Mediaboss Marketing

BRUSSELS For Europe, the coronavirus could not have arrived at a worse time.

This was the year with Britain out, terrorism waning and the migrant crisis at an ebb that the European Union had hoped to repair and revive its cherished goal of open internal borders.

But cases of the virus have emerged nearly daily in new European countries in Spain, Greece, Croatia, France, Switzerland and, on Wednesday, in Germany. Many of them can be traced back to Europes largest outbreak, in Italy, where more than 300 people are now infected.

[Update: Nigeria records Sub-Saharan Africas first case of coronavirus.]

As the cases spread and multiply, calls for closing borders have grown louder, most predictably from the far right and populists who were never fans of the blocs open border policy

So far no country has taken that drastic step, but privately European officials warned that this could change quickly. On Wednesday, the blocs top official for communicable diseases said that Europe needed to prepare more broadly for the kind of crisis that has hit northern Italy.

Our current assessment is that we will likely see a similar situation in other countries in Europe, and that the picture may vary from country to country, said the official, Andrea Ammon, director of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

We also need to consider the need to prepare for other scenarios for example, large clusters elsewhere in Europe, she added, speaking at a news conference in Rome.

While she urged far greater coordination among European Union members, she stopped well short of recommending that they start shutting their borders.

Other health experts argued that such a step would be of dubious benefit in any case.

Travel restrictions dont work: people find another way around it, it might only slow the virus down, said Dr. Clare Wenham, of the London School of Economics Global Health Initiative.

The free movement of people and goods is a cornerstone of the European Union, referred to by the shorthand Schengen, after the city in Luxembourg where the 1985 treaty that created what is now a 26-nation, passport-free zone was signed.

Europeans consider it one of the blocs biggest achievements. But if it has nurtured prosperity and become a fundamental building block of European identity, it has also, practically speaking, been suffering a death by a thousand cuts.

Updated Feb. 26, 2020

The latest came in 2015, when a number of countries suspended Schengen to allow full control over their borders and stop refugees who had landed in Greece and elsewhere from making their way to the wealthier European north.

The rules allow for the temporary reintroduction of border checks for specific reasons, including terrorist attacks, major migrant surges or health emergencies.

The key, though, is the word temporary. A country can suspend the rules, but it needs to explain why its doing it, and in theory it cant carry out border controls for longer than two years, according to existing rules.

In what experts argue is an abuse of the rules, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Norway have practically scrapped Schengen and have been checking passports of travelers arriving from other member states for the past four and a half years, using legal maneuvers to circumvent the two-year limit.

Schengen is in a very poor and problematic state, said Marie De Somer, the head of the migration program at the Brussels-based think tank European Policy Center, adding that restoring it to its full functionality hinges on reforming the blocs asylum and migration rules.

The virus is yet another challenge, as it has given new ammunition to nationalists who want to see borders tightened or restored even before the contagion arrived.

Eric Ciotti, a French parliamentarian from the region bordering Italy and a member of the right-wing Republican party, called for reinforced border controls before it is too late.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally, weighed in, also calling for border closures with Italy.

And in Switzerland, which isnt a European Union member but does participate in the border-free area, Lorenzo Quadri of the right-wing Lega dei Ticinesi, called for a closed-doors policy.

It is alarming that the dogma of wide-open borders is considered a priority, he said.

Long before the virus, many nationalists, led by Hungarys prime minister, Viktor Orban, had complained that Europe could not have open internal borders if its outer borders were weak, allowing asylum seekers to enter unchecked.

The European Commission was trying to put together a plan to fix Europes asylum system, including bolstering Frontex, the European Union border agency, by adding staff and funding and stepping up its operations at the blocs external borders.

But the plan is facing resistance because it also aims to create a system for distributing asylum seekers, something Hungary is likely to veto.

The divisions over the policy are manifold. Germany wants all countries to take refugees whether they like it or not. Greece wants asylum seekers quickly taken out of its detention centers. Italy doesnt want rescue boats to take refugees to its ports. The list of complaints goes on.

Ms. De Somer said that its impossible to know the true impact of the suspension because Germany and the other countries that have reintroduced border controls have shared little information on how theyre using these checks and with what outcomes.

We have very few figures on how the suspension of Schengen affects people, and its likely theres not much to show for it. That tells us this is about symbolism rather than about practical issues: Its about politics rather than policy, she said.

European officials working on a migration overhaul that will affect borderless travel say that the virus is at the very least a setback for their efforts, as it offers populists another opportunity to underline the importance of national border controls. The virus, some officials said, could offer a reason to kick the can down the road, avoiding a thorny subject bound to cause division.

Ms. De Somer, of the European Policy Center, is more optimistic. She thinks that even if border checks are reintroduced because of the virus, it could be an opportunity to show that Schengen is flexible and can work to protect citizens.

If health experts and the commission recommend this, then it would show the system actually can function even in a crisis, she said.

The catch?

The checks would need to be lifted according to the rules, when the threat from the virus goes away.

Monika Pronczuk contributed reporting.

More:
Coronavirus Nightmare Could Be the End for Europes Borderless Dream - The New York Times

The context for The Hungry and the Fat, Timur Vermess new satirical novel, is not as far-fetched as all that. Were just a short distance in the future, a time when a prosperous Europe is under pressure to formulate its responses to the massive refugee camps that are swelling all over Africa. (Significantly, this setting is explicitly post-Merkel Germany, in the years following the major influx of refugees allowed under her leadership.) Enter a TV producer, who can think of no better way to handle the global crisis than to send his star-of-the-moment to visit one of the large African camps and meet some of its inhabitants. It will be the perfect culmination of the companys hit reality series, Angel in Adversity, adored by viewers and advertisers alike. What could possibly go wrong The beautiful, elegant and vacuous Nadeche Hackenbusch shows up at the two-million-person camp, where she is welcomed as an angel. One of the refugees who has been employed to help around the camp calls her Malaika, because thats what angels are in Swahili; she, meanwhile, calls him Lionel because well, for reasons too involved to go into here.

Once they have met, Lionel (handsome, charismatic, seemingly mysterious) becomes one of the main drivers of the plot, as he devises a simple, if outlandish, idea to get himself and his friends away from their protracted desert hopelessness and up into Germany. But watching back home, how will Germanys reality TV audience feel about this new development? Its one thing to pity people suffering terribly 12,000 kilometres away, but quite another to want a few hundred thousand of them showing up on ones own border.

So what is the German government to do about it? Well, lets just say that the Overton window shifts terrifyingly fast. The dramatic climax to which this story builds asks who might be the casualties of such a confrontation and, conversely, who might do rather well out of it? And what, if anything, will people learn from the experience and the outcome?

As Vermess book is a work of satire, it would be unfair to tax it too harshly for its lack of interest in conveying complex characterisation or actual plausibility (we get little real sense of the refugees themselves); but its still a shame that its targets are such easy ones. There is a greedy, mostly amoral TV producer; a self-absorbed media star; a magazine features writer obsessed with celebrity access, whose lofty regard for her own journalistic work is matched by no discernible qualities; and a young politician who is quick to compromise principle for ambition. For all its original twists, Im not sure this is as bold as it thinks it is.

That said, The Hungry and the Fat is an immensely enjoyable read: it manages to avoid the common problem of diminishing returns (impressive for a single piece of satire spanning 560 pages), and really speeds along. Like so many of the most distasteful, grotesque spectacles, once its caught your eye, you find it almost impossible to look away.

Originally posted here:
Wouldnt the migrant crisis make fantastic reality TV? Timur Vermess The Hungry and the Fat reviewed - Spectator.co.uk

The row over border checks is, however, about more than a quick flash of a passport. The response to the migrant crisis has been for governments to reassert their position at a nation-state level, thereby enfeebling the EU rather than strengthening it. It provides a marked contrast with the Eurozone crisis, which highlighted significant weaknesses with the EUs system of economic and monetary union. Back then, the states pulled together to deal with the problem (largely at Greeces expense, of course), introducing the European Stability Mechanism and instigating a banking union. What didnt kill the EU, made it stronger.

In comparison, governments have been willing to jettison Schengen and with it the fundamental EU principle of free movement, for national reasons. It turns out sovereignty matters in countries other than the UK, after all. The migrant crisis could have provided the impetus for member states to seek out ever closer ties, but instead they have ridden roughshod over what was meant to be a core value of EU integration. Little wonder that federalists are so concerned: in 2018, the President of the European Parliament wrote that the situation threatens to destroy the EU.

2020 was supposed to be the year when the Schengen crisis came to an end, with the EU hoping that the border checks would at last be removed. But now we have coronavirus. For France, Germany and the others, this would seem like a dangerous time to belatedly allow people to move without checks. In numerous other states that have continued to adhere to the Schengen rules even in the midst of the migrant crisis, border controls may be introduced for the first time in decades.

