Author: Amna Cesic (Page 2 of 2)

For my reporting in Berlin, I plan to focus on the question of integration for Afghan refugees in Germany. The public conversation about the migration of certain populations often centers on deportation and political debates, but what happens after arrival is also important. I am hoping to explore this in more detail in Berlin in whatever capacity I can. For the Afghan population that seeks to stay in Germany, integration is often a long, layered process that unfolds in distinct phases. This often means the process is layered and complex, allowing for a wide range of experiences. 

Through conversations I’ve already begun, it’s clear that refugees undergo integration as a sequence of steps. First would be learning the language, then the refugees would need to find stable housing, and finally they would need to secure work and start paying taxes. These milestones are oftentimes markers that help demonstrate belonging, but they also come with their unique challenges. Through my reporting I would like to document how individuals move through this process, where they encounter barriers, and what success looks like in their daily lives.

Focusing on integration might also provide space for me to highlight the role discrimination, uncertainty, community, and religion play in this process. Even when Afghans master the language or enter the workforce, they do sometimes face exclusion and discrimination. Yet, many Afghans continue to want to stay in Germany.

By speaking to sources, I would hope to continue to shape the scope of my article. While talking to Wahid, I learned a great deal about the unique integration process Germany has and how this process impacts Afghan refugees in the country. I hope to continue to get in contact with sources that speak to what this process looks like in other countries, and potentially how it varies. Wahid also provided me with the contact information of an Afghan man currently living in Berlin, as well as the stories of others who are currently facing deportation as they try to integrate themselves in Germany. Looking forward, I would hope to get in contact with Afghan students in Germany who face a unique set of circumstances, as well as older Afghans already in the workforce. I also think looking at more recent immigrants as opposed to long-settled Afghans may be interesting when discussing what successful integration is. 

By centering my reporting on integration, I would hope to convey both the personal and the political dimensions of Afghan life in Germany. The goal would ultimately be to move beyond abstract discussions of the migration of a specific group and show how Afghans themselves understand and pursue integration.

Other potential reporting topics could include looking at religion and community among the Afghan population by examining how religion shapes the overall process. Mosques and Churches for example often provide resources that the state does not. Religion is also widely regarded as a source of strength for many people throughout the world, and very little reporting has been done on how these refugees interact with religion as they integrate into a new society. This is especially interesting to me given how much more secular Germany has become. 

Additionally, more topics that I have been intrigued by that somewhat relate to the topics discussed in this post are the unique experiences Afghan women face during integration as well as what Afghan political activism looks like in the country around issues like immigration.

Questions for the AfD Representative:

1. What core values do you believe set the AfD apart from other German parties? Why are these values important?
2. How does the AfD define successful integration for refugees?
3. How do you see the AfD engaging with younger generations of voters and activists?

Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) seems to have reshaped the way journalists and citizens alike uncover the truth. The examples throughout the readings from Syria and Ukraine illustrate just how powerful this tool can be, as it offers a glimpse into what the future might look like if more people utilized OSINT. The findings highlighted in the articles and videos this week have been startling. By utilizing seemingly insignificant fragments of already public information, journalists are exposing atrocities on a massive scale. The airstrikes in Idlib outlined in the Human Rights Watch article is just one compelling example.

Overall, this strategy has the potential to increase transparency, empower the general public, and even help shape global discourse. Perhaps the tool’s most important impact lies in its ability to help shape public narratives. Open-source investigations in many respects do not just seek to uncover the truth; they seek to control the story that is being told. In many of these countries, the citizens who post articles, images, and videos don’t have the audience or authority to speak about what is happening on the ground. That is where open-source investigations become so important, because they are able to amplify the voices of those who are often ignored or forgotten.

​Although open-source investigations seem to do a tremendous amount of good, I am still skeptical as to how much accountability these investigations are able to get. For example, although the readings this week show that journalists are doing groundbreaking work, justice is still not being achieved. In the video published by Al Jazeera, it is clear that proof is being acquired to help show the world what is actually happening on the ground. In the case of the Uyghur population in China, the investigations have proven that prison-like re-education camps exist, but these investigations have done very little to help fix the actual problem on the ground. Placing all the responsibility on these open-source investigations and investigators isn’t fair, but I think it is important to acknowledge the impact these investigations have on the ground. Syria perfectly demonstrates this tension. Although Syria has had one of the most documented wars in recent memory, prosecution and accountability has still lagged behind. Furthermore, the risks involved are substantial for everyone. As journalist James Palmer noted in the video, some of his sources have simply disappeared.

