Europe's Syrian refugee crisis

In terms of whether European countries should be taking in more or less refugees, I would say that overall it makes more sense for countries to be taking in more refugees. When factoring in which states in particular should be giving asylum, it certainly changes the situation. There are two main concerns, one is making sure that as a state, it does not face more consequences than it can handle. Examples of this are an overflow of migrants, no proper resources to take care of all of them, not all of them are legally able to travel into the state, etc. The other main concern is whether a state is not taking in any or nearly as many refugees as it should be taking. An argument can be made that it is a threat to global security, as the migration is causing conflicts to other states as well. This is seen as a humanitarian issue as well as these people are no longer able to provide for themselves. The European states that are should take in more are ones like Portugal which has only taken in about 1,000 so far(BBC). Another is the republic of Ireland which has only taken in about a couple thousand but has pledged to take in 4,000(thejournal.ie.).The Czech republic has also only taken in about a 1,000(BBC). These three states are some of the many European countries that have not done their fair share in figuring out this issue. Collectively it will allow the conflict to stop earlier and to make it so that there is not a burden on those that are accepting the most like Germany or Sweden.  

At the very least these countries should focus on making sure that there is temporary asylum. Planning to have temporary asylum allows refugees to survive and have the resources to do so for a long period of time. It may be difficult to know whether they would want to completely simulate to another country, as it means learning another culture and language. They could also very well face discrimination as Europeans may see them as a threat. People could simply see them as no more those that are only staying here for a while but will eventually go back to Syria. This is difficult as Syria is a failed state that needs a lot of development which needs to stop its dictator regime and armed conflict within its border. These refugees can only hope that these conflicts will be resolved soon allowing the option for them to go back is one that the European countries should keep in mind.     

In terms of whether the European Union should be taking responsibility for the conflict or individual states. I would say that every state has a role in it but the EU should do its best by making this migration conflict its top priority. Whether the states that are not apart of the EU may not be able to use the European Unions resources, every state has a responsibility as it is a conflict that doesn't affect a couple states but all, whether politically or economically or both. For the EU states, they need to focus on making sure that they all work together on appropriate policies and enforcing those policies. An example of how the EU can work together is making sure that refugee that is in the Schengen zone will have applied for asylum by then or have gotten accepted. A responsibility that both the EU and individual states have is not only taking in the appropriate amount of refugees but also giving the appropriate amount of aid to countries in need such as Turkey.   

  

News, BBC. "Migrant Crisis: Migration to Europe Explained in Seven Charts."BBC News. N.p., 4 Mar. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016. 

 Http://www.thejournal.ie/author/rónán-duffy/. "Ireland Is Nowhere near Close to Settling Its Share of Syrian Refugees." TheJournalie. N.p., 2 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.  

Obligation to aid in the Refugee Crisis

The Syrian Refugee Crisis is a very difficult situation that should be the responsibility of the entire international community. Many challenges and concerns arise due to people’s fears of what might happen in letting so many additional individuals into their country. It is difficult to calculate how many refugees a country is obligated to take in. The United States is willing to accept up to 10,000 Syrian refugees, and some critiques think they should be allowing more in. Germany has taken the most responsibility in letting in up to 80,000 refugees, while the United Kingdom and France are each willing to accept up to 20,000 Syrians each. This is a matter for the whole international community to each take a caregiving role in the aid for these refugees.

Over 10.5 million people worldwide have been forced to leave their homes as a result of conditions in their home country that produce incapable living conditions. This is not an ideal situation for these millions of people whose homes and schools have been destroyed due to bombs. This has become a humanitarian crisis due to the fact that families are struggling to survive inside Syria, if they chose to stay. However, staying isn’t the only problem. Families are also risking their lives if they decide to flee to Europe. The travel conditions on land or overseas are extremely dangerous and have taken many Syrian lives on the way. Many people discuss the ontological security of the citizens of these countries that the refugees are migrating to. However, their ontological security shouldn’t be the focus. The ontological and human security of the refugees should be the top priority and concern. They are the ones who are being affected and threatened during this crisis. To wake up one morning and have to flee because of armed conflicts between your government and opposition fractions, is not fair.

