Refugee Crisis


Refugees should always be accepted by other countries?

0%
voted YES
voted NO
0%




Opening statements



I

Defending the
motion

Dr. Kirsten McConnachie

Assistant Professor of Law at University of Warwick - UK

I

Against the
motion

Mr. David Goodhart

Journalist, Author and Director at The Integration Hub - UK

The reception of refugees is an increasingly emotional and polarised issue, particularly in Europe. It is also an issue where the stakes could not be higher. There are 19.5 million refugees in the world today and their lives depend on our answer to this question. 

With so much at stake it is essential to ensure some basic facts are understood. Language matters, and it matters particularly to this debate because different legal categories of person attract different legal protections. The definition of a refugee in international law and the nature of states’ obligations towards refugees have repeatedly been explained by refugee lawyers to the press, politicians and wider public. Yet... Read more

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.

There is such a thing as society and it is a complex organism based on habits of trust and cooperation and a shared language, history and way of life. Most successful, modern welfare democracies are relatively open to outsiders but are based on the principle of fellow citizen favouritism—citizen rights come before universal rights and even more so since, thanks mainly to social democratic government of the past 60 years, the value of national citizenship (in terms of access to free public goods) has risen so dramatically.

Charity... Read more



The moderator's opening remarks

M. Hamza Iftikhar

First of all, I would like to welcome everyone to this crucial and timely debate “Refugees should always be accepted by other countries?” hosted by The Muslim Debate, an online debate platform of MUSLIM Institute. This debate not only seeks to answer some of the most challenging questions about refugees and their right to seek asylum in other countries but also gives everyone around the world an opportunity to voice their opinion on this important issue.

The importance of this debate can be realized when one looks at the figures and statistics on refugees around the world provided by the UNHCR. There were 19.5 million refugees worldwide by the end of 2014. For the first time, Turkey became the country hosting the largest number of refugees with 1.59 million, followed by Pakistan (1.51 million) and Lebanon (1.15 million). Also by the end of 2014, Syria had become the world’s top source country for refugees, overtaking Afghanistan, which had held the position for more than three decades.

Conflict and warfare around the world has unfortunately led to an upsurge in the number of refugees. Whether it be Middle East, South Asia, Central America or Africa, refugee crisis affect nearly every country around the globe. In the latest exodus from Syria and Iraq, neighbouring states such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey as well as European states have faced an unprecedented challenge to host huge number of refugees. As a result, sadly, estimates today for the number of refugees worldwide are predicted to be far greater than what was recorded at the end of 2014.

According to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention, every individual has the right to seek refuge if he is unable to avail the protection in his own country. However, this debate is about whether a country should ‘always’ accept refugees or not. Although the 1951 Convention protects people who meet the criteria for refugee status, however, it does not prescribe a particular procedure nor does it ensures that every ‘refugee’ gets refuge in a particular country. That decision lies with that respective country, which assesses applications of refugees through a designated authority.

Countries which refuse to accept refugees usually voice economic concerns, worries about substantial demographic change, security or other political challenges. But are these reasons legitimate? Does it matter where the refugee is coming from or should all potential refugees be treated in the same way? Should countries be selective when it comes to accepting refugees (Muslims/Non-Muslims, Syrian/Rohingya, etc.)? Are the 1951 convention obligations binding upon all the member states? Is there any need for amendments to refugee convention? Or has the standards to accept refugees changed since the convention in 1951? Does it make a difference if the refugee is fleeing from a civil war? And should an individual country be solely responsible for the decision to accept refugee or can the international community intervene in any way?

These are some of the many questions which currently surround this debate. In order to seek answers to them and many others, we look forward to remarks from our respected debaters as well as guests. Going For the motion is Dr. Kirsten McConnachie from University of Warwick. Defending the motion is Mr. David Goodhart from The Integration Hub. Later in the opening session we will also be joined by Dr. Olaf Kleist from University of Osnabrück and Ambassador Tariq Osman Hyder from Pakistan as featured guests. Once again, welcome to all of you and thank you for participating at The Muslim Debate.



The proposer's opening remarks

Dr. Kirsten McConnachie

The reception of refugees is an increasingly emotional and polarised issue, particularly in Europe. It is also an issue where the stakes could not be higher. There are 19.5 million refugees in the world today and their lives depend on our answer to this question. 

With so much at stake it is essential to ensure some basic facts are understood. Language matters, and it matters particularly to this debate because different legal categories of person attract different legal protections. The definition of a refugee in international law and the nature of states’ obligations towards refugees have repeatedly been explained by refugee lawyers to the press, politicians and wider public. Yet lack of understanding continues, as is apparent even in our Moderator’s opening remarks to this debate.

To argue this motion, therefore, I must first explain the position of refugees in international law.  

