Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[politicus]

I'd like to respond to one issue that was raised earlier in the thread, and which seems to me the crux of disagreement: The idea that countries (at least in not-settler colony sorts of places) should correspond to ethnicity. IMO, that idea is a poisonous vile thing that should be quashed. No country should concieve itself as a land explicitly for one people because no country, except perhaps Iceland (and Iceland has some settler colony aspects of its own) is a perfect nation state--everywhere there are minorities. This already makes conceiving of countries as solely for one ethnicity problematic.

When you add in refugees, it gets even more problematic. The fact that these people are suffering and fleeing from war and strife is obvious--but this idea of the perfect nation-state engenders resentment and stops the country from taking in those who are so obviously in need. That's why European (and Asian, and African, and American) countries should conceptualize themselves not as "Denmark=Land of Danes" but "Denmark=Land of people who live in Denmark."

Iceland is a very old settler colony..

You got several Pacific island nations being "perfect" nation states as well (and lots of countries historically coming very close as in 98%+). Perfection is, however, not what matters, but a solid majority. How much that is varies, but around 80% might be enough for most people. Go below that and the fundament starts to unravel. Nations can absorb and assimilate outsiders, so we are not talking about shared ancestry (real or imagined), but a shared cultural bond and language.

Sol, you can not change the whole world and make it fit into an American style multiculturalism. Absolving national home lands into some blur were all cultures are equal touches on the most primordial fears of people and make them hostile. We are talking about cultures with deep historical roots, that can not just be "reconceptualized" to fit some utilitarian goal.

It is not vile to have national homelands, it is the basic right of every people (include Kurds and other stateless people). You need a base where your culture has the prerogative and is the natural basis for human interaction. Having your own nation state to safeguard this is a right people have fought and died for. It is not something they will just give up.

If you belonged to a small people and not a dominant one, you would view this matter differently.

Americans are often extreme on this. I remember a discussion where a poster said Hawaiians were bette off then French Polynesians despite Hawaiians losing their land, language and culture. No Polynesian would view it like that.

[politicus]

Xenophobia isn't inherent to "human nature", as Politicus disturbingly seems to believe. Societies can be educated to accept, and even actively promote, multiculturalism, if their political and cultural leaders make the effort to endorse it, instead of pandering to irrational fears.

You make a mistake if you equal the desire to have a national homeland with xenophobia. You do not have to hate foreigners to want a home base for your culture.

The idea that an elite should "educate" the people to change their identity is counterproductive - as we see amble evidence of in Europe at the moment. If you want a formula that allows a more culturally diverse Europe to thrive you need to look for alternative solutions to the Anglophone settler society multiculturalism. This cultural pluralism must be based on a value consensus with the majority culture as a guiding culture.

(the original meaning of Leitkultur before that term was made pointless)

A major reason for the strong Islamophobia in Europe is that Muslims have a lot more trouble accepting this than, say, Chinese or Filipinos.

......

This discussion can easily become too normative. I just think that it will all be pie in the sky if we do not start with the premise that the majority of ordinary Europeans wants to keep their nation states as national homelands, which requires a solid ethnic majority. This sets a limit to how many refugees Europe can/will take - especially if any repatriation is out of the question (it changes things if you throw in real possibility of repatriation - but that requires close cooperation with African countries, which would have to be based on some kind of realignment of the relationship between the continents - including massive investments and a new and much more favourable trade regime).

We will never get to the more interesting aspects dealing with potential European/African cooperation/interaction on this crisis and the balance between influencing push and pull factors if we are stuck in "Europeans should just become like Canadians/Australians and everything would be fine" stuff. Because it is unrealistic (at least in the vast majorities of countries).

[politicus]

Fundamentally, Europe needs to get its act together to stop the flow. If they want a viable state of affairs they must be willing to make sacrifices and take a more proactive stance towards the conflicts and other causes of migration. Otherwise they will have to pay a far higher cost.

Agree on the proactive stance as the central part of a long term solution, but "stopping the refugees" leaves the question where they should psychically be housed (and possibly be settled). You have millions unable to return to their home land and creating safe areas in Africa would either require military intervention (a risky and perhaps (even likely) counter productive strategy) or African governments being willing to take refugees for cash (the disentangling of hosting and paying I was talking about). So far several African governments have refused such offers (fx we tried negotiating with Kenya about this), so where are the possible resettlemet areas or just safe areas until repatriation might be possible?

In the Middle East you got some countries filled to the brink (Lebanon, Jordan), while rich Arab nations are declining to take any refugees, but Europe has no way of influencing them (the US has, but would be unlikely to use it).

What would your short term plan of action be? Where and how should the refugees be housed and protected here and now?

[politicus]

A bit of stat. On December 31, 2014 the following 13 countries had produced the most refugees, with the Top 3 accounting for 53% and Top 10 for 77%.

Syria 3,9 mio.
Afghanistan 2,6 mio. (2,45 in Pakistan and Iran)
Somalia 1,1 mio.
Sudan 649.000
South Sudan 616.000 (up more than 500.000)
DRC 517.000
Burma 479.000
CAR 412.000 (up 260.000)
Iraq 370.000
Eritrea 363.000 (but has almost doubled since)
Colombia 360.000
Pakistan 284.000 (mainly to Afghanistan, only place to go)
Ukraine 271.000 (mainly Russia)

A number of these countries gives limited refugees to Europe. The ones in bold are the ones that affects Europe substantially.

[politicus]

Colombian refugees?

Colombia has one of the world's largest internally displaced populations, reported at 6 million people according to UNHCR. 137,000 more Colombians were displaced during 2014.

Of the 360.000 refugees, there are 168.500 in Venezuela and 122.000 in Ecuador.

[politicus]

Colombian refugees?

Colombia has one of the world's largest internally displaced populations, reported at 6 million people according to UNHCR. 137,000 more Colombians were displaced during 2014.

Of the 360.000 refugees, there are 168.500 in Venezuela and 122.000 in Ecuador.

But what they flee exactly? The war between government, paramilitaries and FARC is pretty much inexistant since a decade.

Colombia is a very violent country and the war being "inexistent" (a big stretch..) does not mean the people involved in the scramble for land and resources the war turned into do not still terrorize other people.

So: Right wing paramilitaries, (ex-)FARC and drug traffickers. The border areas are very violent. Abductions of people, trafficking/sex slavery etc.

Plus people can not return to the land, since others (militias formed by wealthy businessman and landowners drove peasants off their land) stole it (and often resold it, this is creating problems of whether the new owners were in good faith - government reluctant to create more displacements by throwing out new owners). People returning risks getting killed if someone else took their land (or other assets). FARC also "moved" people to get space to plant coca or mine minerals.

A lot of the land in the north is controlled by demobilized paramilitaries, or resold to third parties or front companies, which makes restitution difficult.

FARC did call off the truce in May. Whether FARC is officially at war or not they are still a threat to common people.

....

Colombia does not deregister displaced persons, so a campesino who moved to the slums of a big city due to violence ten yeas ago is still displaced - so the IDP number is higher than it would be in Africa or elsewhere - but that does not influence the refugee numbers.

[politicus]

Ukraine 271.000 (mainly Russia)

That Ukrainian # looks rather low. Isn't it closer to a million?

UNHCR numbers as of December 31. And refugees, so not including IDPs.

[politicus]

The only workable solution may be something drastic-- an EU-backed UN special administration or maybe even a NATO Trust Territory lasting for a medium-term period. Crazy idea, of course. But it's unlikely that there's any real way to have the situation in Syria, Libya, and Iraq solve themselves soon on their own accord, peacefully.

You could even lessen the amount of "boots on the ground" needed by relying on local troops led by foreign commanders and a strict recruitment and commissioning system. That way you could maintain peace and entice migrants to return to their native countries.

Putting Iraq/Syria and Libya under de facto Western administration, however UN legitimated (and China/Russia would oppose that) reeks of neo-imperialism and would give a massive backlash. You need a non-White/Western, preferably Muslim, administration. Unfortunately none of the Asian countries that might play a positive role (Indonesia, Malaysia, India (with strictly Muslim admins), even Pakistan) are likely to get involved. I suppose a UN administration recruiting mainly from Muslim countries might work, but you still need someone to organize the military necessary to keep control and NATO doing it allows the fanatics to keep recruiting based on resistance to infidels and/or imperialism (Western or neo-Ottoman) etc.

