By PETER YOUNG

In the direct words of United Nations bureaucrats, migration has become a global phenomenon in the 21st century.

The flow of migrants around the world is driven by a combination of political, economic, social and environmental factors. Illegal - now called irregular - immigration in Europe has for long been a major issue in different countries of the continent, not least Britain. But, suddenly it seems to have taken centre stage across many European nations, both because of new governmental action and the rising incidence of public protest through demonstrations on the streets of a number of cities that is a reflection of the growth of public discontent.

Even a cursory study of the European press shows that there is a growing focus on border controls in face of a substantial increase of illegal border crossings in 2023 – and that, reportedly, all over Europe voters are citing immigration as the top issue currently facing their own countries and the whole continent.

In early August, I wrote about the violent demonstrations that took place up and down Britain more than a month ago. Given, in particular, the latest developments, I should like to return to the subject this week.

In the UK, public concern appears to have boiled over as divisions in society have worsened. The original cause of the rioting in different parts of the country was the murder of young children in the northwestern town of Southport near Liverpool. Recently, however, hatred and prejudice seem to have festered and there has been a rise of the expression of extremist ideologies.

Demonstrations have continued in places like Birmingham which is a melting pot of varied ethnic minorities where race relations have become strained. Britain’s second city is normally a bustling metropolis and ought to be a beacon of harmony but is now said to be almost a battleground of intolerance.

Elsewhere, recently in Ireland anti-immigration protests apparently brought central Dublin to a temporary halt. There have been protests in France as the government is seeking to toughen up its policy towards asylum-seekers. Spain, Italy and Greece, which are major entry points for migrants seeking to stay in Europe, are looking at new anti-immigrant measures while Hungary - which with Austria is said to be the strongest anti-immigrant EU member state - and Poland have built secure border fences.

The latter is developing a formal new strategy for “comprehensive and safe” migration, particularly strengthening its border with Belarus which is its main source of irregular immigration. Poland has also joined a group of other EU member states who have asked the European Commission to propose “new ways and solutions to prevent irregular migration in Europe”, since they believe the EU needs to take more action to combat this.

Thus, the evidence shows a new emphasis on the overall subject. Nonetheless, to many, recent developments in Germany have been, perhaps, the most unexpected in a country that has traditionally welcomed new migrants – notably the one million asylum-seekers received for settlement by the then Chancellor Merkel in 2015 as well as the numerous immigrant workers employed as far back as the 1960s and subsequently.

Merkel’s open and generous attitude towards migrants was said to have been based on her experience as an East German living a restricted life under communist rule before reunification with West Germany in 1990. But she was criticised at the time and later for her decision which was widely seen as not being in Germany’s interest.

Current Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, now says that there have been too many immigrants allowed in to Germany and he has called for “more and faster” deportations. That will come as no surprise given that he was, of course, speaking after the poor performance of his coalition party in recent state elections that saw the far-right, anti-migrant AfD party secure significant gains. It was also presumably a reaction to a recent serious act of violence involving an immigrant.

But what, to my eye, has come as a surprise is Germany’s decision to take the extreme act of shutting down multiple mosques, including the famous Blue Mosque in the city of Hamburg on the grounds it was linked politically to the Iranian regime. However, that looks to be in line with a tougher approach to extremism; and I, for one, was particularly interested in the official statement that there was a distinction between the Islamist extremist that the government was cracking down on and the many Muslims who belonged to Germany and lived according to their faith. Of course, it is hard to comment without knowing the full facts. But that seemed to me to be aptly put.

Some say that the pressure to adopt effective anti-immigrant control measures in Europe is greatest in Germany, France and the UK – and what is certain is that such pressure will grow. With people in Britain demanding action by the politicians to control the so-called boat people migrants crossing the English Channel from France and seeking entry illegally, the issue will remain politically controversial – and it is not yet clear how the new Starmer government plans to handle it. But what is surely a supreme irony is that the Germans themselves are now looking into the possibility of using the UK’s proposed Rwanda scheme that has already been rejected by the Labour government.

Spectacular finale of the Paralympics at weekend

While watching on Sunday the spectacular and lavish closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games in Paris, I admit to feeling almost overwhelmed by the sheer “goodness” of the whole event in a troubled world. It will surely have left a lump in the throats of many.

The French authorities clearly deserve hearty congratulations for their superb organisation of these Games which followed on from their highly successful summer Olympics. Eleven days of high level sporting competition among people suffering from some sort of physical disability - with more than 4,000 athletes competing in some 550 medal events across 22 sports and China emerging as the top medal winner with what is known as “Team Great Britain” not far behind - have been widely judged to have been another splendid success.

People often wonder about the origin of the Games. Their history stretches back to 1948 to a hospital in Buckinghamshire in England for war veterans called Stoke Mandeville. It specialised in treating Second World War servicemen suffering from spinal cord injuries that had resulted in paralysis of their lower limbs. As well as providing medical treatment, those in charge were looking for ways to raise their patients’ spirits as part of their rehabilitation overall. They therefore started organizing sporting competitions for them.

These developed gradually to the point where they were called the Stoke Mandeville Games. Over the years, they were expanded to include more sports. Furthermore, disabled athletes from other countries - and eventually from all over the world – were invited to participate.

Thus, the Stoke Mandeville Games became known as the Paralympics - a series of international contests for athletes with disabilities - in time for the 1960 summer Olympics in Rome and were added to them.

Reflecting on all this while watching the closing ceremony, I could not help being struck by the sheer decency of human nature on display, not least when one considers the assistance of sponsors and of the enormous support teams behind the scenes and the commitment of family and friends to the athletes involved; and then, of course, the skill and commitment of the athletes themselves are hugely impressive.

Some people are saying it shows the inherent decency of human beings in the eternal battle between good and evil – and, what’s more on a practical note, there is even now talk of remuneration for medal winners.

Sudan on brink of complete disaster

How depressing and saddening it has been to do research about the current situation in the African state of Sudan which has been ravaged by civil war for the last 16 months. I should like to give it some publicity today since the evidence shows that the extent of the suffering is truly shocking, but it rarely receives coverage in the international media which is currently preoccupied with the wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

Moreover, a report was published last week by a UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission which found that the warring parties had committed “harrowing human rights violations and international crimes, including many that amount to war crimes against humanity”.

Showing no sign of ending, the conflict is caused by a vicious power struggle - and disagreement about a return to civilian rule - between the Sudanese army and a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces known as the RSF. The fighting has claimed thousands of lives and precipitated the largest internal displacement crisis in the world, with an estimated ten million people forced out of their homes and some two million fleeing to neighbouring countries.

Reportedly, as a consequence of numberless atrocities and human rights violations, this ongoing war is destroying Sudan as a nation. In certain parts of the country there is a hunger crisis that is said to be of unimaginable proportions with half of the population facing horrendous levels of food deprivation that are judged to be the worst in the country’s history. This means that some 25 million are facing a level of acute hunger.

To provide some sort of context, Sudan’s estimated population in 2022 was nearly 47 million. Located in the north east of Africa, it is bordered by various countries, including Egypt, Chad, the Central African Republic, Libya, Eritrea, Ethiopia and the Red Sea to the east – and because of its geographical position it is considered to be strategically important.

Although the situation is covered only sporadically, if at all, by the world’s media, according to news sources the UN report mentioned above referred to a call by human rights experts for an independent and impartial force to protect civilians in the escalating conflict. Recently, there have also been US-led peace talks held in Geneva, though these were inconclusive since neither of the warring parties showed up. Both of them remain intransigent and refuse even to recognize the authority of the UN. So prospects of a national ceasefire have faded. But it is now hoped that amidst the continuing humanitarian crisis some sort of joint international action may help to secure access for the provision of life-saving aid.

There is doubt, however, whether agreements reached in Geneva can be put into effect on the ground in Sudan without help from neighbouring countries. The US says that it is still committed to getting the parties to negotiate a possible ceasefire while working immediately to try to establish access routes for aid.

From what I have read, the conclusion seems to be that, while the people of Sudan want a cessation of hostilities, they are aware that this will remain difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. But their immediate need is to make sure the whole country has access to food and medicines, and their ultimate objective and hope of returning - with outside help - the country to its previous democratic state should come at a later stage.

Despite all the gloom, it must be welcome news to those concerned that the US has shown a degree of interest and leadership in this major crisis. So perhaps there is a measure of hope for the Sudanese people after all.