​Finally, I think it is important to mention that one of OSINT’s biggest advantages is that there are countless independent non-state open-source intelligence organizations that actively work to uncover the truth. Yet, unfortunately, as the State Magazine article shows, organizations or programs that get funding from the government and the Department of State, for example, are extremely vulnerable to political whim and pressure. By canceling the work done by the Yale Lab, the Trump administration essentially helped highlight how vulnerable this work is, despite how crucial the work is all over the world. As technology develops, the potential influence OSINT can have is important to remember. In an age where public trust in media and journalists is at an all time low, this form of investigation has the potential to reshape public trust altogether.

Since the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, many Germans have shown their support for the idea that Syrians should go back to their country of origin. This thought process, in my opinion, is quite dangerous. Although sending refugees back in some ways seems like a rational and reasonable decision, it ultimately undermines the asylum process and obscures a more complicated lived reality. Syrians and Yazidis in Germany have both been reshaped by their new environments. Not only that, but a return in many cases is not only unjust, but it is also unrealistic. Expecting refugees to immediately pack up their lives and help their homeland rebuild after years of civil war and conflict is not right.

Furthermore, expecting refugees who have lived in Germany for years to pack up their lives and go back “home” asserts the idea that there is a home to go back to in the first place. In the YouTube video made by ARTE.tv, Hakeema’s story helps illustrate the harsh reality she escaped from. Not only that, but her return to Iraq helped show that she did not return to a family home, but rather destroyed houses and haunting memories. Germany, in many ways, is her new home.

Economically, Syrians and many other refugees are also deeply embedded in the German way of life. The Washington Post’s reporting on the Syrian doctors who have helped fill gaps within Germany’s healthcare system is just one example of this. Rania Kadib Alban, for example, is an ENT in Germany, where she and her family live. Her contributions to the German economy, along with countless other Syrian refugees, is priceless. However, Syrians have made more than just an economic impact. They have also established themselves socially. Rania Kadib Alban’s children, for example, “prefer German food to Syrian.” This statement, although seemingly unimportant, highlights the assimilation that has already occurred. Likewise, many refugees have had children in the country who have only ever known a German existence. The removal of these refugees would not only destabilize the German economy, but it would also destabilize the German way of life.

Finally, I think it is important to mention that the reasoning given to support Syrian removal from Germany is flawed. Many articles this week mentioned that Germans who are on the far right believe that any Syrian refugees celebrating the fall of the Assad regime should go back to Syria to help rebuild. I think this thinking fails to consider that many Syrians are better able to rebuild Syria while in Germany than they ever would be in Syria itself. As the Washington Post article highlighted, many Syrians would love to help rebuild their homeland, but many expressed that they did not know whether they wanted to go back. Likewise, ARTE.tv documentary helps show the impact remittances have on Hakemma’s family, who still reside in Iraq. Ultimately, her German income helps sustain her family and the local economy in her cousin’s region. Additionally, many articles highlighted the celebrations Syrians had when learning that the Assad regime had fallen. This political involvement in Syria and presumably Germany as well, may be more useful in helping Syria recover than any physical return could be.  Additionally, a return may also be dangerous and failing to consider the safety of the individuals you are sending back is wrong.

This week’s news articles help readers understand the fragility of modern-day immigration. Germany’s reversal of its resettlement program, for example, speaks volumes about public sentiment on refugees. Domestic politics all over the world, in fact, seem to have clearly taken priority over international commitments. In Riham Alkousaa’s and Charlotte Greenfield’s article on Reuters, Kimia’s story is as much a warning as it is an outcry. According to the Politico article, for example, around 2500 Afghans are living in Islamabad, Pakistan, awaiting their relocation to Germany. This number is staggering because of the implications of what a return to Afghanistan would mean for these individuals. In many instances, it would be a matter of life or death. For 25-year-old Kimia, relocation back to Afghanistan is “unthinkable.” These implications are often easy to glaze over, but are important in order for anyone to understand the consequences of such an action.

Although the content provided in the articles this week was fascinating, I was also a little intrigued by what was not present in many of the articles. The Reuters article, for example, included heartbreaking stories about what was unfolding in Pakistan as Germany halted their entry programs. The piece, however, did not substantially mention or question Germany’s decision-making or reasoning for halting such an important program. Although many articles mention an increase in crime as a leading cause of anti-immigrant sentiment, it doesn’t go much further than that. In reality, the people that are being talked about in many of these news pieces are not simply migrants begging a foreign government to allow them to relocate. The reality of the situation seems to be much more complicated. Germany seems to have an obligation to many of these migrants, both legally and ethically. But because there was sparse mention of why the German government is making the decisions they are, I found it difficult to really understand the government’s perspective.

Additionally, some of the articles I read this week make it clear that the migration issue is a huge political problem. For example, not only is the right-wing party in Germany pushing for the removal of many migrants, but they are also politicizing horrible crimes that were committed by a small portion of that asylum-seeking population. By weaponizing these instances, politicians seem to have at least somewhat successfully brought up policy changes that impact innocent refugees as well. Although outrage is warranted when horrific acts are committed against innocent people, I think it is also important to acknowledge that our politicized society has allowed for selective outrage that harms some groups more than others.

As the Euronews piece points out, Germany has decided who it believes needs to be deported back to Afghanistan. Although they mention that the people who were deported had a criminal record, the article does not further specify what these criminal records entail. Furthermore, this article made me question what exactly deportations like these would mean for those being deported. Is German society impacted by these removals in any particular way? Finally, I find it crucial to further investigate how these countries decide who is worthy of protection and who isn’t. With a country like Afghanistan, I personally find it difficult to make such a distinction. Azmat Khan’s NYT series helps shed light on how accountability has been elusive for many people and governments who have made these very distinctions. Khan’s work showed me that many countries have an accountability issue. Many countries, for example, have contributed to many deadly airstrikes in the Middle East, yet these governments still refuse to accept refugees from many of these countries. I find that troubling.

The readings this week made clear that a fight over the truth has been raging in the United States on multiple fronts, including social media and the court system. When analyzed together, the readings present a clear and startling message: discourse in the United States has been impacted by President Donald Trump’s efforts to extinguish political opposition. As the articles point out, this effort by Trump allows for the emergence of concentrated influence, coercive legal and political tactics, and even extreme fragmentation amongst the general public.

The Guardian’s article on President Trump’s war against the media, for example, helps demonstrate the impact of financial threats. President Trump is not only winning lawsuits and copious amounts of cash. Ultimately, his lawsuits are a warning for any other organization that dares to challenge him. When a figure with as much influence as the President of the United States successfully sues any news organization, other organizations are likely to also be intimidated. The financial drain on these organizations is an obvious threat, but it’s important to acknowledge that these successful lawsuits undermine public trust in the media as well.

The Harvard Kennedy School article also highlighted another facet of the problem: audiences are often getting information from those closest to them. This imposes a financial hardship on news organizations and increases the likelihood that unreliable sources “contaminate information streams.” Shared facts suddenly become nonexistent in this environment, and fragmentation allows the general public to live in separate realities. Ultimately, this makes me wonder if audiences should be responsible for seeking out diverse, reliable information, or if that responsibility should fall squarely on the journalist? Likewise, if the media has changed, as Gibbs states, is journalism really failing at all, or is the industry just dealing with changes they have no control over?

Hamilton’s Just Security article builds on this by pointing out that the trends and changes highlighted in these articles do not occur in isolation; rather, they are deliberate actions that aim to harm the free press. When reported independently, the full thrust of the problem is not outlined effectively for audiences within a media landscape that is dominated by quick bursts of information. This is why the lead is so important. As John McPhee points out in his book, the lead is like a promise of what’s to come. In a saturated media environment and a world of competing truths, it is important that the media works to explain developments completely, effectively, and early on in the article.

Finally, the Forbes article also stood out because it helped outline the corruption that can take place in these situations. If media organizations can broker “deals” with the President, then what sort of independence can these organizations ever have? The White House executive order that targets both the NPR and PBS helps shed further light on this issue. By weaponizing government funding, even the few organizations not driven by profit—and therefore also less vulnerable to Trump’s financial threats—end up being harmed.

Overall, these articles highlighted the gravity of the problem journalists and the public face. But above all, these struggles highlight why journalism is so important because despite these changes, many journalists have continued to be extremely effective in disseminating important information.