organisation for Migration rather than allow a deviation from it.

States like Italy, Portugal and Spain, have been experimenting with regularising undocumented migrant populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is no international framework to monitor and review these one-off programs.

They remain subject to potential arbitrariness, fraud by employers or selectiveness.

For instance, in Italy protection only included undocumented migrants who work in the frontlines, leaving out those working in construction or logistics. More global oversight can help avoid such arbitrary or short sighted decisions and to make sure the rights of migrants are protected and health prevention during the pandemic is insured.

In addition to Italy, Portugal also regularised the status of undocumented migrants who were carrying out frontline functions, including harvesting, healthcare and domestic work. Likewise, Spain considers normalising its roughly 430,000 undocumented migrants. It is no coincidence that the pandemic prompted the city councils of Geneva and Zurich to finally implement a city card for the undocumented, allowing them to seek emergency health care and allowing their children to access schools.

Clearly, to regularise status, means improving access of migrants to health, education, food, and shelter. Yet, the EU return directive only justifies case-by-case authorisations of stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons.

Follow this link:

COVID-19 was a big test for UN migration initiatives. Did they succeed? - Open Democracy

Ministers swell with pride as they speak of profound ties of history and friendship, while polling shows that a substantial majority of Britons are in favour and newspaper headlines are overwhelmingly positive.

Immigration has always been a contentious issue in Britain. So why, as the UK opens a path to citizenship for millions of Hong Kong residents, is it different this time?

Hong Kong Chinese are seen as a model minority, successors to the status of Ugandan Asians: a thrifty, entrepreneurial and family-oriented community who will skimp to send their children to private schools and boost Britains economic fortunes, while quietly demonstrating that other ethnic minorities could be equally successful if they worked a little harder.

Journalists have been briefed that Priti Patel, daughter of Ugandan Asians, sees this as personal, and a headline in the Times made the link explicit: Hong Kong crisis: Ugandan Asians offer golden example.

Britain is doing the right thing. But the good migrant narrative coalescing around the Hong Kong Chinese is risky for them as well as for other British people of colour.

The impulses behind this narrative combine the imperial nostalgia that helped power Brexit, an importing of US conservative politics, and a racialised caricature of why the Asian tiger economies Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea have been so successful.

First, the imperial element. Hong Kongs achievement is seen as an extension of empire, based on the attractions of the English language and rule of law. As the Adam Smith Institute fellow Sam Bowman put it: under British rule, it enjoyed property rights and the rule of law, which made it a magnet for Chinese refugees fleeing the communist regime.

There is a grain of truth in this account, though it ignores the crucial geographic and economic facts that underpin Hong Kongs position today. The territory is the conduit between global capital and Chinas largely closed financial system. This role will continue to fuel Hong Kongs economy even if many of its people leave for Britain, and it is not a business they can export with them.

Both Hong Kong and Singapore adapted elements of their colonial heritage and made them work for their economic benefit. Both places have also deployed colonial laws to repress their people. Last September, the Hong Kong democracy activist Tam Tak-chi, a former radio presenter known as Fast Beat, was charged under a sedition law, the Crimes Ordinance, brought in by the British to curb dissent. If were going to remember imperial history, lets do so in full.

Second, being generous to Hongkongers neatly complements the Conservative partys new obsession, a hawkish attitude to China. The China Research Group, launched last year by a group of Conservative MPs, makes valid criticisms of Chinas human rights abuses and Beijings cavalier attitude to international law. But the launch of this group is also a signal of a pricklier and more combative turn in British conservative attitudes to Beijing, echoing the hostility to China in US Republican circles.

Third, there is a simplified version of the tigers story that emphasises the natural abilities of hardworking people allied to Confucian culture. This is a modern-day version of old-fashioned stereotypes about colonial races.

In 1915, an Australian management consultant who had just toured factories in an Asian country fretted about the quality of its workforce. The workers, he concluded, were a very satisfied easy-going race who reckon time is no object. The country in question was Japan, and the story, told in Ha Joon Changs Bad Samaritans, is a reminder of the fluidity of the cultural narratives we use to explain the world.

The success of places like Hong Kong and Singapore has to do with effective governance and astute economic policy decisions, such as containerising their ports earlier than competitor nations and focusing on export-oriented industrialisation. Harnessing the talent and efforts of their labour force is a part of this story. But this, too, is a consequence of policy rather than innate genius. An exceptional education is part of the answer here: Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea all rank among the highest-performing school systems in the world, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Hongkongers will reshape our societies in ways that we cant predict. Postwar Commonwealth migration, including the arrival of Ugandan Asians, helped bring about a reckoning with race relations that sought to tackle Britains deep-seated racism. More recently, eastern European migration was exploited to drum up anti-EU sentiment.

One of my closest friends is the son of migrants from Hong Kong and Singapore. His Hong Kong Chinese mother fulfilled one part of the immigrant dream by working as a nurse to put her son through the best (private) education she could afford. She was baffled, to put it mildly, when my friend pursued an erratic career as a film-maker and visual artist rather than choose a more secure and lucrative profession.

The point of this anecdote is that people are people, with all of the complex desires and varied talents that this implies. It is risky to assume that an infusion of Hong Kong migration will give Britain an entrepreneurial rocket boost. Worse, a handful of cherrypicked success stories could easily become a stick to beat others with.

Hongkongers seeking a new life in Britain are not economic assets. The reason to welcome them is, simply, because it is just. And their freedom should include the freedom to be a slacker.

More:

Britain should welcome Hongkongers, but not the 'good migrant' narrative - The Guardian

Keely Jordan, Todd P. Lewis & Bayard Roberts

Abstract

Background

There is a growing concern that the quality of health systems in humanitarian crises and the care they provide has received little attention. To help better understand current practice and research on health system quality, this paper aimed to examine the evidence on the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings.

Methods

This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The context of interest was populations affected by humanitarian crisis in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). We included studies where the intervention of interest, health services for populations affected by crisis, was provided by the formal health system. Our outcome of interest was the quality of the health system. We included primary research studies, from a combination of information sources, published in English between January 2000 and January 2019 using quantitative and qualitative methods. We used the High Quality Health Systems Framework to analyze the included studies by quality domain and sub-domain.

Results

We identified 2285 articles through our search, of which 163 were eligible for full-text review, and 55 articles were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. Poor diagnosis, inadequate patient referrals, and inappropriate treatment of illness were commonly cited barriers to quality care. There was a strong focus placed on the foundations of a health system with emphasis on the workforce and tools, but a limited focus on the health impacts of health systems. The review also suggests some barriers to high quality health systems that are specific to humanitarian settings such as language barriers for refugees in their host country, discontinued care for migrant populations with chronic conditions, and fears around provider safety.

Conclusion

The review highlights a large gap in the measurement of quality both at the point of care and at the health system level. There is a need for further work particularly on health system measurement strategies, accountability mechanisms, and patient-centered approaches in humanitarian settings.

Go here to read the rest:

Quality in crisis: a systematic review of the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings - World - ReliefWeb

Politics, and media coverage of politics, is powered by conflict and spectacle. But the social scientist Andrew Markus wants to focus on something quieter: the resilience and optimism of Australians during a crisis; a country under duress that chose not to fracture.

Markus is the principal researcher on the Scanlon Foundations annual Social Cohesion report a project that has mapped a migrant nation since 2007. The report published on Thursday is a snapshot of a country managing a once-in-a-century crisis.

The research (sample size 3,090 respondents) is normally conducted in July. Given Australia was at that time about to tip into a second wave of coronavirus infections in Victoria, and had slipped into the first recession for 30 years, the Monash University emeritus professor was puzzled when many of the snapshots of community sentiment were positive.

That seemed counterintuitive.

To be certain of the findings, a second survey of 2,793 respondents was conducted in November. In November, we again got very positive data, he says. By positive data, this is what Markus means. Stepping through his findings, a supermajority was on board with Scott Morrisons response to the crisis, and the level of trust in government in Australia hit the highest point in the history of the survey.

People had confidence in the public health response. More than 90% of respondents in the five mainland states said lockdowns to suppress transmission were definitely or probably required. While the Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, endured a period of being flogged by the Murdoch media for locking down the state, 78% of respondents backed Andrews, and when they were asked whether the lockdown was required, 87% said yes.

While America and Britain battled resurgent nativism, the inward turn triggered by the global financial crisis of a decade ago, Australians, walled in behind a preemptive international border closure, and marooned periodically behind hard state borders, continued to look to the world.

The survey asked respondents whether globalisation was good or bad. More than 70% of respondents in the two surveys said good. While protectionism was back in vogue, and the global economy convulsed because of a trade war between a real autocrat in Beijing and an aspirational one in Washington, in 2020, Australians looked through the static and continued to believe trade with the world was good for the country.

As governments put businesses into hibernation around the country during the first wave, the economy tanked and consumption stalled, one in four respondents had their jobs impacted jobs lost, hours wound back.

This cohort was more inclined to pessimism about the future than other respondents, and less sanguine about the health of their household balance sheet. But 73% of respondents remained satisfied or very satisfied with their financial outlook a result up almost 10 points on that recorded in mid-2019. Canberra rolled out income support and the household savings ratio notched up a record rise.

Young people bore the brunt of the crisis. Reflecting that reality, Australians under 24 in the survey were less optimistic about the future than people over 24. A couple of indicators bear this out: 58% of respondents aged between 18 and 24 say they are optimistic compared with more than 70% of respondents aged from 25 to 74, and less young respondents agree with the proposition that Australia is a land of economic opportunity where hard work yields a better life (61% compared with 72% of the 25-34-year-old cohort).

But rather than blame outsiders which is a common default during times of high unemployment young Australians remain more positive about immigration, multiculturalism and ethnic diversity than older Australians. Only 18% of people aged between 18 and 24 agree with the idea that immigrants take away jobs from Australians, while 30% of people in older cohorts agree.

Australians continue to support multiculturalism. The idea that multiculturalism has been good for Australia is strongly supported, with 84% of the sample agreeing in 2020, up four points in a year. But while Australians strongly support a diverse society at a time when multiculturalism is regarded as a failed project in some parts of the world, there is a flipside. We profess to support multiculturalism but Australians can also harbour negative sentiment about Africans, Asians and people from the Middle East. The survey terms this a hierarchy of ethnic preference.

With Donald Trump adding the Chinese virus to the lexicon, 59% of Chinese Australians surveyed observed that racism in Australia during the Covid crisis was either a very big problem or a fairly big problem. The Scanlon Foundation also undertook a separate survey between May and June, tapping sentiment from 500 Chinese Australians on WeChat. Asked whether they had experienced discrimination during the crisis, 27% said yes and a further 20% declined to answer the question.

Markus says he has reflected on why many Australians have experienced one of the toughest years of their lives, but have remained largely positive. Australia was not in such a bad position prior to the pandemic when you compare Australia with England and the United States.

Both of those societies were seriously fractured prior to the pandemic. Brexit sharply divided England, as did Donald Trump in the United States, he says.

There have been times when Australia has been much more fractious under the leadership of Tony Abbott as opposed to the leadership of Scott Morrison, and I think Anthony Albanese can struggle to position himself but he is basically a consensus figure.

This made it possible for Australia to respond to the pandemic quickly and in a cohesive way. To me this is the key point: we possibly undervalue the good things about Australia and how Australians will respond in a crisis, Markus says.

This, for me, is a really big takeaway and its important because it is probably not acknowledged. What we get in the media is the cut and thrust of politics rather than the long-term fundamental understanding of what works in Australia and what doesnt work.

Read the original:

Toughing out Covid: how Australias social fabric held together during a once-in-a-century crisis - The Guardian

Covid-19 is a crisis like no other. And, expectedly, it has wreaked havoc on the Government of India (GoI)s financial arithmetic as it struggled to deal with collapsing tax revenues and increased expenditure pressures. Therefore, there are two questions that need to be asked of the FY 2021 budget.

How did the Union government reorient its macro-fiscal position to counteract the economic fallout of the pandemic and what does this reveal about the nature of the policy choices made by the government to respond to the Covid-19-induced economic crisis? Second, what does the budget offer as a policy pathway to nurture the economy back to health in FY 2021-22?

In FY 21, the lockdown-induced freeze on the economy expectedly resulted in a collapse in revenues while expenditure pressures increased. Revenue receipts collapsed from 20.2 lakh crore to 15.5 lakh crore, expenditure increased from 30.4 lakh crore to 34.5 lakh crore, as did the one number that the government has thus far worried about the most the fiscal deficit.

Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman must be congratulated for breaking with tradition and being transparent about the fiscal deficit numbers while offering a path to fiscal consolidation by FY 2025-26. Importantly, she has discontinued the practice of off-budget borrowing for food subsidy. However, a closer look at the numbers reveals a more complex picture.

First, while tax revenues fell, the real hit to the Centres finances came from a fall in disinvestment receipts and bringing off budget expenditure back on to the budget. The fall in net tax revenue to the Centre is responsible for a mere 1% of the rise in fiscal deficit numbers. Second, most of the increase in expenditure outlays is driven by the food and fertiliser subsidy (around 80%). Increases in health accounted for 3.88%. Third, the share of states in the divisible pool of taxes fell from 32% in the budgeted estimates to 28.9% (Revised Estimates 2020-21).

Three facts emerge about the macro fiscal picture. First, the government has increasingly relied on the assumption that proceeds from disinvestment will fund its expenditure commitments. In good times, this is bad fiscal management. But in times of pandemic, this can be seriously damaging. The governments reluctance to adopt an expansionary fiscal stance in response to the pandemic is a consequence of historical fiscal mismanagement rather than the Covid-19-induced economic shock. The emphasis on disinvestment in this budget, while welcome, risks a similar fate. The government will have to urgently double down in FY 22 to meet these targets.

Second, expenditure increases in FY 21 were limited to subsidies and essential relief through the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). Overall, in FY 21, expenditure increased from a 13.53% of GDP Budget Estimates (BE) to 17.74% in RE. However, because GDP contracted significantly in FY 21, these numbers overstate the magnitude of increase in expenditure. It is important to note that transfers from centrally-sponsored schemes (including MGNREGS whose allocations increased by 81% over budget estimates) increased by 14%, suggesting significant contraction in expenditure for other schemes in FY 21. Finally, state governments, at the frontlines of the Covid-19 battle, have been forced to rely on market borrowing as their share in the central government taxes fell significantly. The consequences of this on state budgets, that have displayed far greater fiscal discipline than the Centre will be significant, in the long-term.

As this column noted in a pre-budget piece, the post-lockdown economic recovery is showing signs of deepening structural inequality. Economic activity has reached near pre-pandemic levels, but this is largely profit-led. Large listed firms have profited at the cost of small firms and the informal sector. And the scars in the labour market, particularly informal labour, run deep. Reversing this trend is both a moral imperative and good economic sense after all, if purchasing power remains low for the bulk of the economy, demand will collapse.

In this context, the FY 22 budget ought to have increased expenditure for welfare, provided for an inclusive social protection architecture that protects vulnerable groups especially migrant workers, and increased capital expenditure. At first glance, the government has only done the last.

Several important announcements have aimed at reforming what economist Arvind Subramanian has called the software a bad bank, the proposal for a DFI, and bank recapitalisation. All of these are steps in the right direction. However, these increases will not immediately translate into employment and increased wages for the poor.

There are continuing governance challenges, which will not be addressed overnight. In this context, it is a mistake to assume that FY 22 will present space to the government to curtail its welfare expenditures. But the FY 22 budget cuts allocations to food subsidy and MGNREGS. It offers no comfort that the government, in response to the migrant crisis, will address the extreme vulnerabilities faced by Indias informal sector and urban workers. Expenditure in FY 22 will see little planned growth over FY 21.

The pandemic has disproportionately impacted Indias poor and vulnerable. The hope was that this budget would, by adopting an expansionist fiscal stance, respond to their needs while putting the economy back on track. It has not.

Yamini Aiyar is president and chief executive of the Centre for Policy Research

The views expressed are personal

Continue reading here:

Decoding the budget and the economics of welfare - Hindustan Times

The past year did not end as much as it was ending. Steeped in a crisis that continues to rage, it unfolded like pages of a dystopian novel where the paranoia of a climactic collapse overtook luxury of any foreshadowing. Suddenly, everyone across the world was tethered to a reality that seemed incredulously remote and frighteningly close. As if at long last all were equal, if only in their fears. It is this ubiquity of horror and deathly wait for an end that makes Arati Kadavs 55 km/sec a short film anticipating the destruction of the world due to an incoming meteor straight out of the times we are inhabiting.

