It is 80 years ago – 2 August 1933 – that the unfortunate Chelyuskin left Murmansk for the voyage along the Sevmorput that became one of the legends of early Stalin’s era. And this is the link to a lengthy presentation of the voyage of Petr Velikii along the same route, which is supposed to… Read more »
The extremely hot weather in the Arctic was noticed even by the Fox News, not generally known for climate concerns, but for a more scientific coverage I would recommend this. The command of the Northern Fleet has decided to use this opportunity for sending the nuclear cruiser Petr Veliky (known also as the “presidental yacht”,… Read more »
Russian fleet of nuclear icebreakers (pictured here at its base Atomflot near Murmansk) has decommissioned the third ship of Arktika class, called Rossiya. Built in 1985, this ship became famous in 2007 taking the famous flag-planting expedition to the North Pole. With the addition of 50 Let Pobedy in 2007 (the construction started in 1989),… Read more »
The Arctic-info informs that the B-800 submarine Kaluga has finished sea trials after modernization and is ready to return to the Northern Fleet. There is a bit of context to this info – this Kilo-class (project 877) diesel sub was built back in 1989 (and named Vologodsky Komsomolets, yes, a bit funny). In 2002, it… Read more »
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin presented confrontation in the Arctic as one of five possible scenarios for future wars focusing particularly on the attacks on Russian oil and gas plants and on NATO naval threats to the SevMorPut. He was speaking at the conference organized by Rossiiskaya gazeta with the aim of elaborating on Putin’s… Read more »
For my research on post-22/7 resilience and social media, I am drawing on data sources from the internet. Even though this data is publicly available, there are several ethical issues to be considered. Read More
If you look at the return programs organized by European governments (usually in partnership with the IOM) you will notice that return and reintegration are often mentioned together, as if they always coincide. However, reintegration (however it is defined) does not automatically follow return. Also, how ‘success’ in reintegration assistance is defined differs: is it where those assisted do not re-migrate? Or, as I would argue, reintegration is a multi-dimensional process that involves (re)negotiating membership in a variety of different spheres of society (economic, political, social, and cultural). In a high mobility society like Afghanistan, with a ‘culture of migration’, further migration may actually be an indicator of successful reintegration into socio-cultural norms (i.e. doing what everyone else is doing), rather than a ‘failure’ of reintegration.
Fieldwork for the PREMIG project (amongst other research) suggests that Afghans in Norway and the UK only sign up for Assisted ‘Voluntary’ Return programs when all other options of staying in Europe have been exhausted and they are ‘volunteering’ to take assisted return rather than be deported. Consequently, I agree with those who only use the term voluntary returnee with regard to people who have the option of a regularized stay in Europe as an alternative to return.
I consider ‘migration’ to be an umbrella term that encompasses many different types of mobile people, including refugees. Policy-makers, however, often see contemporary Afghans travelling abroad as migrants as opposed to refugees. UNHCR points out that this might be difficult for many refugee advocates to accept. Whilst I’m all for recognizing the reality of mixed migration flows, until there is a ‘migrant’ category that offers regularized mobility to people fleeing the kinds of complex webs of poverty and insecurity that many Afghans experience, then I’m very wary of seeing the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ separated in the Afghan case.
The ‘super-diversity’ case-study in the PREMIG project was, unlike the other five case-studies, not defined around a country of origin. Instead we defined it based on temporal dimensions, by interviewing people who had either come to Norway
- during their childhood, before turning 14, or
- recently, in the past 1-5 years.
This was, more than anything, an experiment. And the data that came out of the experiment confirm the importance of time-related factors in migrants’ understandings of settlement processes and return considerations. The data high-light that there are many similarities in migrants’ reflections on return and settlement, across their countries of origin.
The more settled you are in, and the stronger sense of belonging you have to, Norway, the less inclined you are towards permanent return. To those who came to Norway as children, and have spent their school and adolescent years here, the questions we posed may have seemed odd: ‘Return’ to what? They might appreciate spending their holidays in the country they left behind as children, or perhaps they could imagine spending a longer period there for example as part of their studies. But permanent return is difficult to imagine because Norway is where their home is.
For recently-arrived migrants, on the other hand, return is a more likely prospect. They work under the assumption of one day returning, whether in a short-term or a long-term perspective. Or at least they keep the possibility of return open. However, as time passes and they become more settled in Norway, actual return becomes less likely for many.
The passage from one life-cycle to another can also play a role in return considerations. Small children to care for, and a partner to coordinate with, make moving to another country into a larger project than when you are single. And so the idea of return is left to when the children grow older, or maybe when you retire. Another way in which changing life-cycle stages can affect return considerations is the emerging need for taking care of elderly parents or other relatives remaining in the country of origin.
The above illustrates the importance of age at time of migration, length of stay in the country of settlement, and life-cycle stages to the return considerations that migrants make. The ‘super-diversity’ case-study in PREMIG has enabled us to explore time-related factors in migrants’ return considerations, demonstrating that time does matter – no matter the migrant’s country of origin.
A great interview with an entrepreneur from Arkhangelsk oblast showing the depressed economy and unique resilience. I particularly like the point: “What have you learned after six years of work in the Russian North? – First of all, never count on your own efforts, because everything goes as God wills…’.
A very odd reflection in Nezavisimaya gazeta on the meeting of chiefs of staff of the Arctic Council, as if the top brass were arguing about competitive military build-up. The conclusion that Russia is lagging behind in the arms race in the Arctic is plain preposterous.