At the start of this growing international crisis it was my view that we should help and where appropriate take in genuine refugees (as we always have done) and that we should not take in economic migrants who have no legal right to come here, in line with the Dublin System and UN laws passed in Geneva in 1951 - laws which were designed specifically to stop this current crisis from happening in the first place.
By instinct I still feel that these principle-based laws and approach should hold sway - they were arrived at for a reason after all - but the fact is that we are now being swamped by reality and that the situation that these laws were framed to address has now changed beyond recognition.
Quite simply the sheer numbers involved now mean that we have to take a different approach and none of the western politicians at the epicentre of this crisis - and crisis is not an inappropriate term, it may not be strong enough - seem to realise just what is happening or what will happen if we carry on the way we are.
The first point to make about my initial view is that whilst it may have been correct in principle and in law, the fact is that it has now become impossible to differentiate between genuine refugees and economic migrants. Particularly when the 'West' seems now to have become so liberal in its view of the situation and so reluctant to enforce existing and long-standing laws (whether you agree with them or not). 'These people are human beings' went the mantra on BBCQT this week. And of course that's right and I think we all have some sympathy with that view.
But even if we could differentiate between genuine refugees and economic or 'illegal' migrants, it would not solve the problem we face as a nation, or as a group of western nations or even as 'human beings'. Why? Because this crisis has now become about numbers and fundamentally about how many people wealthier countries can afford to help - and go on helping in the future - without being 'swamped' by an influx of the needy or 'ambitious'.
When you are trying to help a desperate person who is drowning the (sound) advice is that one should offer them something to hold onto like a pole or a rope. Not your hand or your arm. Why? Because that desperate person will not let go under any circumstances and will pull you in with them (by instinct not by any desire to do you harm) and then you will be pulled in and drown with them instead of, in extremis, being able to let go of your end of the rope and so survive yourself to help others.
It is not an attractive scenario, but it is a sensible one. What we are in danger of doing at the moment is offering our hand and our arm for the desperate to hang onto and not let go in a way which will cause us to drown alongside those we are trying to help.
There are 10.8 million Syrian refugees (genuine or otherwise) in refugee camps outside Syria right now according to the UN. That's just Syrian, not Afghan or Eritrean or Iraqi. In designated camps. So even if we completely disregarded the tens of thousands of displaced (deliberately or otherwise) who are crossing into Europe every week as 'illegal migrants', we'd still have to try to help and accept 10.8 million from Syria alone.
And by 'we' I of course mean 'the West', but most countries in the West can't afford (politically or economically) or have no intention of accommodating these kinds of numbers.
And so it becomes a question of how many the richer countries can take. Countries like Germany, France, the Low countries and Scandinavia. And the UK.
Dave reckons we'll take 20,000 over 5 years. Meanwhile there are now 6,000 in camps at Sangatte in Calais many of whom are trying, nightly, to cross into the UK illegally. And our 'partner' France is encouraging these people to cross France at little cost in order to be able to try to enter the UK in order to move the problem away from France.
And Frau Merkel has invited a million people to come to Germany and boy are they coming and boy do they see this as a time-limited opportunity which is why the trickle is turning into a flood.
Which is why people are drowning in the Med. Which is why people are buying life-jackets before they set out because they know (and agree to this) that the smugglers will sink the boats they're on so that their human cargo is rescued and taken to Italy or wherever, rather than being sent back.
And once in Italy they are taken to local hospitals, checked over and then they 'melt away' and get on a free train put on by the French to get to Calais.
So much for EU solidarity to try to solve the problem.
There is just one question that we need to address now. It's not about existing laws (because other than Hungary no-one is even thinking about upholding them). It's not about making a distinction between genuine refugees (who will, as always, suffer most because of this tide of humanity) and 'illegals'.
It's about, fundamentally, whether we offer a rope or a pole for these people to hang on to, or whether we offer our hands and arms. And therefore risk being drowned ourselves in a way which will mean we cannot help others in the future.
Or to put it another way, it's about whether we believe we can take in literally millions of often desperate but sometimes simply opportunistic people, a significant percentage of whom will not view our generosity as a reason for gratitude but for further demands on that generosity in terms of entitlement, religious goals and a distinct lack of tolerance towards us in order to achieve their own ends, or not.
Whether we believe that our view of these people as 'human beings' (with all the associated generosity, tolerance and goodwill that goes with it) is reciprocated.
I think that's a big call. And one that is not supported in any way by the available evidence.
I'd say that this 'taking in' approach is fraught with danger. I'd say that these people have absolutely zero history of being tolerant or caring or generous towards others.
I'd say that it's a massive stretch for us to hope that by being generous to them, that they will be generous to us, or to other needy people in the future. Which is what we would want to happen.
I'd say that we simply cannot take in these people in the numbers that are trying to come without it having a massive negative effect on our own way of life and our own generosity towards the rest of the world. Without it having a massive detrimental effect on the very fabric of our western society.
Instead of emptying their homelands we need to go in, with boots on the ground, not to destroy like Bliar and Bush did, but to create a civilised environment in which they can live in their own countries instead of wanting to come to the west.
If we do not do this we will find that we are dragged down to the level of society in the Middle East and the future of all us 'human beings' will be a desperate one.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment