Refugee Crisis

After a highly thought provoking opening session, our debate enters into its rebuttal phase with voting statistics being 77% For and 23% Against the motion. Both sides have argued their positions through various compelling and stimulating arguments that induced our audience to participate in this timely and important debate through their valuable votes and interesting comments. For those of you who have just joined in, I will try my best to sum up what our debaters and guests had to say in their opening remarks.

Dr. Kirsten McConnachie defending the motion mentioned how lawyers have repeatedly clarified the definition of refugee in international law, however lack of understanding persists. Dr. McConnachie talked about the current regime for protection of refugees and how it came into place in the aftermath of Second World War. She argues that compared to the scale of displacement at that time, the situation today is manageable. The core point which remains true today, she said, is that “refugee flows are not refugees’ fault, nor are they the sole responsibility of neighbouring countries.” While explaining in great detail the definition of refugee in the UN Refugee Convention 1951, Dr. McConnachie said that the convention establishes a crucial distinction between refugees who are entitled to international protection and migrants who are not. She further argued that refugee status is not granted by outside authority but is inherent in the individual (although in practice does require administrative recognition), and also there should be no discrimination between different groups. Moreover, Dr. McConnachie said, “By virtue of the international legal obligations which have been accepted by an overwhelming majority of the world’s states, and particularly by the customary international law obligation of non-refoulement, refugees must be accepted.” She concluded her remarks by emphasizing that this debate is not to be argued solely in law, “but it is important to recognize that it is an area governed by law”.

Opposing the motion, Mr. David Goodhart believes that “no refugees should not always be accepted by other countries. No country can have an open-ended commitment to take an unlimited number of outsiders.” He argues that “citizen rights come before universal rights”. Mr. Goodhart proposes that there are many other ways nations like Britain can fulfil the moral obligations to suffering humanity, and that is through foreign aid, military intervention to restore order, and by providing either temporary or permanent refuge to people in trouble. In his view, too much stress is given to the last method, and he believes that technology and resources exist today to help the desperate. Mr. Goodhart also highlights that, “the 1951 Convention has been subject to constant legal evolution and it has been supplemented by the EU’s 2004 Humanitarian Protection directive and underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights.” He said, “We need different rules to reflect our more mobile times and to keep numbers to a level that is broadly acceptable to European publics.” This means, he elaborated, offering permanent refuge to those who genuinely face prosecution, and not to “everyone who lives in an authoritarian country or whose country is experiencing some kind of conflict.” However, Mr. Goodhart believes that we should continue to offer time limited refuge to those caught up in natural disasters or conflicts like Syria.

We also had the honour of receiving wonderful contributions by our featured guests, Ambassador Tariq Osman Hyder and Dr. J. Olaf Kleist. Ambassador Tariq Osman Hyder initiated his remarks by mentioning how emotive this debate is, and how for a country like Pakistan, it is a national issue rather than just an academic debate. He clarified how Pakistan is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, yet it hosts the second largest amount of refugees in the world, which in itself is remarkable. Ambassador Hyder talked about how origins regarding treatment of refugees in the Muslim world predate the relatively recent international legal instruments and practice. “Of course in the Muslim world the concept of giving refuge dates back to the time of the Hijrat of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and his followers to Medina in the early days of Islam. Hence it is an accepted practice in the Muslim word irrespective of any UN Convention,” he said. While highlighting the time duration factor, Ambassador Hyder argued that acceptance of refugees should not be of indefinite duration. And with regards to economic migrants, he said that many people seeking refugee status are genuine, however there are some who are instead economic migrants and hence not entitled to the protection of 1951 convention or any other practice. On the matter of morality, Ambassador Hyder said, “the responsibility of the state to give refuge to those who deserve such protection, is matched by the responsibility of the state from where they come to work sincerely to create conditions for their return. It is not a one sided obligation.” Regarding sharing of responsibility, he concluded his remarks by saying that “no one country can be held to a higher standard and expected to do more than others”.

Dr. J. Olaf Kleist in his guest remarks argues that the definition of ‘refugee’ is not as universal as suggested by the discussants. In practice, absolute law and ethics is relative when it comes to defining refugees and varies according to politics. Dr. Kleist further argues that countries should not deny basic rights to others that they guarantee to their own citizens. “This is not an external obligation of universal laws or ethics but inherently bound to political communities, especially democratic ones,” he said. Commenting on the opposition’s remarks, Dr. Kleist argued that, “the notion of ‘fellow citizen’ is far more flexible, variable and open to new members than a nationalistic notion thereof might suggest.” Further clarifying his point of view, he said that “democracies cannot limit within their territories the universal claim of liberal rights and political participation to its incidental citizenry.”, he added “almost nine out of ten refugees live in the Global South. Globally, we are far from a fair distribution and the richest countries in the world use their borders to seal themselves off from international responsibility and still fail to fund humanitärian organisations adequately to help refugees in the Global South … The argument that humanitarian aid is better than accepting refugees in the Global North is too often just an excuse not to accept refugees and the obligations they have to those who are already in Europe”. Dr. Kleist concluded his remarks by saying, “We cannot just point our fingers at other countries, wanting them to accept refugees, as we ignore our obligations towards those seeking protection from us. After all, we have an obligation to accept refugees.”

Our respected audience also contributed to the discussion with very interesting comments, opinions and diverse point of views. As the debate enters into the rebuttal phase, we look forward to another session of lively and insightful discussion. Let’s see what our debaters have to say further about their counterpart’s opening arguments.

To read full statements of the debaters and guests, please visit the 'opening statements' page.

Firstly, my thanks to the guests for their very helpful contributions to this debate, which illustrate again the complexity and importance of this issue.  Ambassador Hyder is right to emphasise that Pakistan has hosted millions of refugees, despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. For many years, European states have been largely oblivious to global refugee flows. Other countries have not had that luxury and, despite being considerably economically poorer than most European nations, have hosted large populations of refugees and forced migrants with little international support or recognition. 

Dr Kleist also makes many important points and tackles several of Mr Goodhart’s more problematic claims. However, some fundamental misconceptions in Mr Goodhart’s argument remain to be addressed.  First, refugee protection is not a system of “permanent refuge to people in trouble” but a basic grant of asylum which can end when the circumstances giving rise to asylum have changed. It is not an open-ended protection but operates within clearly defined limits (indeed, as Dr Kleist notes, the limits of refugee protection are in several respects too sharply defined). Second, his suggestion that the existence of a regime of refugee protection is “tempting the most dynamic people from poor societies” is a crass misrepresentation of the situation in Syria and those currently seeking protection in Europe. 

Of course, even the most committed anti-immigration activist recognises that it is ethically and morally impossible to deny all possibility of asylum. Mr Goodhart’s argument becomes genuinely interesting when he outlines the grounds on which he would grant refuge.  His list is somewhat arbitrary, including “African opposition leaders, many Ahmadiyyan Muslims [who are not regarded as Muslims as per law of many Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - Debate Editor] in Pakistan, Nato interpreters in Afghanistan.” These categories are both unduly broad (opposition leaders in all African countries?) and oddly  narrow (what about opposition politicians in repressive regimes in Asia or the Middle East?  Why only NATO interpreters?  Why only Afghanistan?). 

It should be obvious that any system for granting asylum must be rooted in objective principle rather than kneejerk opinion. If we attempt to discern a principled rationale within Mr Goodhart’s list, it appears that he would grant asylum to people who are at risk of persecution. His list indicates a number of categories that he considers deserving of asylum: those who face persecution on the basis of their political opinion (“African opposition leaders”); by virtue of their religion (“Ahmadiyyan Muslims [who are not regarded as Muslims as per law of many Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - Debate Editor] in Pakistan”); and because of their occupation (“NATO interpreters”). This takes us very close to the 1951 Convention definition of a refugee, particularly if we consider interpreters to be ‘members of a particular social group’. But there’s more.  Goodhart proposes that, “We should also continue to offer at least time limited refuge to those caught up in particularly all-consuming natural disasters or conflicts like Syria.” This goes substantially further than the 1951 Refugee Convention, and is precisely the territory of subsidiary protection under the EU Qualification Directive: the approach he rejects as an unjustifiable widening of the categories of protection. 

Mr Goodhart’s argument is inconsistent but it accurately reflects the views of many who oppose granting asylum to refugees.  He accepts that refugees are deserving of protection but rejects their entitlement to claim such protection in Europe. He argues that we should continue to recognise refugee status, but would place the responsibility for hosting refugees solely on neighbouring countries. His long-term vision of refugee protection is to contain refugees in camps, as close to the site of their persecution and as far from Europe as possible. In this vision, the contribution of European states will be purely financial. 

These arguments dress up NIMBYism as principle and racism as charity.  Furthermore, his proposed ‘solution’ will certainly produce undesirable outcomes. Forcibly encamping millions of people is likely to deny fundamental rights such as freedom of movement and the right to seek asylum, and may violate the principle of non-refoulement as defined in international refugee law, human rights law and European law. Protracted encampment is also liable to give rise to serious security risks of political radicalisation and militarisation; precisely the threats that we most wish to avoid. 

The proposal that rich countries will voluntarily take on the running costs of such camps is similarly naïve. Proposals for financial ‘burden-sharing’ in refugee protection have regularly been made and have regularly failed to produce hard cash results. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is dependent on voluntary financial contributions for more than 80% of its operating budget and as a result has for many years operated under a massive budget shortfall. Even in 2015, when refugee issues were at the forefront of global politics, voluntary contributions to UNHCR reached only 40% of the required annual budget. The lesson is clear: any refugee protection system that relies on voluntary financial contributions is doomed to fail. 

Refugee protection is a serious issue that needs thoughtful discussion informed by thorough understanding of the nature of forced migration past and present and of the terms of our existing regime. Discussion of these issues must recognise the valuable economic, cultural and social contributions that refugees can make to host societies – and, yes, must also recognise the possible risks and negative consequences of refugee flows. 