The rest is here:
The coronavirus outbreak shows the real limits of a borderless EU - Telegraph.co.uk

We live in a world of displaced populations. Nearly one out of seven people alive today is a migrant. Over a quarter of a billion are classed as international migrants, while over three-quarters of a billion are migrants within the borders of their own countries. Worldwide, by mid-2019, there were over 70 million refugees people who have been forced by war, persecution and environmental crisis to leave their homes. A vast majority of these refugees are from Muslim nations, including Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Yemen. Contrary to perceptions that these Muslim migrants are flooding the West, the biggest recipients of refugees are also Muslim nations like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While global migration is primarily motivated by economic reasons and may also be an indicator of the global economy's success, refugee data represents only tragedy and it is clear that the Muslim world bears more than its fair share of that.

This fact, combined with the teachings of Islam, both mandate that Muslims should be especially active in addressing the global refugee crisis. Facing the challenge is not a question of Sadaqa or charity aid alone. It includes mobilization and activism against war, the promotion of peacebuilding, restoration, taking care of victims, ensuring the protection and return of refugees, and rehabilitation of devasted cities and villages across nations. We need to end existing conflicts, prevent those which are imminent and then rebuild nations so people can go back to their homes. Yes, the challenges are numerous and Muslims, a community of 55 nations and nearly 2 billion people, must at least do their fair share.

It is common knowledge among Muslims that Islam is a religion of refugees and migrants. Indeed, the Islamic calendar starts not with the first revelation of the Quran in A.D. 61, but with the migration of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions from Mecca to Medina in A.D. 622. The Prophet Muhammad and his companions are erroneously labeled as migrants in Islamic literature, although in truth they were refugees forced to flee after a decade of religious persecution in Mecca. Given the historical origins of the first Muslim community, it is surprising that Muslims have not made the care, protection and advocacy of refugees a pillar of their faith.

Maybe it is time for American Muslims to reinforce the fact that Muslims do not engage in religious persecution akin to what the prophet suffered; nor will they stand by while there is religious persecution anywhere on Earth. We, as American Muslims, should be the first to come to the aid of refugees forced to leave their homes like Muhammad and his companions.

The story of the Prophet Muhammads migration has another side that is often neglected: The story of the Ansar (or "Helpers") the people of Medina who received and accepted the refugees from Mecca. While the story of the migrants ("Mahajirs") is a tale of faith, persecution and suffering, the story of the Medinans (the Ansar) is one of sacrifice, giving, tolerance and openness. While the people of Mecca had no choice but to migrate, the those in Medina chose to provide refuge. In my latest book, "Islam and Good Governance: A Political Philosophy of Ihsan," I argue that a society based on the concept of "Ihsan" (doing beautiful things) would be motivated not by self-regarding politics but by other-regarding interests. The Muhsins ("those who perform Ihsan") will act not in self-interest but in the interests of others like the Ansar of Medina. Nothing can be more virtuous than what the Ansar did. The Quran records their concern for others:

"They love those who emigrated to them and find not any want in their breasts for what the emigrants were given but give (them) preference over themselves, even though they are in privation," Quran verse 59:9.

The Quran places a lot of importance on the plight of migrants and refugees, making them eligible for zakat (deserving of distribution). It also commands Muslims to provide protection for refugees even if they are nonbelievers.

And if any disbeliever seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety, Quran verse 9:6.

The Prophet Muhammad, who was himself a migrant/refugee, understood their plight firsthand and so he too commanded Muslims to help those in need.

Whoever grants respite to someone in difficulty or relieves him, Allah will shade him on the Day of Resurrection when there is no shade but his, says Al-Tirmidhi 1306.

Some American Muslims, 68% of whom are immigrants and refugees, have a unique opportunity to be both Mahajir and Ansar. We came here as immigrants seeking a better life, and now that we have found our American dream, it is our time to be Ansar; to advocate, to fight for and to support those who are forced to leave their homes. Fighting for those who are in need is the best sunnah, a true way of bringing Ihsan into our lives.

Allah loves the Muhsineen ('those who do good')," Quran verse 2:295.

* Professor at the University of Delaware and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Policy

View original post here:
Goodness in the age of displacement - Daily Sabah

If you want to understand the populist medias underlying agenda then you have to look not only at what gets published, but what doesnt.

Remember the great peril that threatened to bring Britain to its knees, consigning our history and culture to the dustbin of history? What, youve forgotten already?

Im talking about immigration. It was the press phenomenon of the age 10 years ago, and for at least the following six years right up to the EU referendum. Since then, however, immigration has all but disappeared from newspaper pages.

