Round The World
New Delhi, 7 September 2015
Syrian Civil War
FUELS EU MIGRANT CRISIS
By Amrita Banerjee
(School of
International Studies, JNU, New Delhi)
The refugee question in
the European Union (EU) has been lingering for long now but only recently, the
powerful photo of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi washed up dead on a Turkish beach has
triggered an emotional debate on whether Europe was doing enough to tackle the
massive migrant crisis. Becoming the face of Europe’s migrant crisis, this
picture has forced the world to focus its attention on the wave of migration
fuelled by war and deprivation in Syria.
The Syrian Civil War is the
worst humanitarian disaster of the contemporary era. The War that began with
the anti-government demonstrations in March of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring
and got complicated later with the involvement of the Free Syrian Army, the
armed civilian groups and lately by the involvement of the ISIS
continues till date. And like other wars, this one too has brought with itself
its share of deaths and casualties.
Almost over 2,20,000
people are feared to be dead and 7.6 million people have been internally
displaced. Even today thousands of Syrians are fleeing their country on an everyday
basis giving rise to an exponential growth in refugees that have increased from
1,00,000 in 2012 to four million today, making it the world's largest refugee
population under the United Nations' mandate.
With such staggering
figures, Europe finally seems to have woken up
to the flow of Syrian refugees pouring into their continent. Under the Geneva
Convention, Europe is duty-bound to protect
any ‘person owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of
race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion’. Europe is struggling with
its biggest migration crisis since World War II but why is it proving difficult
for it to get an agreement on joint action to tackle this issue?
The possible obstacles
include: Firstly, the EU core principle of free movement – that is embodied in
the passport-free Schengen area - is in dispute because the Schengen members
can re-impose border controls temporarily for national security reasons, for
example if they face an extraordinary surge of migrants. The difficulty in
dealing with this dilemma is becoming complicated for the EU to reconcile with.
Secondly, there have been
arguments over countries like Hungary,
Bulgaria building razor-wire
fence on its borders thereby shifting trainloads of migrants to other countries
like Austria, Germany and
other Schengen countries. Thus there is a growing ‘fortress Europe’
attitude in the EU, contradicting the liberal values on which it was founded.
Thirdly, there have been
widespread disagreements on quotas whereby EU ministers have rejected binding
quotas for the distribution of refugees, despite the difficulties faced by Greece, Italy
and Hungary that form the
main entry points for migrants crossing the Mediterranean
and the Balkans. Besides, the UK
has opted out of any quota system, amid a widespread hardening of attitudes
towards immigration. There are tensions in the EU over the whole European
asylum policy, because of the disproportionate burden faced by some countries.
Arguments over conflict
zones form the fourth obstacle in the EU’s migrant crisis. Many Europeans are
calling for much greater EU efforts to end the conflicts in Syria, Libya,
the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan
that are fuelling the exodus of refugees. With reference to its aid budget to
help out refugees torn countries, EU cannot agree on the amount of aid to be
given to those countries. There are also fears that corruption could undermine
aid projects.
Fifthly, there are Nationalist
parties and movements in various countries in Europe- like the Pegida Movement
in Germany- that have played a big role in hardening attitudes towards
immigration and ‘Islamisation’. Insecurity about migrants is widespread in a Europe blighted by unemployment and welfare cuts. So
politicians are anxious not to appear ‘soft’ on immigration. It means less
hospitality towards migrants, even genuine refugees.
The relative wealth and
proximity of the Gulf States to Syria has led many to question whether these States
have more of a duty than Europe towards
Syrians suffering from over four years of conflict. No doubt, the Gulf States provide aid with countries like Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates being among
the top 10 international donors; this doesn’t seem to be enough. In fact, an
Amnesty International report recently pointed out, the six Gulf countries - Qatar, UAE, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait,
Oman and Bahrain - have
offered zero resettlement places. And this is when these countries have some of
the world's largest military budgets and deep investments in the on-going
conflict in Syria.
Curiously though, none
are signatories to the United Nations' 1951 Refugee Convention. This position
appears to be motivated by the presence of many migrant workers in these
countries and giving political asylum would mean that it could potentially open
the doors for a multitude of their temporary workers to stay permanently and eventually
raise complex demographic issues.
The other reasons why
these countries don’t take refugees may be political and religious. Iran supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
while Saudi-led Gulf states have funded rebel movements
in these countries. Also, the refugees would require visas to enter these
countries, which is a very difficult matter. Europe
is thus a preferred destination as it provides the opportunity to apply for
asylum or refugee status and, if accepted, to get jobs and a chance to rebuild
lives.
Even though the problem
at hand seems to be complex, there are possible ways in which the pressure on
EU can ease out. Ideally under international law, genuine refugees - people
fleeing war or persecution - have a right to asylum. In this regard, it is high
time EU should come up with mutually agreeable and effective asylum rules. There
also the need to have a complete revamp of the Dublin Regulation, under which
the EU country where a migrant first arrives is supposed to process the
migrant's asylum claim.
A permanent EU mechanism
for distributing the asylum seekers fairly and assigning quotas would help.
Next, they should tackle migration at source by increasing patrolling
activities in both land and sea routes. They should plan for legal migration
paths such as setting up reception centres closer to conflict areas outside Europe, where refugee camps already exist. These centres
should be a way to get to the European Union for all asylum seekers and this
would eventually limit refugee casualties.
It is true that there is
no end in sight to the Syrian conflict and the flow of refugees also continues
unabated. This crisis has put severe political, social and economic strain on
the neighbouring countries and has spread the threat of destabilization across
the region. It is ironic that the death of a toddler led to a change of heart
and softening of policies in many countries of Europe including the UK. EU has to
exercise its diplomatic options soon or else the situation could become worse. Thus
it’s time to join hands together to solve this issue before it assumes a big
international security threat. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|