Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[Sol]

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."

[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.

[Sol]

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.

The problem is that if you assert that all people are deserving of a state based on ethnicity, you run into the difficult problem of where to draw the line. Are the Gagauz deserving of a state of their own? The Sorbs? Val D'Aosta? Additionally, creating a perfect nation-state is genuinely impossible in large parts of the world--the Balkans being an excellent example, but this is true of most places.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 thier political and cultural leaders make the effort to endorse it, instead of pandering to irrational fears.

[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).

[Beezer]

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 thier political and cultural leaders make the effort to endorse it, instead of pandering to irrational fears.

They should first explain what multiculturalism is though. Different cultures living side by side or the incorporation of non-native cultures into the dominant one? I.e. forcing people from different cultural backgrounds to accep the basic tenets of our western culture: freedom of speech and religion, gender equality... If it's the latter, I can most certainly sign up to that. The former - not exactly.

I think it's also perfectly acceptable for Danes to feel that their homeland should be the "Land of Danes" rather than the "Land of people who happen to live in Denmark." We tend to bemoan the disappearance of cultures and languages but when it comes to European cultures, efforts to preserve it are somehow frowned upon. Go figure.

[Simfan34]

The idea articulated by some that we should reject national differences and identities in a full throttled embrace of multicultural is not just extreme but paradoxical. Doing such a thing would presumably erase cultural differences between peoples.

I think we humans can find a way to live together peacefully without being reduced to a state of culturally indistinct greyness. The idea seems practically dystopic, even. If there was just one ("progessive", sure) world monoculture human civilisation would be far worse for it. We all have our own countries. People in need should not be left to suffer due to insecurities about identities. But the idea that any culture should be willing to wholly surrender its distinct identity and customs to merely accommodate outsiders is an indefensible one. Migrants should be willing to abide by prevailing customs on the host country, not the other way around.

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.

[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.

[Simfan34]

Colombian refugees?

[Simfan34]

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.

That reminds me: on a tangential note, if I was a particularly diabolical Indian Prime Minister, I might attempt to forment a migrant worker uprising in one or more of the Gulf states, sweep in claiming R2P of nationals, and manipulate the place into becoming a Union Territory. Aden was once part of the Bombay Presidency, after all.

[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.

[MaxQue]

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.

[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.

[Beezer]

Ukraine 271.000 (mainly Russia)

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

[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

[Tender Branson]

10.000 migrants are expected to arrive in Burgenland (Eastern Austria) in the next week.

There's a rush now by the illegals to try and get to Austria/Germany quickly, because the Hungarians are about to finish their border fence to Serbia, plus they are introducing a detention zone and tough laws that anyone who destroys part of the border fence will face up to 5 years in prison.

The Austrian Red Cross and Army has already set up huge tents near the Hungary border to "welcome" the illegals ...

[Tender Branson]

Hungary is the new Arizona:

[politicus]

the Hungarians... are introducing a detention zone.

How will that work?

[Tender Branson]

the Hungarians... are introducing a detention zone.

How will that work?

According to the Standard article:

http://derstandard.at/2000021485062/Ungarn-will-Fluechtlinge-an-Grenze-internieren

The Fidesz government plans to introduce a new "mass immigration emergency law" next week, that will come into force in Mid-September and will give authorities great powers to combat the flow on the border.

The law will allow the police and army forces at the border to create a so-called 60 meter "transit zone" to intern illegal migrants who are breaking through the barbed wire. The security forces will also be allowed to use tear gas, water cannons and batons to hold them in the zones. Illegals who are entering Hungary by crawling through under the provisional barbed wire fence could be imprisoned by 1-3 years, those who are willingly destroying parts of the fence up to 5 years. The people will be held in the "transit zones" until they can be deported or relocated into camps.

Also, the border patrol force will be heavily increased in the next weeks under the law. The barbed wire fence is only preliminary, there will be a bigger (more robust) fence ready by November, which will seal off the whole Hungary/Serbia border.

[politicus]

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

[Tender Branson]

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).

[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?

[Simfan34]

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

Isn't that how those trucks carrying migrants travelled?