News on visa policy connected to the term “Schengen” make the top and most popular news which are followed and presented by representatives of different mass media actors on a regular basis. Traditionally high interest of media in this issue is determined both by increasing public demands and personal (corporate) interest of journalists who rightfully belong to the most concerned and mobile categories of population that naturally aspires the freedom of movement.
Iryna Sushko | Europe Without Barriers
Mass media comprise substantial source of informing the public on all major issues, in particular about visa deals between Ukraine and the European Union. Formation of relevant public opinion primarily depends on the media rather than on politicians and diplomats.
News on visa policy connected to the term “Schengen” make the top and most popular news which are followed and presented by representatives of different mass media actors on a regular basis. Traditionally high interest of media in this issue is determined both by increasing public demands and personal (corporate) interest of journalists who rightfully belong to the most concerned and mobile categories of population that naturally aspires the freedom of movement.
Business, scientific and cultural exchanges, sport, visiting relatives, tourism – this is only a short list of reasons for traveling and making contacts which in one way or another benefit to organic integration and interaction between people in the context of European values.
One of the main features of covering visa issues in Ukrainian mass media is a certain emotional approach in forming the attitude of the citizens towards a certain country and its “friendly” or “unfriendly” policy which is performed via visa procedure of relevant consulates.
Natural evidence of active position of mass media is their wish to protect the interests of Ukrainian applicants who were discriminated or insulted in one way or another due to the imperfect, unfair visa practices. In this case media criticism is aimed not only at consular establishments of EU Member States but at the Ukrainian government as well as it does not efficiently protect the interests of its own citizens.
In the most cases while covering different aspects of visa relations between Ukraine and the European Union, media speakers and writers focus their attention on the most sensitive issues which are important for potential applicants, in particular: complications and burden of visa procedure; negative outcomes of Schengen Zone expansion; cases of violation the rights of the applicants and humiliation of their dignity by the Consular staff etc.
At the same time only a small number of publications contain a proper analysis concerning changes in EU visa policy and expected perspectives. The majority of printed media focuses attention on the negative experience of Ukrainian applicants, sharply criticizing the treatment on behalf of consular staff or peculiarities of visa procedure in consular establishments of EU Member States. The simplified coverage leaves out the difficulties which are typical for Ukrainian applicants and Ukrainian state as the whole. The list of reasons and factors which provide for the full and objective picture is also often left behind.
Mass media is the reflection of general attitude of the citizens towards visa/travel/migration issues; it may be followed in a number of publications in printed and electronic mass media which appeared in 2007 and 2008. Most of the headings of such materials reflected those negative tendencies in subject perception which dominated during the year. The reader could in particular catch such titles as “The third race”, “Schengen Toll Bar”, “Derision of Ukrainians in Europe”, “People of non Schengen nationality”, “Insincere Europe”, “Facilitation on the Verge of Absurd”, “Rejection by Europe”, “Europe’s Ukrainephobia. How to Jump Over the Visa Fence”, “Europe’s Aversion”, “The Right to Humiliation”, “On the Other Side of Schengen Fence”, etc.
These publications pertained to numerous visa issues: complicated requirements, non transparency of visa procedure, more complicated situation after the Schengen Zone expansion, etc.
However most attention was devoted to the Agreement on Facilitation of the Issuance of Visas (VFA) which was fairly regarded as the first step made by Ukraine towards visa free regime. Agreement efficiency was evaluated by a number of mass media as insufficient, and in December 2008 the popular weekly magazine “Correspondent” awarded the Agreement with the title “Disappointment of the Year” when the magazine was summarizing the most outstanding events of the year.
Formation of overestimated expectations and the problem of mass media competence.
One of the most discussed subjects in 2008 was the issue of visa procedure facilitation by EU Member States. In most cases the journalists were to a certain extent optimistic in informing the citizens about the “victory” of Ukrainian diplomacy – implementation of VFA. For example, due to the “help” of certain officials who did not apply the correct terms, many journalists used the formulation: “facilitation (liberalization) of visa regime” instead of “facilitation of visa issuance” . This error has had substantial impact on the formation of certain hopes and expectations which actually related to (according to the majority of VFA clauses) specific categories of the citizens which make up about 5-10% of all the population of Ukraine.
Mass media messages concerning the Agreement were focused on the advantages of visa procedure for certain categories of the citizens, but at the same time the deficiency of instruments of direct action and recommendation character of many vital clauses was not mentioned .
One of the typical exaggerations concerning impact of the VFA on visa procedure was the statement that the Agreement would oblige staff of EU consular establishments to provide explanations for visa refusals . However, in correspondence with the VFA the parties appealed to EU Member States requesting to change the existing practice and introduce obligatory explanations for negative decisions as currently this issue belongs to the sphere of internal legislation of each EU Member State.
Another example of insufficient visa subject coverage is connecting the VFA with the Agreement on Readmission in the negative context, i.e. describing it as the high price paid by Ukraine for visa procedure facilitation . At the same time mass media “forgets” to inform that European Union has similar agreements on readmission with almost all EU neighboring countries, including Russian Federation and all countries that either have acquired visa free regime or are on the way to it. For example, Romania, Bulgaria, Western Balkan countries had taken obligations in the sphere of readmission long before introduction of visa free regime.
Journalists often form negative ratings of consulates which are listed according to “friendly” or “negative” attitude towards Ukrainian applicants. Certain attempts are also made to rate visa procedures in Consulates as the most complicated, “impolite” or the simplest ones . On the one hand, introduction of ratings can serve as an indicator for the applicants who should adequately prepare the documents for submission procedure and on the other hand it is a signal for authorities of Ukraine and EU about peculiarities of the policy realized by a certain country regarding the citizens of Ukraine.
Not diminishing the impact and efficiency of ratings suggested by certain mass media, we should mention that their evaluations are mostly based on emotional declarations of the applicants and their personal experience of undergoing visa procedure. In fact, regardless the official statements about common approaches implemented by EU Member States in visa proceedings, the practice lacks unified procedure. However, external observations and collected feedbacks are not sufficient for objective ratings which are based on quantitative calculations.
As visa procedures are noticeably different the following question arises: whether generalizations and schematic approaches towards visa practice in different Consulates are appropriate. In this case we speak about different approaches in terms of informing the citizens, existence and length of lines, treatment of the applicants on behalf of Consular staff (readiness to provide additional information), number of refusals and practice of their justification as well as other components of visa procedure.
Another evidence of competent and attentive mass media coverage of visa issue peculiarities is publishing stories of those citizens who did not obtain visas.
Generally this is a very effective way of fighting non transparent visa system in particular in the cases of visa refusal. Through making visa case a “personal” story mass media maintains high public interest in the practice of consulates. The case of Ukrainian writer Taras Prokhasko became rather well known. Polish Consulate refused to issue him a visa and the staff requested the author to bring his books in order to prove that he was a writer . Another example of broad media coverage of refusal cases was the story of “Children of Ukraine” ensemble, whose representatives had been dancing for three hours in front of the Consulate of France in order to demonstrate their professionalism and confirm by this their real purpose of the visit .
However, before sharing personal stories with general public the reasons for visa refusals should be analyzed even if official written refusal explanation is missing. Direct and mediated questions may help to compose fairly clear grounds for unsuccessful visa application.
There are other touchy issues of visa policy which may often turn into a certain competence test for mass media. For instance, the issues of symmetry/asymmetry of visa relations between Ukraine and the EU Member States. Mass media frequently publishes declarations made by certain politicians concerning introduction of symmetrical visa regime with EU Member States as a response to unsatisfactory visa practice of EU countries. These declarations are actively supported by many citizens of Ukraine: to introduce the same obstacles for EU citizens as a response to visa barriers created by EU Member States. Such steps may be considered as legitimate diplomatic pressure. However their use should not replace real domestic work and prevent Ukraine from meeting complicated but absolutely necessary criteria and standards which will provide the ground for visa free regime.
The declaration made by the President of Ukraine and his relevant decree of late August 2008 on the possible reconsidering of unilateral visa-free regime between for the EU citizens sounded as a diplomatic pressure before the start of visa dialogue between Ukraine and EU, but was not commented by media properly.
Mass media makes important contribution into settling visa problems for Ukraine by equally providing its media time for the comments made not only by politicians but also specialists, experts, public figures, representatives of diplomatic missions of EU Member States able to discuss this sensitive topic in a more profound way.
Newsbreaks
Late 2007 and the whole year of 2008 was significant due to a very important news for Ukrainian travelers to the EU – the launch of VFA implementation. Most mass media more or less covered this event and it became one of the most indicative subjects concerning mass media impact on public opinion. During the research held by CPCFPU in 2008 the experts had the possibility to explore the level of Ukrainian applicants’ knowledge about the Agreement. According to the results of two stage research more than 60% of the respondents – visitors to Consulates of EU Member States know or have heard about the Agreement. However a slightly superficial way of covering this problem proved to have its impact as the majority of the respondents were not aware about the ways available for them to use Agreement clauses in practice. The results obtained demonstrate rather high attention to this event in quantitative rather than qualitative dimension.
Another example of specific mass media impact on public opinion is media research on most important visa problems. For example, in July of 2008 the weekly “Vlast Deneg” (Power of Money) held a research in the sphere of shadow market in obtaining visas which is rather developed in Ukraine.
Activities of private commercial companies which offer their services at all stages of visa procedure are perceived both by Ukrainian authorities and citizens as an integral part of visa application whereas official representatives of diplomatic missions continuously declare that they are not involved into offered services. At the same time according to unofficial expert evaluations visa market reaches 1 billion dollars a year and the system of mediators between the applicant and the Consulate includes different parties, such as private persons – relatives who are employed at Consular establishments, tour agencies and accredited tour operators, visa centers, etc.
Detailed market analysis which has been formed in visa sphere provokes certain conclusions which explain the reasons for such phenomenon in Ukraine. Firstly, strict visa requirements turn into complicated obstacles and applicants try to overcome them in different ways, mostly by making use of paid services provided by mediators. Secondly, there is a lack of fighting corruption by official authorities of Ukraine; low awareness level among Ukrainian applicants about the peculiarities of visa application and legal ways of settling doubtful cases which resulted due to visa refusal or delay in obtaining the visa. It should be underlined that visa policy is a profit sphere and it gives large profits on a regular basis. This may be one of the reasons for rather slow changes in visa policy.
Journalists have continuously focused their attention on other important issues in visa sphere – creation of centers for visa documentation processing called Visa centers. Most printed and Internet media turned the attention to the existence of outsourcing paid services. Mass media pointed out exclusively negative outcomes of visa center activities , in particular increase in visa application fees (additional fee was introduced for documents submission and procession) and lack of impact of Visa centers on the result of visa application. This subject was the key one in the weekly “Expert” on August 3, 2008 .
Authors of the article state that creation of Visa centers has become one of the ways to violate international agreements (due to additional fees exceeding 35 Euro stipulated in the Agreement). However they forget to add that such cooperation between Consulates and mediator centers is based on generally legitimate grounds and is regulated by Common Consular Instructions. The main problem of activities of such centers lies in the lack of alternative choice (in most cases) for the citizens whether to turn directly to the consulate or to Visa centers while submitting the documents.
Regardless the fact that most analytical materials concerning Visa centers’ activities were focused on negative sides, the monitoring of Visa center activities held in 2007 and monitoring of consulates held in 2008 revealed rather different evaluations . In particular, the respondents stated certain improvement of several aspects in visa procedure: shortening of lines and duration of visa application process. The journalists did not inform about the idea of creating similar centers in the regions of Ukraine – this decision can solve the problem of distances for Ukrainian applicants.
Violation of the rights of Ukrainian citizens during visa application process or their humiliation abroad comprises another subject for quick mass media reaction and broad coverage. The story of Ukrainian workers abroad analyzed in weeklies “Dzerkalo tyzhnya” and “Glavred” in July 2008 was rather indicative and instructive.
Ukrainian workers who were lawfully returning from Spain through the territory of Germany were suspended by German policemen who took humiliating and tough measures to check them. The problem was that Ukrainian citizens obtained working visas issued by Spanish Consulate with the permission of single transit entry to Schengen countries. Coming back by overland transport they formally broke specific laws; however it was not their fault as it was caused exclusively by the deficiency of relevant clauses in national and Schengen law.
Journalists from both magazines performed correct and thorough analysis of this problem paying attention to all peculiarities of this case as it was not a unique one. Not only Ukrainian, Spanish and German diplomats but also official representatives of Ukrainian executive authorities and European Commission as well as independent experts were asked to make comments and analysis of the situation. Besides, the competence of authors of the abovementioned publications was attested by the suggested legal ways of solving this issue.
Visa dialogue between Ukraine and European Union as well as perspectives of visa free regime were another subjects of media attention since early September 2008. In this case mass media (with the “help” of some politicians) sometime provide for over-expectations. As Ukraine officially wants to get visa free regime with the EU in 2012 (expecting “EU’s gift” before Euro-2012), this date is frequently suggested in mass media as the anticipated date for such introduction but generally it does not match real prognosis.
Thus overestimated expectations are formed in this case as well, and when they are not realized they will provoke further disappointment. Such disappointment could have been avoided if mass media would have relied more on the comments of experts rather than on the politicized slogans.
Publications on visa dialogue mostly were not supported by the comments on the content and possible scenarios of the very visa dialogue and relevant reforms, content of which defines the terms and conditions for visa free future of Ukraine. Mass media, apart from “Dzerkalo Tyzhnya” and “Segodnya” did not publish any materials concerning the content and priorities of visa dialogue with the EU taking into account the experience of the countries which had similar aims and moved towards visa free regime at different speed and efficiency level.
Quite often another rotation of EU Presidency was the newsbreak in numerous mass media. Focusing its attention on priority mission of next presiding EU state, in particular in terms of economics and energy, mass media pays attention to visa policy as well. Comments made by most representatives of presiding EU states concerning visa issues are typical as they are not beyond the scope of stereotype diplomacy.
Nevertheless in the beginning of July 2008 the attention of Ukrainian mass media was focused on sharp reaction expressed by Ambassador of France in Ukraine Jean-Paul Veziant, representing the country presiding EU at that time, in response to the series of critical publications in Ukrainian mass media concerning visa problems. Reacting to numerous critical publications concerning visa issuance by EU Member States for the citizens of Ukraine during the press conference on the 8th of July Ambassador of France noted: “I have the impression that the situation concerning this issue is created artificially as we speak about a certain planned informational campaign”.
At the moment Eastern Partnership initiative which was finally approved by EU in March 2009 is regarded as another “salvation” for Ukraine from visa regime with EU. Such initiative, proposed by Sweden and Poland to a certain extent strengthens the European Neighborhood policy for the benefit of dynamic and stable development of Eastern Europe.
Interpreting the aims of European proponents of Eastern Partnership mass media frequently stated the declarations that apart from strategic initiatives (economy, legislation), the EaP will be able to promote further liberalisation of visa regime. Mass media left behind their attention the issues of concrete actions and steps which should be applied in terms of such facilitation in the framework of Eastern Partnership and how the European initiators of the program understand the term “liberalisation”. Ukrainian mass media did not comment (till April 2009) on full lifting of payment for visa procedure (Consular fee) which is laid down in EaP basic documents and accordingly the proposition of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine to make use of this opportunity in the nearest perspective did not become widely known among the audience.
Mass media paid a lot of attention on visa issue during the whole year of 2008. Experts needed effective and quick access to wider public and media actors quickly absorbed and distributed the news on visa issues.
At the same time information space of Ukraine still experiences the gap between quality expert knowledge and the content of publications on the topic. The risk of politicization and populism will probably continue to challenge the quality information provided.
How to improve visa issue coverage in Ukrainian mass media?
The subject of EU visa policy and practice has become widely discussed in Ukrainian media due to EU and Schengen enlargement and due to increase of credible interest of Ukrainian citizens to travel to the EU Member States.
The request for such discussions will continue to grow regardless economic crisis due to objective prognosis of newsbreaks (further evaluation of implementation of the Agreement on the Facilitation of Issuance of Visas, lifting visa fees, negotiations on visa free regime introduction, launch of EU “Eastern Partnership” initiative, future Association Agreement, Euro-2012, etc).
Novelty of the subject demands new knowledge and most of media still lack such knowledge. Only of few mass newspapers and TV channels employ journalists who individually research visa subject on an expert level (Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Segodnya). That is why cooperation between mass media and independent experts is the best tool of providing unbiased, multifaceted, and well thought information concerning the regulations and conditions for obtaining visas to EU Member States.
Coverage of this touchy issue demands higher responsibility and adequate competence. Domination of exclusively negative, sometimes unjustified visa stories has depressive impact not only on potential applicants in their attempts to obtain visas but increases unjustified skepticism concerning Europe and European choice of Ukraine as well.
Ukrainian mass media has powerful impact tools in order not only to create competent informational field but also to form adequate public culture in this sphere. It will contribute to quick elimination of visa barrier in this part of Europe.
Thus, this brief evaluation of publications in Ukrainian mass media on visa deals between Ukraine and EU encourages us to address the media community the following suggestions and recommendations:
• Politicization of the topic is extremely undesirable. Visa problem discussion via political means (especially during election campaigns) will disorientate target audience either by further formation of overestimated expectations (“visa free regime – tomorrow!”) or by imposing false views concerning ways for settling the problem (renewal of visa requirements for EU citizens on behalf of Ukraine, refusal to implement Agreement on Readmission, etc.)
• New political declarations should be followed by professional comments with the involvement of independent experts who directly deal with visa and migration policy, relations between Ukraine and EU.
• As the problems with visa issuance for the citizens of Ukraine are not only the outcome of “evil will” of the consulates but quite often the result of applicants’ behavior (incompetence, lack of confidence, providing ambiguous, irrelevant and sometimes false information about the applicant and the purpose of the visit, use of services of doubtful mediators) the analysis of the core of this problem should be done in more profound way.
• According to our observations, large part of the problems with obtaining visas to EU could have been eliminated if the applicants would have more thoroughly and carefully prepared for the visa procedure, would have been better informed about the core of the procedure and requirements for the applicant, including the “psychology factor”. Mass media could be of assistance by informing the applicants about successful visa applications and relevant experience of settling the problems with consulates of EU Member States. In such a way mass media can help Ukrainian citizens who plan to travel to EU in more effective way than traditionally criticizing or (which is worse!) extending panic attitudes.
• In the case of prejudiced treatment, in particular in the case of visa refusal, mass media should study each case more thoroughly and state the difference between the situations when the refusal was given due to improper or inattentive preparation to visa application or due to incorrect policy of relevant consular establishment.
• It is important to share with the public the idea that the results of visa dialogue will depend not only on the actions of Ukrainian authorities but of the whole society as well. The society will be judged according to its ability to adhere to European norms and rules, foremost by respecting the rule of law and legislative culture on the mass level.
