Syrian tragedy
September 25, 2015 9:58 AM   Subscribe

 


The UK has accepted 216 Syrian refugees. Not 216,000 or anything like that. Two-hundred and sixteen.
posted by colie at 10:40 AM on September 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


The UK has accepted 216 Syrian refugees

Most of the Gulf Arab states seem to be letting in fewer than that. Wikipedia - Qatar is sponsoring 42 Syrian refugees as 'guests of the Emir.'

--

I am pretty skeptical of Russia and its involvement in the conflict, but maybe by throwing their weight around a negotiated settlement will become more likely. Merkel and others seem to have turned around and now are suggesting working with Assad.
posted by rosswald at 10:47 AM on September 25, 2015


This weeks der spiegel cover has Merkel wearing Mother Theresa's headgear. They have photos of her having her picture taken with Syrian refugees hugging her.

Her security guys must be totally losing it.
posted by bukvich at 11:04 AM on September 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


The UK has accepted 216 Syrian refugees. Not 216,000 or anything like that. Two-hundred and sixteen.

That figure is only those resettled under a single scheme, the one which has lately been extended to 20,000. It is designed to help vulnerable people who have fled the war in Syria. It involves taking people from refugee camps, including those too poor and vulnerable ever to have made the journey to Europe. It also avoids the pull factors which Merkel has created with her scheme.

But in all, to June 2015 the UK had granted asylum to about 5,000, approaching 90% of all Syrians who have applied since the beginning of the war. It is hardly at the level of Lebanon, but nor is it the derisory figure you quote.
posted by Emma May Smith at 11:10 AM on September 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


The article, it seems, deals with Syrian refugees, but my guess is that some fifty percent of the total refugees trying to get to Europe are non-Syrians, for reasons other than the conflict within Syria.
posted by Postroad at 11:14 AM on September 25, 2015


It is hardly at the level of Lebanon, but nor is it the derisory figure you quote.

1,100,000 compared to 5,216. When the UK is the world's fifth richest country and Lebanon the world's 85th.
posted by colie at 11:53 AM on September 25, 2015


1.1 million compared to 5,216. When the UK is the world's fifth richest country and Lebanon the world's 80th.

I suspect this has to do with border security and proximity rather than wealth. I'm sure Lebanon isn't exactly thrilled to be housing a million new refugees that surged across its border during the past few years - given the political risk and instability associated with unknown new entrants - but what are they going to do about it?
posted by theorique at 11:57 AM on September 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


I like the part where Israel, a country founded on creating a safe haven for the persecuted, is building another wall on its border with Jordan; this time to keep refugees out, whereas Germany is accepting a shit ton of refugees. Ah, history is funny. And not in the haha way.

"When you have more than you need, build a longer table, not a higher fence."
posted by gman at 12:04 PM on September 25, 2015 [9 favorites]


From the article - Syria’s Kurds want refugees to return so their lands can’t be “Arabised”

I wonder why the relatively safe and stable Kurds aren't allowing mass migration of non-Kurdish refugees into their territory...
posted by rosswald at 12:13 PM on September 25, 2015


rosswald: I wonder why the relatively safe and stable Kurds aren't allowing mass migration of non-Kurdish refugees into their territory...

Having spent my fair share of time with the Kurds in both Iraq and Syria, I can safely say it can be attributed to a long history and an incredible amount of bigotry on the part of the Kurds.
posted by gman at 12:23 PM on September 25, 2015


The article, it seems, deals with Syrian refugees, but my guess is that some fifty percent of the total refugees trying to get to Europe are non-Syrians, for reasons other than the conflict within Syria.

#allrefugeesmatter
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:24 PM on September 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


I like the part where Israel, a country founded on creating a safe haven for the persecuted, is building another wall on its border with Jordan

Founded as a Jewish nation and safe haven for persecuted Jews, specifically - not just generically persecuted people of unspecified religion/ethnicity.

And, more practically, certainly not as a nation for millions of Syrians with whom they recently (<40 years) had hot wars over the Golan Heights.
posted by theorique at 12:41 PM on September 25, 2015 [6 favorites]




Founded as a Jewish nation and safe haven for persecuted Jews, specifically - not just generically persecuted people of unspecified religion/ethnicity.