In arguing that countries should accept refugees, I am not suggesting that we should ignore the complex political and social consequences of doing so. I am arguing that we must base our discussion on accurate understanding of the facts, and use that discussion to strengthen a principled, rule-based system. Instead, Mr Goodhart offers a misleading analysis based on ill-informed assumptions, inflated rhetoric and exaggerated numbers. This approach is sadly familiar in British public debate, and is evidently manufactured to generate the public fear that will justify closing Europe’s borders.  It produces arguments that are both wrong and dangerous. I hope that the readers of this debate will recognise them as such.

We can all agree that Jews in Nazi Germany were persecuted and many millions were murdered after 1942 because of their race/religion. Similarly, many thousands of dissidents living in the Soviet Union, an authoritarian prison society, suffered expulsion to Siberia or even death in the 1950s and 1960s. 

If such circumstances arose again I would not hesitate to say that Britain should open its doors to people fleeing for their life. In the extremely unlikely event that France elected a racist government that decided to expel all Muslims, Britain should offer at least temporary refuge to as many as possible. 

But these are NOT the circumstances that we face in 2016. Even on the much wider definitions of a legitimate refugee that pertain today Frans Timmermans, the Dutch vice-president of the European Commission, estimates that about 60 per cent of people currently entering Europe as “refugees” do not have a genuine claim. 

Kirsten talks about the tens of millions of people displaced by war in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s and implies that Europe today, with its much greater wealth, ought to be able to do at least as well as we did then. 

But these are completely different situations. Most people after the war were released prisoners or demobbed soldiers desperately trying to get home. The one major exception was Germans who had been living as a minority community in eastern Europe or Russia who were now expelled in their millions. But they too had a home to go to with people who recognised them as fellow national citizens—Germany. 

Today people are not trying to get home and they are not, in the main, facing the kind of persecution I described in the first paragraph in Afghanistan or Somalia or even Syria. They are looking for a better life in a rich country. They are looking for a short-cut through the development process. If you are young and vigorous why would you want to wait for another four or five generations to live in a society as rich and free and stable as most European countries, when you can with a bit of luck (and possibly spending your live savings) go and live in one now? Who can blame them? If I was in their position I would probably do the same. But that does not make it right! The more we let in, the more will come. 

Of course we do need special arrangements for countries like Syria that are disrupted by conflict but, as I argued in my first letter, there are many different ways that we can help and allowing people to come and live permanently in Europe should be the last resort. Those who are not specially needy should be returned to Turkey if that is where they have arrived from. Just because the Turkish government is showing signs of authoritarianism does not mean people fleeing Syria are going to be persecuted by the Turkish police or military (though some Kurdish activists maybe and should be able to apply for asylum). Should British citizens have been allowed into the US as refugees in the 1970s because of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland? Of course not! 

We live in a democracy. But Kirsten, like so many people in the refugee lobby, does not engage with politics or grapple with public opinion. Like a religious true believer she just cites the holy texts of the 1951 Convention as if they are inviolable. But how many other laws of the 1950s does she believe should remain set in stone? The law on divorce? The law on homosexuality? 

She is right to say that the original Convention was Eurocentric in that it only applied to Europe—it was after all a belated response to Nazi and Soviet terror which had happened mainly in Europe. But then in 1967 at the stroke of a lawyer’s pen it was extended to the whole world. As far as I know there was no political debate about this. But, of course, until recently it did not matter because so few people could get here to claim their refugee status. 

To repeat we should not feel righteous about tempting people away from countries that are often struggling to modernise politically and economically, many of them Muslim countries. And the idea that refugees are a great economic benefit for already thriving European countries is a nonsense—just look at the figures. Compared with normal immigrants refugees have substantially worse outcomes. Yes, of course, some refugees do well and contribute but, to quote just one figure, only one third of the refugees who have arrived in the Netherlands in the past 20 years are currently working at all. 

By giving up on selecting the most vulnerable we have created a free for all on the eastern border of Europe with the most resourceful able to force their way in—for once you in a European country your chances of being deported are minimal.. We may feel sorry for Syrian doctors and Engineers but in a world in which a child dies every minute from Malaria they do not have first call on our generosity: their lives are not endangered and they do not face persecution in refugee camps or in the suburbs of Turkish or Jordanian towns—and they are the people that Syria most desperately needs to rebuild itself. 

Let us hope that European politicians resist the moralistic and legalistic assault of the refugee lobby and stick to the overdue arrangement with Turkey that allows most refugees to be returned there where they can apply safely in special centres. Most will be rejected and that will send a signal down the line—to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea etc—that it is not worth risking the expensive journey because you are very unlikely to get in. That may be disappointing for many individuals but it is good news for the countries they come from and it is good news for Europe. European citizens want security and the rule of law on their external border. If they do not get it our politics will be poisoned for a generation and future European Donald Trumps will ensure that we have no refugee policy at all. 

Debaters, guests and users’ statements and comments are their independent thoughts, opinions, beliefs, viewpoints and are not necessarily that of MUSLIM Institute's.