References to migrants, asylum seekers and refugees have almost vanished along with the associated prejudicial buzzwords and phrases, such as swamping, influx, surge, illegal, bogus, sham, jungle, welfare scroungers, benefit tourists.

Remember those dehumanising, derogatory metaphors such as parasites, leeches and cockroaches? Gone at least for the moment.

We were told the UK was full up and there was no room for anyone else. Images of the worlds poor on the verge of invading Britain were painted in numerous articles. Immigration was, supposedly, a crisis of unimaginable proportions.

The daily newspaper diet of large anti-migrant headlines, accompanied by xenophobic columnists retailing thinly veiled racist rhetoric, was so common it became a clich for us critics to complain about it. Yet as much as we railed against it, editors redoubled their efforts, ignoring rational arguments that exposed their distorted agenda.

Britain was not alone in dealing with the arrival of migrants and refugees. It was happening in every European country, but in 2015 researchers from Cardiff Universitys journalism school found that British press coverage was strikingly more polarised and aggressive than in newspapers across the rest of Europe.

In 2016, a disturbing analysis revealed that the Daily Express had carried 179 front pages in five years devoted to anti-migrant stories, while the Daily Mail had published 122. Through repetition, disinformation, misinformation warnings of hordes to come from various war-torn or impoverished countries and the omission of any positive material, papers incited fears of immigrants. Migrants, readers were told, were being treated to more homes, more jobs and more generous benefits than the indigenous population.

It is painful, but necessary, to remind ourselves of just some of the 301 Express-Mail propaganda pages: Illegal migrants flood in, Migrant chaos all summer, Asylum seekers ferried around in stretch limo, Migrants rob young Britons of jobs, 500,000 migrants get social housing, Britains 40% surge in ethnic numbers.

A Daily Mail headline from October 2014, You cant ignore migration now, which was based on a single Ukip election victory.

Yet, in 2020, newspapers are, indeed, ignoring migration. Admittedly, the Daily Express is under more responsible ownership (the Daily Mirrors publisher, Reach) while the Daily Mail is edited by a man (Geordie Greig) who no longer feels it appropriate to provoke the bigotry of a chauvinist readership.

But those factors alone, while they should be applauded, do not account for the muted coverage of immigration over the past year or so. Nor am I naive enough to think it couldnt kick off all over again, because its there in the background.

Yet the undeniable truth, the sad, sick, unvarnished truth, is that migration is off the medias central agenda for two reasons. Firstly, it is no longer a political issue. With the pro-Brexit vote having been achieved, there is no need to keep on injecting the same poison into public debate. Job done.

Secondly, seen from the newspaper editors perspective, it is not a sales-winning topic at present. No need to play to the gallery. There is no value in running anti-immigrant stories.

Given that news is what editors say it is at any given moment, then they believe it amounts to yesterdays news.

In fact, it never was news. It was a wholly media-manufactured crisis. Facts, such as those detailed in a BBC briefing about immigration last week, were ignored in favour of appealing to public prejudice.

I am not doubting this prejudice exists, but it is the result of a failure by postwar governments, along with a reactionary press, to explain why Britain needed immigration and why a multicultural society should be embraced.

Instead, editors preferred to accentuate the negative. They readily published anecdotal evidence of individual misbehaviour as if it was a universal problem created by immigration. Then there were the dodgy figures, as if plucked from mid-air, that suggested Britain was about to be overrun.

Now, to get a grip on just how influential media coverage has been, note recent fascinating findings from YouGov. In its poll weeks before the referendum, when anti-migrant press coverage was at its zenith, 56% thought immigration and asylum were the most important issues facing Britain. Weeks later, soon after the vote, that was down to 46%.

By the following year, with the press already beginning to tail off its migration coverage, the number had fallen to 35%. Much more telling is the most recent set of findings.

Of the 24 polls in 2019, the average number of people who believed immigration was the key issue was 23%, with the latest total standing at just 20%.

In other words, the downplaying of immigration in newspapers has been mirrored by the publics attitude towards the subject. Lack of coverage equals lack of interest. Where is that crisis of 2016 in 2020? It does not exist because it never did exist.

It may be, given their terminal decline, that newspapers are never able to mount such a campaign again.

So what? They have already done their worst by encouraging and exploiting deep divisions in society while splitting us off from Europe. Now that really is a crisis.

Continued here:
Migrants are off the agenda for the UK press, but the damage is done - The Guardian