But at some point the UN needs to come up with a solution for reconstructing failed states. It is too dangerous to just let whole countries remain in a state of anarchy for decades. However, that would probably require the establishment of a regular UN Army, and that seems always to be unacceptable to the great powers.

....

India taking over Gulf States with migrant worker majorities as "overseas territories" is an idea I have often toyed with. The threat of doing it might even persuade them to take some Syrian refugees to bolster their Arab population

[politicus]

the Hungarians... are introducing a detention zone.

How will that work?

[politicus]

Could the traffickers not just switch to alternative routes through Romania or Croatia?

[politicus]

Could the traffickers not just switch to alternative routes through Romania or Croatia?

Yes.

I guess this is exactly what Hungary's government wants ... (of course they would then have to create an even longer fence at their Romanian/Croatian border).

Exactly, so why would they want that?

[politicus]

Could the traffickers not just switch to alternative routes through Romania or Croatia?

Isn't that how those trucks carrying migrants travelled?

Romania and Bulgaria are not yet part of the Schengen area, so the Romanian route wouldn't be of much benefit for them.

Since Serbia is (obviously) also not Schengen this should not be a factor. Hungary is the gateway to Schengen in both cases.

[politicus]

There are a couple of obvious things the EU could do:

- Establish diplomatic relations with the administration in Tripoli. They are after all the ones dealing with the influx of migrants and we need to cooperate with them (also because of drugs, weapon smugling etc.). We might even be able to make them give refugees the legal right to asylum in return if we recognize them.

- Helping UNHCR finance the aid to refugees in Egypt (sky high unemployment, so they are living almost exclusively of aid and UNHCR has cut that to half recently).

[politicus]

Europe has a dark legacy rooted in its history, one that cannot be escaped; every nation and people is culpable. 

How exactly? If you are talking about imperialism it is hard to see why Albania, Finland, Lithuania, Iceland, Romania and a dozen other countries are "culpable" of anything. It was a Western European great power game with a few smaller countries getting a share.

If it is holocaust that is also limited to certain countries, while Bulgaria and Denmark actively helped safe our Jews and neutral countries were unaffected.

You make the usual American mistake of defining Europe as if it was all the same. It is a pretty diverse place whose peoples have very different historical experiences.

[politicus]

It's very clear that Europe has the resources to accommodate refugees, it's a question of will.

Agreed, but there are very good reasons why this will is lacking and it is unlikely to suddenly materialize.

You can not ignore the basic dilemma: Europeans do not want (further) mass immigration and since refugees can not be repatriated they are de facto immigrants. If there were a real possibility of repatriation later on there would be little resistance to taking refugees, but we know from experience this is not so. Even countries with IDPs are rarely able to "repatriate" them (see Colombia for an example).

With the population growth Africa has and the conflict  potential there is on the continent (incl. failed states) no other part of the world will be willing to take the refugee flows we will see in the coming decades. That is why we need to separate payment and hosting and accept that hosting will be on the continent itself (which also has a lot less population density and more potential for growth than Europe).

Solving the problem in Africa for Western (and ideally also East Asian) money would also help more people - including those that can not afford to pay traffickers (women, children, elderly and disabled over represented among them) in the long run.

It might be cynical to view the refugee crisis in such calculated terms, but when the numbers gets this big and the countries of origin are as "problematic", it is unavoidable.

[politicus]

Nationalism is a romantic myth, an invented tradition and it's a very destructive one at that. The common tongues, national traditions and customs that are tied to states were forged by public policy for the purpose of state-making.

1) That is in itself a bit of a myth, or rather an exaggeration. There are strong elements of proto-nationalism dating back to high medieval times in several countries.

2) It does not in itself make them any less real or easier to absolve.

[politicus]

There are five elements in this:

- update about the current situation/what is being done
- short term solutions for the current refugees
- long term structural solutions to the growing amount of refugees in the region/changes in the international refugee system
- whether Europe has a historical guilt that needs to be repaid - and therefore a special responsibility for helping those in need
- whether Europe has a right to try to retain a fairly homogeneous population/culture, or that is racist

The last two themes are easy to discuss, but ultimately not that productive (both sides find the other side's arguments preposterous - no real dialogue is likely). The third is hard to debate, but potentially the most interesting. The first two naturally belongs in the thread. Maybe we could separate the last three and move them to Political Debate? And then focus this thread on the first two.