Well I don't know what the UK was founded for, but now it has a moral responsibility to help persecuted people of whatever race/culture/ethnicity. As do other wealthy countries.
posted by colie at 1:22 PM on September 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


theorique: Founded as a Jewish nation and safe haven for persecuted Jews, specifically - not just generically persecuted people of unspecified religion/ethnicity.

To give you some background on myself, I am a Jew who lived in Israel, with most of my family, including my father, still there. In fact, I was just in Israel visiting in July/August. My father was instrumental in Operation Moses back in the 80's. It's all a numbers game with Israel, importing as many Jews as possible, while keeping others out. And once they have what they thought they desired - the Ethiopian Jews - a new bottom rung of the Jewish hierarchy within Israel is created; one that can be the latest target of Israel's institutional racism. Israel simply doesn't want non-Jewish refugees, be they from countries who had wars with them a long time ago, or not. One only needs to look at how Israel handled the Darfur refugee crisis, among other non-Jewish African refugee situations in the recent past.

And, more practically, certainly not as a nation for millions of Syrians with whom they recently (40 years) had hot wars over the Golan Heights.

Setting aside the reasons for past wars with Syria, you'd think that a people who've been through as much as the Jews have throughout history, would know a thing or two about tolerance and acceptance. The civilian population of Syria did not start these past wars that you speak of, and they are in fact running from the enemies of Israel.
posted by gman at 1:30 PM on September 25, 2015 [7 favorites]


My main sympathy is reserved for Turkey and other neighbouring countries who are taking the brunt of the exodus. I don't know why nearby Arab countries who take no-one have escaped criticism, or quite why the UK, which has given relatively large help to countries actually on the front line, should be criticised more than, say the US, for not taking more people.

It seems strange to me that Merkel, who encouraged more Syrians to trek across intervening countries to Germany and then slammed the door, is hailed for her moral leadership.
posted by Segundus at 2:17 PM on September 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


The article, it seems, deals with Syrian refugees, but my guess is that some fifty percent of the total refugees trying to get to Europe are non-Syrians, for reasons other than the conflict within Syria.

I've read three out of four are non-Syrians. How the numbers are arrived at, I do not know. Where did you get yours?

I don't know why nearby Arab countries who take no-one have escaped criticism


They've taken a lot of criticism. Just not in venues that the average Mefite tends to read.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:52 PM on September 25, 2015


If we required countries to take refugees proportional to dollars spent in funding rebels, the U.S. would take a lot more than we do now, although our media has been strangely complicit in an effort to rewrite the history of our involvement in the conflict.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:18 PM on September 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


A client (guy who has lunch with MPs) actually called the refugee crisis "a black swan event". Yeah nothing to do with invading Iraq. Just came out of absoloutely nowhere.
posted by yoHighness at 5:06 PM on September 25, 2015


gman: It's all a numbers game with Israel, importing as many Jews as possible, while keeping others out. And once they have what they thought they desired - the Ethiopian Jews - a new bottom rung of the Jewish hierarchy within Israel is created; one that can be the latest target of Israel's institutional racism. Israel simply doesn't want non-Jewish refugees, be they from countries who had wars with them a long time ago, or not.

Agreed. The demographic question for Israel is an existential question. As you probably know better (and more nuanced) than I, there continues to be tension about the two-state solution ("a hostile enemy right on our borders!") and the one-state solution ("full franchise of all persons in 1967-borders Israel will end Israel as a Jewish state!").

gman: The civilian population of Syria did not start these past wars that you speak of, and they are in fact running from the enemies of Israel.

They may be suffering - no one denies that - but if a million Sunni Muslims were admitted into Israel proper, they would be on the dead wrong side of the demographic equation; if they were admitted into Palestinian territories, they would increase load and crowding on the shaky Palestinian government and social services. So I would be very surprised if Israel admitted anybody from Syria.

I have a hunch that right-wing and nationalist parties in Europe look at Israel with a certain amount of envy - they want the population demographics and national identity question to be on the table in the same frank manner as it is in Israel. (At the same time, I think they are not envious of the *reasons* why that question is on the table.)
posted by theorique at 3:11 AM on September 26, 2015


'National identity' never leads anywhere good.
posted by colie at 3:41 AM on September 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


If you look at the map carefully you can see a sort of ellipse at the northern tip of Israel, south and east of Lebanon. That's the Golan Heights, and the (not especially useful) legend indicates that there are somewhere between 5,000 and 25,000 "internally displaced" refugees there.

The Economist being The Economist, what it doesn't say is that the bulk of the region is under Israel control and that the people there are effectively living in Israel. Most of the people living around there (on all sides of the border or borders) are Druse, who have a complicated relationship with their respective civil authorities because they and their cousins have to live with governments that are at war with each other.

Israel has certainly admitted some Druse from the Syrian side under various pretexts; it has also provided medical care for Druse and other people from the Syrian side within Israeli hospitals. I did an FPP about this a couple of years ago. This medical care (combined with some quiet Israeli incursions into Syrian territory) has helped keep the actual war away from the Golan heights: the medical care is a carrot; having your arms shipment blown up is the stick.

Nobody wants to make a big deal about any of this: not the Israelis, not the Druse, not the (other) Syrians, because it would just make problems. Israel is a very small, very vulnerable country whose neighbours range from "unfriendly" to "actually at war". The very best thing it can do is what it has been doing: try to quietly keep peace on its border by discouraging the ever-shifting groups there from attacking civilians.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:44 AM on September 26, 2015


I like the part where Israel, a country founded on creating a safe haven for the persecuted, is building another wall on its border with Jordan; this time to keep refugees out, whereas Germany is accepting a shit ton of refugees.

This has historical reasons.
After starting two world wars, persecuting a large chunk of the population from 1933 to 1945 and causing millions of refugees, Germany adopted a constitution that unconditionally grants asylum to everyone persecuted. This means that if you make it to Germany, all you need to do is mutter "seeking asylum" to some border guard and you can stay until it has been verified whether you really are persecuted in your country, all the while receiving a few hundred Euros every month. And since the Germans are thorough and have a working legal system in which any administrative act can be appealed, this can take years. And more years. Until your children won't remember the old country anymore and the Germans won't send you back for humanitarian reasons.

This system was tempered somewhat by the Dublin agreement which states that Germany (or any other EU country) can send you back to the first EU country that you entered, which greatly reduced the number of refugees that made it to Germany. At first. But with the recent pervasiveness of smartphones, turmoil in Syria and breakdown of countries like Libya, the number of refugees started rising dramatically again. Incidentally, this is not a black swan event, as many more refugees were absorbed by Germany after the war and there were other times (e.g. war in Bosnia) when there were large numbers of refugees coming to Germany.

As in all other European countries, there are some dregs at the bottom rungs of German society who are not only staunchly against immigration but will also burn an asylum center to the ground every once in a while. But the overwhelming majority of the population is still in "WWII - Nevar again!" mode and will condemn everything that even has only the slightest wiff of totalitarianism, xenophobia or discrimination. To the point where cautiously voicing the opinion that maybe there should be a limit to the number of refugees coming to Germany will instantly mark you as a right-winger and potential Nazi. This is so pervasive common sense in Germany that many Germans cannot comprehend how anyone could disagree (as many Eastern European countries tend to do).

So in a way, the current acceptance of refugees in Germany is a cry for love ("Schrei nach Liebe"?) and an attempt at moral totalitarianism.
posted by sour cream at 6:20 AM on September 26, 2015 [3 favorites]




Incidentally, this is not a black swan event, as many more refugees were absorbed by Germany after the war and there were other times (e.g. war in Bosnia) when there were large numbers of refugees coming to Germany.

Those entering Germany after the war (about 12 million), however, were largely German speaking natives largely from central Europe (Sudetan Germans, also Poland, Hungary, and even the Netherlands) kicked out of their long standing homes, or driven by fear of the Soviets. They were relatively easily absorbed, from a linguistic and cultural POV, and bolstered a population greatly cut the war.

As to the Bosnians, Germany didn't necessarily see them as a permanent obligation. (What's up with Bosnia these days? Now that things have calmed down, are refugees returning? I find come-hither, travel pieces, but I also find alarming/alarmist stories of continuing inter-religious strife, mostly at the expense of Christians. Unfortunately, actual news seems hard to come by. Anyone?)

So in a way, the current acceptance of refugees in Germany is a cry for love ("Schrei nach Liebe"?) and an attempt at moral totalitarianism.

Well, the spin I keep hearing is that they are the economic solution to an aging European population, which strikes me as more than a little opportunistic, however much you gussy it up with moral righteousness. Do countries devastated by war or even mere under-development have a greater need for their own young and energetic. (How you get there from here, I've no answer.)
posted by IndigoJones at 8:21 AM on September 26, 2015


...economic solution to an aging European population...

There is that aspect, too, but the thing is that asylum in Germany (and a number of other countries in Europe) will be granted if and only if you are persecuted in your home country (or a victim of war or the like). Economic hardship is not a reason to be granted asylum.

This has the weird effect that a young, motivated and energetic nurse, engineer, carpenter, web designer (or whatever there is a shortage of) from Bulgaria or Albania will be shown to the door, whereas an illiterate but persecuted 60-year-old from Syria or Eritrea is welcomed with open arms.
Yes, I know, young people are in the majority among the asylum seekers, but the point is that Germany (and other countries in Europe) makes a strict distinction between good refugees (fleeing a war or being persecuted) who are welcome and bad refugees (just looking for a better life, i.e. in pursuit of happiness) that are not welcome. What Europe actually needs is the young and motivated ones, regardless of whether they are persecuted or not.

As for the brain drain that might ensue, yes, that can be a problem for those countries that can't get their act together and drown in corruption (Greece, Balkan, etc.) or war (Syria etc.). Let's hope that that brain drain is all the more motivation for those countries to get their act together, because if they can't go to Europe, they'll just go elsewhere.
posted by sour cream at 9:11 AM on September 26, 2015


I wrote: ...from Bulgaria or Albania...

Correction: Bulgaria is part of the EU, so no need to claim asylum. Make that Bosnia or Albania.
posted by sour cream at 9:13 AM on September 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yes, I know, young people are in the majority among the asylum seekers, but the point is that Germany (and other countries in Europe) makes a strict distinction between good refugees (fleeing a war or being persecuted) who are welcome and bad refugees (just looking for a better life, i.e. in pursuit of happiness) that are not welcome. What Europe actually needs is the young and motivated ones, regardless of whether they are persecuted or not.

Question about a subtle distinction - doesn't "refugee" refer specifically to someone fleeing war / famine / genocide / etc? If a person is leaving their home country because of weak economic opportunity, but not because of any immediate risk, they tend to be called "migrants" and sometimes "economic migrants" rather than refugees.

Some news sources are saying that many economic migrants are mixed in with the genuine refugees. Additionally, a person's status may change as they move from country to country.
posted by theorique at 12:41 PM on September 26, 2015


There are different definitions of the word "refugee". Yours would make a lot of sense, but the one used by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees says that a refugee is a person
who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
According to that definition people fleeing famine are not "refugees". I suppose (although I don't think anyone actually argues this) that many people fleeing the conflict in Syria are doing so because they fear its violence and lawlessness, and not because of a fear of being "persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". Also, they're not "refugees" while they're inside Syria, which probably has consequences for aid organisations that may be bound by the terms of this Convention.

There's also another weird "gotcha": there are a lot of people in/from Syria who are excluded from coverage because they're theoretically served by UNRWA, another UN body whose remit is to serve "Palestine refugees". UNRWA doesn't necessarily have the ability to do so, but in practise it still means that people with generations-old Palestinian IDs are excluded from UNHCR assistance; may not be able to enter Jordan and Lebanon (if/when other Syrians can do so); and are treated much worse if they do manage to escape.

So people can be technically correct when they say that there are many non-refugees seeking entry to Europe, even if those non-refugees are literally fleeing for their lives. That's a legal definition, not a moral one. Here as in so many instances, the law is an ass.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:58 PM on September 26, 2015


Question about a subtle distinction - doesn't "refugee" refer specifically to someone fleeing war / famine / genocide / etc? If a person is leaving their home country because of weak economic opportunity, but not because of any immediate risk, they tend to be called "migrants" and sometimes "economic migrants" rather than refugees.

Point taken, but the reality is that presently, most of those economic migrants wind up in the same refugee camps in Germany, Sweden, Austria etc. Currently, there is no easy way to immigrate to Europe from outside, but one way to gain entry is to claim to be persecuted or fleeing war. There are stories of people from Tunisia, Egypt and even Afghanistan coming to Europe and claiming to be Syrians, because the recognition rate for refugees from Syria is over 90% and close to zero for Tunisians and low for Egyptians (dunnot about Afghans) and everybody knows that. The process currently takes many months, if not years, to sort it all out.
posted by sour cream at 1:37 AM on September 27, 2015


« Older Rich people in thrift stores also disgust me.   |   The Man Behind The Mascots Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments