95 and the “Norwegian People’s Aid”, described how the civil society could contribute and directed on what they have received so far of help. Nevertheless, the statement made by the Norwegian president of Red Cross Sven Mollekleiv stood out. Mollekleiv sees that the authorities need the help of the “42,000” voluntary people registered at the Norwegian Red Cross.
“We see now that the Norwegian people are getting the best from our humanitarian culture. All of our 42,000 volunteers are equipped to assist the authorities” (Aftenposten, 2015b, my translation.)
The unpreparedness of the crisis is most likely why the president is reminding us of the humanity in our “dominant culture”. Half of the contributions during the refugee situation were made through traditional voluntary organisations, whereas 1/5 were through informal ways, i.e. own organizing or through the initiatives (Fladmoe, Sætrang, et al., 2016). This illustrates that the traditional organisations remained where most of the contributions were made, although innovative ways of gathering people were created online. The online mobilisation can be interpreted to have formed a counter-image of those crossing Norway’s borders. This online mobilization can be acknowledged to have led to a different image than that of “the other” that Johansen, Ugelvik and Aas (2013) described.
Minja Tea Dzamarija (2017:16) researched on the Bosnian reception conditions in the 90s and references how the media described the more effective reception conditions faced then, as a national effort that consisted of “solidarity, empathy and enthusiasm”, and where everyone helped. This reaffirms Mollekleiv’s ideas regarding how the Norwegian people bringing forth the best from their humanitarian culture by way of voluntary work.
96
“Whatever the political views on the regulation of immigration and asylum policy, it is these people with their own lives and rights ... But it was not bicycles that came to Norway, it was people. 5,500 individuals” (Dagbladet, 2017, my translation).
The rejection of entry at the Storskog border failed to respond to the refugee situation in a humane way according to Winggård. The debate effectively centred on bicycles instead of recognizing that the crisis was about human beings (Dagbladet, 2017). Others have
moreover portrayed how there are over 232 million international migrants in the world today.
The figures regarding refugees and internally displaced persons stood to be more than 60 million by the end of 2014 (Martin, 2016:5).
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Pia Prytz Phiri, representing Northern Europe, specified how Norway could not refuse to assess asylum applications from Storskog. Phiri’s meeting with Sylvi Listhaug was on the recent strengthening of the
Immigration Act of 2008 and the practices that had been passed down from the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Phiri hinted at the refugee convention and stated how Norway was breaching international conventions:
“The conventions state that everyone has the right to seek asylum… We have
problems with how we look at Russia as a safe country of first asylum. It's difficult to obtain an asylum procedure in Russia” (VG, 2016a, my translation).
The labelling of a state is accomplished by international mechanisms or, in some situations, even persons that are entrusted with the authority to ensure that the international rules are being followed (Hirsch, 2015:7). The visit from Phiri on behalf of the United Nations illustrates how international mechanisms can ensure that rules are not breached. Dauvergne comparably sees it as worth acknowledging that we are facing a crisis where international refugee law is tied to illegal migration and its issues. Refugees are not illegal migrants, but the refugee convention has failed to specify that a person has a right to enter another country. It is this fact that has arguably caused states to deny refugees as a result of “illegal entry”
(Dauvergne, 2008:50). These elements Dauvergne brings up can be observed in how Norway as a state dealt with the Storskog refugees for whom Wingård advocates on her opinion piece in Dagbladet.
97 The public opinion of the Norwegian population towards immigration was mapped in an Ipsos research project accomplished in cooperation with the Nobel Peace Centre.55 The interviews were with 947 randomly selected people all over Norway, who were a
representative selection of the population (from 17 years of age and older). The project discovered that the attitudes towards immigration had improved since the refugee situation began. The research was done between the 20th and the 22nd of February, 2017, which is relevant since it was after the worst crisis of the refugee situation. The majority of the Norwegian population believe that immigration is positive according to this research. 53%
answered that immigration was mainly good for Norway compared to 45% who answered the same a year prior. What I found interesting is how the same study had been made twice – in February 2015 and February 2016 – and the changed attitude could be recognized
(Dagsavisen, 2017).
The integration of the many refugees that arrived during the refugee situation turned out to became a part of the political debate. This made researchers reflect back on the situation with the Bosnian refugees who arrived in the 90s. An article discusses how most Bosnians have successfully integrated into Norwegian society, and is hinting that there is hope for the many Syrians who arrived in 2015. The adaptation of the Bosnian refugees to Norwegian values is characterized by their “invisibility” in the Norwegian society. The Bosnians’ employment levels are shown by statistics to not differ from the employment levels of Norwegians. The reason given for this high success rate is tied to the Norwegian reception conditions at the time (Hegnar, 2015). Similarly, Dzamarija (2017) wrote the article
“Displaced persons from Bosnia and Herzegovina arriving in Norway in the 1990s; Bosnians, the integration champions?” In this article, Dzamarija discusses how Bosninans have
successfully integrated into the Norwegian society, stating how 35% percent of Bosnians in Norway have higher education compared to 32% of the Norwegian population (2017:1).
Success stories behind the refugees that came during the refugee situation in 2015 have also been covered in the news. The Syrians were a new refugee group to Norway, although Norway had earlier experienced Bosnians and Iraqi refugees who had similarly fled from “war-torn areas” (Østby, 2017:18). The tendency of the newspapers has been to show the individual destinies of refugees (Mathiesen, 2010), and in this case the successful
55 IPSOS is an organization that specializes in opinion research of interest to the public:
https://www.ipsos.com/nb-no/sosial-forskning-omdomme-ipsos-politikk-samfunn
98 integration stories. Twenty year-old Talaat is mentioned in a news article titled
“Syrian-Talaat”. His Syrian background is highlighted to demonstrate how he has made it in
Norwegian society. In his brief time in Norway he has had three jobs, and the image of him with a rolling pin making falafels is used as a background picture (NRK, 2017).
Critics argue that public opinion can be exploited by the media and by political
developments. It is a complicated interaction between politicians, who always have the power of definition behind the “opinion” (Brochmann, 1997:171). This is similar to Jewkes’ point of opinions being used to support “politically advantageous” discourses (2015). The power of the opinion was also mentioned by Mathiesen (2011:104-105), who stated how it may possibly even lead to changes to the law in the face of a common threat. These critical suggestions make it problematic to draw an accurate hypothesis regarding the role of the public opinion.
***
This chapter has analysed the counter-image that was formed in Norwegian civil society during the refugee situation. A counter-image was presented by several central figures emphasising that Norway was facing a real refugee situation where people needed help. The Socialist Left Party and The Green Party leaders stated their withdrawal from the asylum settlement. The counter-image was also presented in the media through the distribution of the picture of Alan Kurdi. The chapter has also shown how the refugee situation led to over 1.4 million Norwegians contributing in different ways to improve the reception conditions of those who arrived in 2015 (Fladmoe, Sætrang et al., 2016). This chapter displayed how the initiatives created online, such as the Refugee Welcome groups, have improved the
“illegalized state” faced by the asylum seekers and refugees. The prominent role the
initiatives played was even mentioned by the different political parties in the committee that was responsible for the second round of strengthening to the Immigration Act of 2008
(innst.391 L 2015-2016:12). This chapter shows how this mobilization can also be interpreted as a form of political protest towards the government’s asylum policy.
99