Their home country is all they’ve ever known. It is where they were raised and lives all their lives. To wake up one morning and have that ripped away from they, without a waring or cause is psychologically damaging. Then they have the realization that they must flee in order to protect their life and the lives of their family. This is all due to war, violence and persecution that they did not ask for. So, their ontological and human security has turned into a great fear, and is what we should be focusing on. Unlike many of the citizens of the U.S., Germany, or France who have their future planned out, the future for these Syrian refugees is unknown. That must certainly be terrifying. A big portion of the refugee population are children. They especially, shouldn’t have to sufferer through these unpredictable and unfair situations. There is a desperate need of aid and assistance. There must be a willingness for every country around the world to accept and assist refugees. In doing so, it can help to reduce the number of people living in conditions that are unfit for any human begins. Helping them would also limit those individuals who feel compelled to perform illegal work and join terrorist groups. Not limiting these options would turn into a bigger national security issue.

Europe and the Refugee Crisis

As borders increasingly open, globalization merged various cultures that were open to the idea of trade. The fear of losing ontological security has arisen as a consequence to open borders. Although Germany has let in the most immigrants, Hungary has the most asylum applications per person in proportion to its population. About 1,799 refugees per 100,000 Hungarians claimed asylum in 2015 (BBC). This is an exceptional amount of immigrants that will be carrying in their own culture and traditions that are very different from Hungarian ways of life. This can be very threatening to Hungarians and their society. The large influx of immigrants and the fear of losing Hungarian identity has been the reason for introducing more aggressive policies, including closing the border between Serbia and Hungary. Also, refugees may be deported or jailed if they enter Hungary illegally. Hungary will reject asylum seekers entering from Serbia if they have not sought asylum in Serbia (Al Jazeera). Although economic burden plays a large role in these policies, I think the fear of losing one’s culture is a greater motivation for their implementation. The fear of losing identity is a fear that all countries in Europe face, and has led many to the support of extremist political parties.

To one extreme, racist white supremacy groups operating under the title of right-wing extremism is on the rise in today’s world. Pegida’s Leader, Lutz Bachmann, was photographed wearing Hitler-like attire, and this is not the only example of racism from the extreme right. The Golden Dawn party of Greece has been found responsible for anti-semitic graffiti and is considered neo-Nazi by various news sources. These two examples allude historically to Hitler’s adamant denial of races he deemed inferior. According to the French National Front, immigrants should be deported if they are engaging in criminal activity, have immigrated illegally, or are unemployed. Many immigrants face discrimination as an obstacle to being hired; it is not necessarily the fault of the immigrant if they are unable to find a job. Using the loss of cultural identity as a cover, racism is latent in some of the right-wing policies of the refugee crisis.

Even in the United States, right-wing parties have been accused of racist behavior towards refugees. Donald Trump’s policies are some of the most extreme on immigration the US has seen in modern politics. His plan includes the deportation of all undocumented individuals, freezing green cards, and banning Muslims. In Wednesday night’s presidential debate, Trump said, “Syrian refugees who probably, in many cases — not probably — who are definitely, in many cases, ISIS-aligned, and we now have them in our country” (IB Times). He implied that the majority of Syrians are involved with ISIS in order to unite Americans under a common enemy. In addition, he plans to build a wall between the United States and Mexico to prevent illegals from crossing the border. If there is one aim the Donald Trump campaign has executed successfully, it is to unite people around the common fear of terrorism.

The refugee crisis put significant burdens on Europe on many different fronts. Europe is expected to admit thousands of immigrants on top of the refugees they have already accepted. In doing so they are unsure of economic consequences for their nation. Many European citizens fear terrorists and criminals infiltrating their borders. Europe is more industrialized than the Middle East and is in close proximity to Syria, but this doesn’t mean that Europe should be required to take in all of the refugees. Other states outside the EU should be assessed to see if immigration is a feasible option. There can be many benefits to immigration, but the positive aspects are often overlooked in times of crisis.

It is not clear who will take charge of rebuilding the Syrian state. Syria requires a large sum of money to rebuild government and public infrastructures in order to become a functioning state. Where this money might come from is in question; potential sources could include the IMF, the EU, or the UN. Failing states in a globalized world require stronger global institutions, but the international arena has not been given the power it needs to adequately help states in times of crisis. The UN is rarely able to intervene, and when it does, it is criticized for instilling Western culture on non-Western states. Even when the rebuilding of Syria starts, it will be nearly impossible to know when the state is ready for its citizens to return. These questions are often avoided, but must be reviewed before the situation in Syria can improve.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/hungary-enforces-tough-immigration-law-150915003743802.html.

http://www.ibtimes.com/are-syrian-refugees-isis-donald-trump-says-asylum-seekers-are-definitely-many-cases-2434712.

Failed/Weak States as a Security Issue

http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/25/international-security-and-failed-states-a-cause-for-concern/

         In the articles read for class both Barnett and Moore made similar conclusions about failed/weak states. Both authors acknowledged that there is a gap, and there is a need to focus and close that gap. Barnett makes the argument that instability leads to failed states and terrorism. This has been seen in many regions around the world. Moore makes the argument that rich countries need to make things more accessible to the countries that are too poor to help themselves. The article provided above, also touches on these problems, and discusses how failed states are a cause of concern.

         The article opens up with this statement:

“Failed states that cannot provide jobs and food for their people, that have lost chunks of territory to warlords, and that can no longer track or control their borders, send an invitation to terrorists”

Weak states are most definitely a security issue, because they create a fresh ground in were terrorism can grow. That becomes a major concern, because it is easy for terrorist groups to harbor in a state that cannot sustain itself. Failed/weak states are those that lack security, are unsafe, involve corruption, deny the human rights of their people, barley provide human development, and discriminate among classes and kinds of citizens. When a state fails in providing its citizens with the essential political goods that they need to survive, it creates fundamental human security issues. Those people see that their state fails them by their instability to perform their functions adequately. Since failed/weak states lack so many of these essential functions, they tend to be violent. That is why they should be labeled as a security issue.

Failed/weak states are deeply conflicted and dangerous. They typically are the setting for armed revolts and hostile insurgencies.

There are many things that failed/weak states need to do to become successful strong states. One of those is that they must provide security and safety. A state must protect its citizens from harm and secure its borders. They must also provide the rule of law. A state needs the ability to resolve conflict without any armed conflict or physical coercion. They must respect human rights and allow their citizens to participate fully in politics and the political process. Citizens take pride and want to be represented by individuals they themselves chose. Economic development is an essential function that failed/weak states must provide. They need to be open to international trade, keeping inflation low, and have a productive environment that stimulates economic growth. Lastly, they must focus heavily on human development. They must provide the highest level of education and health services to its citizens.

         The article above calls failed states a non-traditional security threat. One of those reasons is due to the different factors listed above. However, failed states also don’t exercise full control over their land, which allows the harboring of terrorist organizations. Terrorist groups like to install fear and have control, which is why a failed state is a point of attraction for them.

Terrorist groups would never be able to function in fully working states, which is why they seek areas that are not being ruled. This is a security issue because once those terrorist organizations start training and developing weapons of mass destruction, it becomes harder to find ways to combat them.

         One of the greatest challenges failed/weak states provide as a security issue, is the aspect of human security. Failed/weal states fail with human development, which creates instability within a community. Health issues increase daily in these areas and it becomes difficult for locals to deal with it. Human security in the article is referred to “free of fear,” and failed states continue to lack in these important areas. They struggle with meeting any of them and thus makes them a security issue and should be a huge concern.