Seeking Refuge

Of late, the current crisis of refugees making their way from Syria and the Middle East into Europe has been dominating headlines, and for good reason: there are currently more displaced people than ever before in history due to the wars in Syria and Yemen, as well as ISIS' destructive crusade around Iraq.

It was recently reported that Germany has taken in more than 800,000 refugees on its own, while the ever-aggrandizing and aloof David Cameron finally bowed to public pressure, though that 'pressure' only constitutes no more than 10,000 refugees.

The EU as an entity has been lackadaisical in its approach to the current crisis, as is warranted by a body that depends on unanimity. There is very little in terms of a top-down approach that can emanate from Brussels and be accepted throughout the union, but should there be some great rise of public consciousness, then I should hope that a refugee allotment plan looks something like this:

• Firstly, the refugees need to be registered, which is, of course, a difficult task, but a necessary one. Registering them allows for a formal process of integration into a country, and also allows for access to public records, if the person has any. This also aids in background checks run by INTERPOL, EUROPOL, and the member states' various security agencies.
• Secondly, the EU and its member states should seek to find suitable housing arrangements for the refugees, whether through public housing or temporary housing of some kind. Families would obviously be kept together. The number of people distributed throughout the EU should, ideally, be commensurate with population, also taking into account available living spaces. There should hopefully be no 'excuses' as to why a country can't host more refugees, aside from a legitimate one such as size.
• Thirdly, and this is probably a bit idealistic of me, offer free language classes for those who don't already either speak a member state's native language or English, or both. Also, enable a job seeker's scheme whereby vocational training classes are offered at either a discounted price, or for free.
• Fourthly, there are likely many qualified individuals who have fled from the various conflicts, and they would probably like nothing more than to work and save money for their families. This is a measure that would be slightly controversial, especially with the more nationalistic states/parties, because there might be a notion that 'refugees are stealing jobs.' It would be the most difficult to sell, but the most necessary as well if they are to stay in the EU for a long time, or for the rest of their lives.
• Fifthly, get ready for the long haul. The civil war in Syria has no discernible end in sight, especially since now all western powers are afraid that if Assad's government falls, then ISIS will be able to set up camp in Syria. This would give ISIS better access to Turkey, which is already fighting the Kurdish Worker's Party in the south of Turkey, while the Kurds are also the primary force fighting ISIS (which is another completely confusing and Risk-esque situation in itself). 

This is obviously not detailed, but I'm not a policy adviser; otherwise, I might have actually written up a policy paper. (Not saying I did, but if I did, it would probably be around 50, maybe 55 pages long, with individual policy suggestions for each member state, along with distributions of funding from the EU in addition to discretionary funds available from each member state's annual budget, and then a future analysis of population growth and possible employment demographics from the refugee pool. Again, just a hypothetical. Maybe.)

Finally, the US. The country that boasts the most has done the least in terms of allowing in refugees from Syria. Since the conflict started in 2010, the US has taken in somewhere around 1400 Syrians total. It goes without saying that the US, a country with more open space than all of Europe, should be actively vetting and aiding Syrian refugees.

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Share |

Nowhere Man

If you were hit in the head with a brick and spent the last year in a coma, then you'd have a viable reason as to why you haven't heard anything about the Arab Spring. As of right now, the Arab Spring, as a whole movement, is probably the largest pro-democracy movement the world has ever seen. As of right now, the formerly dictatorial regimes in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya have all fallen, whether it was through public pressure or rebel insurgency. Also as of right now, many countries still face huge public opposition, notably Syria, Lebanon, and Bahrain.

I suppose the question I want to ask is, does NATO's intervention in Libya to help overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi create a precedent?

To put it in more eloquent terms, because of the supposed mission in Libya where NATO promised to arm and defend civilians with the express purpose of ending the human rights abuses in Libya, is it now incumbent upon NATO to intervene in other countries in the middle of their Arab Spring uprising?

(Unfortunately, the 2nd half of this did not save, so I'll try to reconstruct what I wrote from memory.)

In my opinion, yes, NATO has the obligation of intervention in the Arab Spring, especially in cases where there are gross human rights violations. In Syria right now, there have been multiple cases reported of the Syrian army massacring entire villages, shelling towns with mortars, entering houses and gunning down families, etc.

So, what is the difference between Libya and Syria? What do they have in common?

• A dictator? [Yes.]
• A rebel army? [Yup.]
• Human rights violations? [Definitely.]
• International condemnation? [As always.]
  
• A large oil cache? [Uh huh.]

So what is the difference between then and now? Elections. The US is the principle actor in NATO, typically authorizing and overseeing its actions. Obama knows that he has lost a good share of his support over the past 4 years due to his inability to close Guantanamo Bay, his support of nuclear energy, bailouts, etc. He also knows that if he takes action against Syria, the Republicans, to the malaise and exasperation of the non-FOX viewers, will lambaste him for "wasting tax dollars" or some other reason. (I'm quite sure that if a Republican were in office and were to take action against Syria, they would justify it as "ensuring democracy" or whatnot. Partisanship is tiresome.)

If I were President Obama, I would have done away with his ill-advised attempts at partisanship years ago and acted like the man who had so much promise so long ago and who was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush. The Republicans will berate you no matter what. And, you know what, you're the president; you have access to the greatest resources in the world. Use them. Sway the American people.

Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been intransigent and unwilling to yield, it falls upon the international community to act on behalf of the people being massacred, especially NATO, since there is now the idea that the large democratic countries will support democratic movements.

So, NATO should at least show the same support for the Syrian rebels that they showed for the Libyan ones, just to show that for once, election-time doesn't predominate above what should be done.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Well, I've Been Afraid of Changes...

Sorry it's been a while, but I've been busy with Model UN stuff and other stuff, on top of some other car stuff and sleeping.

It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.

And now, to catch up on school work.

That's all for now,
DF

P.S. Visit here for free stuff!