chronicle vignette expression
In January 2012, Norway and Ethiopia signed an agreement that Ethiopians seeking asylum in Norway and was denied effective should be returned.The agreement was presented as a major breakthrough in asylum policy. But since there was silence. What really happened with asylum seekers should be sent back to the infamous regime?
We remember the media stuff about Maria Amelie , Nathan from Bergen and the Afghan interpreter, Faizullah Muradi. They were all frontpage matters before interest ebbed away. When Muradi was issued in spite of his efforts as an interpreter for the Norwegian forces boiled over on social media. The government gave in to the pressure and did an about-face on the matter . The debate on the return is in the wind again, but the silence after the storm tends to decrease quickly.

Media's focus on asylum and return functions in many ways like a pendulum.
Media's focus on asylum and return functions in many ways like a pendulum. It turns suddenly and is in the center of the public space, but turns out again as soon. When the pendulum swings into it is often with a name and a face. When the pendulum swings again becomes the dramatic fates part of the bureaucracy, slow and largely invisible work.

The lucky selected

It not only matters whether individuals who are the subject of heated debate. The pendulum can swing in and give attention to issues concerning many, but still have emotional appeal. Unlike individual cases, is political about-face far less often in such cases. Returning agreement with Ethiopia was one such case, where the issue of forced return of hundreds of Ethiopians in Norway with a final rejection of their asylum applications were central.

Medias lot coverage can lead to political ad-hoc solutions. Maria Amelie got a work permit, Nathan had become and Muradi will seek asylum in Norway.
Research from the Institute of Media and Communication, University of Oslo, shows that we, the audience, care about the " ideal asylum victims ", because we can identify with them.These are well-integrated individuals, which is strongly linked to the Norwegian society. Media coverage mass may then lead to political ad-hoc solutions. Maria Amelie got a work permit and dJulienne week permanent residence permit , Nathan had become, and now Muradi been allowed to apply for asylum in Norway. The debate surrounding the return agreement with Ethiopia did not lead to political change, the pendulum swung out into oblivion, and the storm around what happens to Ethiopians with a final rejection of their asylum applications subsided. What happened with Ethiopians? Were they forcibly?
FOLLOW THE DEBATE: Freedom on Facebook

Lives in suspense

Return Agreement between Norway and Ethiopia was the latest in a series of austerity measures on immigration the coalition government accounted for. Many reacted with disbelief that the agreement had been signed, and the spring of 2012 the media pendulum swung in forcefully. Critics pointed out that no one should be forcibly returned to Ethiopia: a country criticized for systematic persecution of the political opposition. But there was apparently little to do with the case, the agreement between the two countries was signed.

One may wonder whether the return agreement was run in the interests of the domestic political audience.
It happened in reality little after returning the agreement had been in place. Studies of the effects of the return agreement inconclusive: No Ethiopians have been forcibly returned as part of the deal. There has been a slight increase in the number of Ethiopians who have chosen to avail themselves of the possibility of "assisted voluntary return" (individuals with a final rejection of their asylum application chooses to cooperate with the authorities on departure, thus avoiding the forced departure). This increase was strongest in the years after the agreement was signed. As it became clear that the forced return was not initiated, the increase leveled out.
The fact that the forced return was not completed was no surprise to the authorities, nor for those with knowledge of the political system in Ethiopia. Cooperation on the return of asylum seekers to the country of origin is difficult, especially with authoritarian states. The previous government was aware of this when they chose to negotiate the return agreement. One may therefore wonder whether the return agreement was run in the interests of the domestic political audience, rather than by a genuine desire for forced return of Ethiopians.

Resounding Silence

Regardless of the cause did not fulfill the agreement the government's stated intentions, the more forced returns. That the other hand did was to affect Ethiopians situation in Norway. After first feared sudden issue, set the left with uncertainty when nothing happened. Several hundred Ethiopians have now put their lives on hold because they have a little hope that they still can be in Norway. This hope was partly due to return the agreement was never implemented, and partly because politicians show that they do an about-face in individual cases in the immigration field.

There are no indications that there will be some political ad hoc solution for Ethiopians.
The idea of ​​the media as the "fourth estate" fits well when it comes to asylum policy. With attention as means and political change goals, succeed in the media to get individual issues on the agenda. But the more than 700 Ethiopians still waiting in uncertainty about what will happen.The question of what to do with Ethiopians final rejection is challenging. There are no indications that there will be some political ad hoc solution.Forced to return to the first is unlikely. However, it is now two and a half years since returning the agreement was signed, and two years ago the pendulum swung out and left Ethiopians outside the public spotlight.
The silence on the matter should be noted, because several hundred Ethiopians still sitting on the rack, not knowing what the future will bring.
source. http://www.nrk.no/ytring/stillheten-om-retur-til-etiopia-1.11781777