Art draws from life, adapts it. It also re-frames existence, transforming occurrences into stories and circumstances into plot points. Art then is associated with excess. But when reality is unprecedented and disproportionate, art ceases to be just about representation. Instead, it becomes a site of possibilities. In the last year alone, pandemic and the unique danger it posed, served as a premise for multiple creative outings.

In the lockdown thriller The Gone Game (streaming on Voot), imperative isolation and initial constrictions are weaponised to showcase the ease with which preventive measures, in place to protect us, can be manipulated to fake death if need be. In Unpaused (streaming on Amazon Prime), pandemic-ridden disruption is fleshed out across five segments by different directors. They touch upon a host of issues, all stemming from the present halt we are participants of. One envisions a futuristic world were living with the virus leaks into the way people date, going as far as to suggest virtual meetups as the way out. And more than one emphasises on the parallel reality lockdown inadvertently led to: migrant crisis. But both series identify the pervasive crisis as a hindrance to the way of life, an inconvenience. The creativity then, is reflected in what they make out of that obstacle.

Kadav seemingly roots her film in this territory, choosing her characteristic sci-fi genre as the medium. It is not a virus but a meteor coming towards the earth for 25 days which withholds the possibility of a complete collapse. Its effects are cataclysmic: the shock will kill people and those surviving will perish from the consequences. Even though the threat differs, the results are strikingly similar: equality of dread counterpoised by inequality of access. Those privileged will be staying in space stations, news anchors inform. Government has created bunkers for the common people but there are too few and some are already crumbling. 55 km/sec then is a succinct critique on the present rampant capitalisation of misery, inefficiency of the government and widening chasm between the have(s) and have-not(s).

But the short in its 23-minute runtime also looks where other lockdown dramas failed to. Through it, Kadav trains her lens beyond the affluent and afflicted, to those sitting quietly in their rooms long before the staying in was a necessity. She looks at loners who, so used-to not drawing attention to themselves, were overlooked by those telling stories of the pandemic as well. She represents them.

At the core, 55 km/sec is an uneven love story where an introverted boy (Suraj) finally musters courage to confess his feelings to his erstwhile college mate over a Zoom call. As a final goodbye, a group of ten friends come together to share their last thoughts, seconds before the complete collapse (Kadav, too, makes an appearance). Suraj (Mrinal Dutt) is one of them, so is Srishti (Richa Chadha), the woman he loved and who is now married with a kid. The admission comes out of desperation, of letting her finally know, now since there can be no consequences. But it is their phone conversation later (the meteor collision time was miscalculated) that stayed with me.

When asked if he is scared, Suraj answers he isnt. Being a recluse, he never felt connected with anybody else. Ironically it was the prospect of being confronted with a similar threat, of dying with everybody that gave him a sense of togetherness. And this remains my biggest takeaway from Kadavs short its acknowledgement of perpetual loners who find a sense of acceptance in the unlikeliest of situations. It underlines that despite the hazard it entailed, the common catastrophe enabled some to truly belong, if for the first and last time.

So much of the lockdown has been about the way it curbed mobility and upended possibilities of meetings. So much of its depiction has been about the inconvenience it posed. But for many who have been lonely, this also became a strange time when for once they felt together in their loneliness. In Olivia Laings exquisite The Lonely City where the author viscerally describes urban loneliness with all its shame and embarrassment, the feeling of being alone is captured in a gut-wrenching line: What does it feel to be lonely? she asks, and then answers, It feels like being hungry: like being hungry when everyone around you is readying for a feast. If there is one perverse silver lining to these horrific times it is this: the ravaging hunger is now shared, and for some, this is the closest they have come to feeling satiated.

(55 km/sec is streaming on Disney + Hotstar)

For more lifestyle news, follow us: Twitter:lifestyle_ie|Facebook:IE Lifestyle| Instagram:ie_lifestyle

Visit link:

55 km/sec by Arati Kadav: An unlikely crisis drama that looks beyond the afflicted and the affluent - The Indian Express