I know afleitch is a hands-off mod, so I don't expect him to disentangle this mess, but perhaps we could agree to limit this ourselves?

[politicus]

Plus, if you put all of the refugees out of Syria and Eritrea in France, they would still account for a small percentage of the whole population. There is no threat except a panic fear.

Well, 3.9 million Syrians and 700 000 Eritreans would be less than 10% of the French population, but that is not including IDPs, so I suppose that depends how you count and what you consider a "low percentage". Even then there are other refugee groups, some of them coming from Francophone countries in Africa like CAR and DRC and having France high on their list of preferred destinations.

The over all number of refugees and IDPs at the moment is at roughly the same size as the population of France. Would you take them all? Unselected (no picking and choosing the ones likely to integrate well or cause few problems).

There is also the fact that both the Middle East and Africa will continue to produce huge streams of refugees due to, among other things, failed states and pressure on resources from population growth.

Numbers matter - both here and now and what they will be in the long run. This is why the "just let them in" approach is naive.

Also, you are very cavalier bout the gender aspect. Finnish stats show that Arab migrants are 17 times more likely to commit rape than Finnish men and African immigrants 16 times more likely.
(Finland is one of the few countries that produce ethnically based stats for these things - but the pattern is by all accounts the same in other Nordic countries).

The difference may be smaller in macho France, but you can not ignore the "reversing gender equality/harassment/threat to women aspect and just say "crimes should be punished".

People are brutalized by growing up in war torn countries and brutalized people use violence easier than non-brutalized; men from cultures that do not respect women do not suddenly start to respect women because they enter a new continent.

Again, if we are talking about a small amount of refugees all this is manageable, but if we talk about a steady stream of millions of migrants it obviously creates serious problems. And women, gays, Jews and other vulnerable groups will feel this disproportionally.

You already have some of the worst integration problems in Europe (many of your ghetto suburbs are regular hellholes), where will you place 4,6 million refugees (taking you seriously here) without making this much worse?

[politicus]

One aspect that I think illustrates some of the dilemmas of all this is the casting of gay people as everyones favourite refugees in Scandinavia (well, apart from SoCons banking on taking only Christians..). Whenever there is talk about which refugees we should take gay people come up and there are a number of reasons for this - some openly declared, others never mentioned:

- Openly gay people are undeniably a very vulnerable group in African and Middle Eastern refugee camps as well as societies in general. (obviously everyones favored reason)

- Gays are highly unlikely to be Jihadists (openly/self identified gays that is, there are probably tons of repressed gays in ISIS).

- Gays are more likely to have liberal/"Western" social attitudes in general.

- Gay men are not associated with machismo - and thought of as gentle, sensitive etc.

- Gay men do not rape or harass women.

- Gays are better educated on average (at lest that is the assumption).

- Gays are less likely to be deeply religious.

- Gays get much fewer children, so they do not alter the ethnic balance as much (never admitted, but clearly a factor).

The second most preferred group is single women - guess why.

[politicus]

See, sh*t like this is why Europe should aggressive attempt to resettle refugees from Turkey and Jordan, so that they aren't forced to literally go through the tundra to receive asylum.

Why should only we do that ?

It was the US that stirred up the hornets nests in AfPak, Iraq, Syria and Libya

To begin with, I take grave exception to this calculated racist bullshoot statement.

What is racist about that? Even if you consider it inaccurate and simplified it has nothing to do with race. Stop abusing that word.

[politicus]

See, sh*t like this is why Europe should aggressive attempt to resettle refugees from Turkey and Jordan, so that they aren't forced to literally go through the tundra to receive asylum.

Why should only we do that ?

It was the US that stirred up the hornets nests in AfPak, Iraq, Syria and Libya

To begin with, I take grave exception to this calculated racist bullshoot statement.

What is racist about that? Even if you consider it inaccurate it has nothing to do with race. Stop abusing that word.

I use that word as a mild euphemism for what I think.

In that case better write what you think. If there is one word it is never sensible to abuse in the modern world it is racism.

Even so, what is your problem with this statement? What is inaccurate or untrue about it?

[politicus]

Even so, what is your problem with this statement? What is inaccurate or untrue about it?

Pretty much everything. But, I am afraid, like any other substantive answer I ever attempted here, you will consider a proper response either offensive, or trolling.

BTW, I am impressed, how much substantive discussion took place in this thread since I tried to keep my trolling away.

You never gave much in the way of substantive discussion, just a lot of derails about how Europeans are responsible for everything that is wrong in the world and are the villains of history (as if Asian, Africans, Arabs and Aztec empires never committed horrible acts). The idea that Europeans have a collective guilt (whether they are descended from Saami reindeer herders, Romanian peasants or Gallician fishermen) blocks any sensible approach to this and if that is what you call being substantive discussion then yes, I do consider that either trolling or at least idiosyncratic Individual Politics material, nothing that can form the basis for a fruitful debate.

Agree on the low quality of discussion, but there are some posts that could have formed the basis for a debate of various interesting aspects.

[politicus]

But of course, beware the browns right? No matter where they are?

However much you guys like to make this about race it is not the colour of their skin that is the problem, and it is not as simple as "lets just help those in need". Refugee situations can often be boiled down to this, but this one can't. And there have been several attempts to explain why. Ignoring them and just posting a moral reprimand is pointless.

[politicus]

Plans to divide up those fleeing amongst EU member states won’t matter, because they will just leave to go to whatever country they want to go if they can cross the borders. That might be why it's difficult to agree.

That is only true if the current integration system keeps being the norm. If we see a continued wave there will be a pressure towards establishing more permanent refugee camps to deter economic migrants and to keep up a realistic possibility of repatriation if conflicts end. In this case there will be pressure to establish them in countries with lower costs - and that would primarily be in Eastern Europe.

It all depends on whether the "asylum seeker - refugee status - integration - possibility of acquiring citizenship" chain will be upheld - and I doubt that.

I agree the country hopping is a major factor in delegitimizing refugees in the eyes of the general European public. It is too calculated and organized and collides with our mental image of a "real refugee". I have tried earlier in the thread to describe the switch from the classical political refugee with a (comparatively) "elite" background to the modern version of a 1890s Eastern or Southern European "flight to America"  to escape a combination of poverty, war and oppression, but you may have more luck to integrate this aspect in the discussion - it tends to be ignored, but is important. Our concept of what a refugee is is simply dated and that forces us to rethink the whole international refugee system.

Ideally we need resettlement areas and they are not likely to be found in densely populated Europe. We need internationally to negotiate about whether some countries would be willing to resettle refugees, build new towns for them etc. if the rich countries paid for it and gave trade concessions etc. Separate hosting and payment is an important key to opening this up.

Europe should take the most vulnerable refugees: Disabled people, lone women with children, gays, torture victims, people in need of medical treatment, elderly in need of care etc. We could also take some refugees with attractive skills as labour migrants. But we need to find another solution for the masses. Migration of large amounts of young, unskilled men from Middle Eastern and African countries will always be seen as a threat. There are no jobs for them and we fear crime, harassment and even terror. Some of that fear is irrational, but some is also based on previous experiences.

Europe is mostly "we wanna help, but not in my backyard" at this point, you can deplore that if you like, but it is a reality and I think we should use the "we wanna help" aspect constructively instead of focusing exclusively on discussing the moral unacceptability of the NIMBY-aspect. There is a potential for an international solution and the numbers are not unmanageable if spread across the globe according to a mix between BNP and population - incl. growth economies in Asia. There needs to be a lot more global coordination on this and the EU could take the initiative, and the US could back it up.

[politicus]

Meanwhile, White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated that Europe needs to solve the refugee problem itself. The US "will be glad to help Europe by giving advise" but will not take in refugees: "Europe has the capacity to solve the problem itself." He also said that European politicians shouldn't forget "that this is about human beings".

I don't think the US is under the obligation to take in refugees, but if they don't, at least I'd like the White House to refrain from taking the moral highground.

Yeah, that is hypocritical - especially with the very low level of Syrian UN refugees admitted to the US.

Then there is the matter of the indirect effects of the Iraq war on the Syrian civil war.