The UK has done a 180 in its coronavirus strategy in the last few weeks. First, we were told to ‘take it on the chin’. Now we’re only allowed out once a day to do our food shopping.
As the COVID-19 pandemic is spreading across the globe, its impact touches all corners of society. What happens when the pandemic reaches areas that were already dealing with various sorts of humanitarian challenges, and in what ways are humanitarian operations being impacted both directly and indirectly? In a time where the news are being flooded with information related to the pandemic and much of national authorities’ time and resources are being spent at mapping domestic repercussions, this post is an attempt to highlight some of the potential impacts COVID-19 can have or is already having on humanitarian operations around the world.Read More
When I observe the surveillance and disciplinary measures spreading together with COVID-19, questions arise. It is not just professionals who should have the answers.
As the coronavirus pandemic develops from day to day in Norway’s epicenter and capital city of Oslo, it seems at present that Oslo’s eastern neighborhoods with large immigrant populations may be worse hit than other neighbourhoods, and that some migrant groups appear to be especially exposed. Much is uncertain both about why this pattern is emerging, and whether it will continue. While it is way too early to conclude, we offer reflections on five possible explanations and pose five questions which remain to be addressed in this context.
Coronavirus has killed thousands of people, traumatised the global economy, and has huge impacts on people’s everyday life due to government restrictions in an attempt to flatten the curve. But what impact can COVID-19 have when reaching states with weak governing capacity, limited health care services, and with high levels of extremist violence? In this blog post I envisage potential impacts of COVID-19 in Mali, including difficulty executing government restrictions on social distancing, problems accurately estimating the COVID-19 impact on the population, and a continuation of extremist violence in Mali, albeit with some alterations.
There is no doubt that the coronavirus already has and will continue to put the whole world in a very challenging position. No one knows how to battle the virus nor its implications on the world’s health systems and economies. What is clear, however, is that Sweden is relatively alone in its approach to manage this ongoing crisis, at least in terms of control over the spread of the virus in the population.
Contrary to recent headlines, an internal crisis over the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was not the cause behind the toppling of Kosovo’s government Wednesday evening. The crisis was only the trigger for the inevitable result of the recent pressure campaign against the small state by the Trump administration, which aims at securing a deal between Kosovo and Serbia this year.
This blog post identifies marginalization, legal distancing and the ambiguity of care as the key characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic response currently reshaping refugee and migration governance.
Almost three months into the COVID-19 outbreak, the impact is becoming clear: the pandemic will reshape the governance of international migration and forced displacement. This piece provides some early reflections on the direct and indirect consequences and possible post-pandemic trajectories. The geographical examples are selective, but we hope, illustrative. While responses so far vacillate between care and control, with an emphasis on care for domestic populations and control of migrant movement and interaction, there is likely to be a long-term impact of the proliferation and routinization of extraordinary practices.
Seen in hindsight: was Norwegian democracy actually in peril for a few days in mid-March 2020?
COVID-19 is the most severe pandemic since 1918. Beyond the harrowing humanitarian costs, large-scale economic disruptions are underway that can lead to crisis and conflict. The epidemiological advice is clear: flatten the curve, whatever it takes. Any society presented with the choice between world war-levels of casualties and temporary disruptions of social and economic life should chose disruptions over deaths.
Yet, the economic costs are nothing to be scoffed at and can easily serve as breeding grounds for future unrest. Solidarity across political camps, income strata, and nations is required to navigate the terrible times ahead. In the country that will largely decide the fate of the global economy, the United States, this might prove particularly difficult. Locked into deep political polarization, Republicans might have to temporarily accept public spending and government intervention as the only viable options amid this colossal natural disaster.