The current regime for the protection of refugees was created in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the scale of displacement makes our current situation seem manageable. Tens of millions of people in Europe were displaced by the Second World War, followed after 1945 by a further exodus of people fleeing communism. In Asia, as many as 50 million people were displaced during the Sino-Japanese War, and a further 15 million people were displaced by the Partition of India. In the Middle East, more than 700,000 Palestinians were displaced by the creation of Israel.

The world was in turmoil, and people were forced to move in dizzyingly vast numbers. The response from the major powers of the day was to recognise displacement as an international problem necessitating an international solution. Their notion of ‘international’ was, it must be said, essentially Eurocentric, with limited awareness of or concern for displacement in Asia. Nevertheless, the core point remains true today: refugee flows are not refugees’ fault, nor are they the sole responsibility of neighbouring countries.

The centrepiece of the United Nations response was the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, which defines a refugee and outlines core responsibilities and entitlements. A refugee is defined as a person who is outside his or her country of origin and is unable to return due to a “well-founded fear of persecution” on the basis of a number of specified grounds (race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group). In several important respects this definition is narrower than the popular understanding of a refugee. First, it excludes persons who are displaced within their country of origin and who have not crossed an international border. Second, it is forward-looking rather than backward-looking; i.e. it is based on future fear of persecution rather than past experience of it per se.  Third, it requires a nexus between the fear of persecution and the listed Convention grounds, and in so doing excludes (among others) people fleeing natural disaster and people who have left their country for purely economic reasons. 

The Refugee Convention thus establishes a crucial distinction between refugees who are entitled to international protection and migrants who are not. However, in at least one respect the definition is wider than is generally recognised. Refugee status is not granted or conferred by outside authority but is inherent in the individual (albeit that, in practice, ensuring protection requires administrative recognition). Furthermore, there should be no discrimination between different groups. Protection flows from the individual’s status as a refugee, not from their nationality, political opinion or any other characteristic.

Of 193 UN member states, 145 have ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and are legally bound by its contents. States that have not ratified the Refugee Convention are not so bound: with the exception of one central obligation, which is the centrepiece of refugee protection and a rule of customary international law binding on all states. This is the obligation of non-refoulement, which states that a refugee cannot be expelled or returned to a place where she or he would face a threat to life or freedom.

The implications for our current debate should be clear. Though the obligation is defined negatively (refugees cannot be returned) rather than positively (refugees should always be accepted), the result is similar. 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. 

Readers in Europe may be tempted to draw distinctions from this historical overview, arguing that the world today is different from post-war Europe. This is true: post-war Europe was economically and politically devastated from insecurity and violence that we can – fortunately – hardly imagine today. Yet the response was of cooperation, based on a recognition of shared humanity and shared responsibility. This political maturity is absent today, replaced by a climate of fear and fear-mongering.

The legal regime for refugee protection is far from perfect but it exists for precisely the situation that we currently face: to protect those who are in need of protection. And it was created in the knowledge that binding legal commitments were necessary to ensure that this protection would be granted. This is not a debate to be argued solely in law – there are also powerful ethical and economic arguments to support my position – but it is important to recognise that it is an area governed by law, and to understand some essential facts about the nature of our legal obligations.

Having clarified the legal position, this motion is clear: should refugees always be accepted by other countries?  The answer is, straightforwardly,  yes.



The opposition's opening remarks

Mr. David Goodhart

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.

There is such a thing as society and it is a complex organism based on habits of trust and cooperation and a shared language, history and way of life. Most successful, modern welfare democracies are relatively open to outsiders but are based on the principle of fellow citizen favouritism—citizen rights come before universal rights and even more so since, thanks mainly to social democratic government of the past 60 years, the value of national citizenship (in terms of access to free public goods) has risen so dramatically.

Charity begins at home but it doesn’t end there and rich, liberal, Christian countries like Britain do feel moral obligations to suffering humanity—both politicians and the general public. But there are many ways in which those obligations can be fulfilled—through foreign aid to poor and fragile states, through helping countries to trade their way out of poverty, through military intervention to restore order and through providing either temporary or permanent refuge to people in trouble.

In my view far too much emphasis has been placed on this last method for helping the desperate: we have the resources and technology to help at distance. We can fulfill our moral obligations without tempting the most dynamic people from poor societies that desperately need them to lead political reform and stimulate economic growth.

For decades the grounds for claiming refuge or asylum have been steadily widened—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. According to former Labour home secretary, Charles Clarke, there are now “hundreds of millions” who could legitimately claim protection. But this was only feasible in an era when people were too poor or ignorant or too locked up in prison states like Iraq or Libya to take advantage of this theoretical generosity.

Now that our bluff has been called and millions are pouring through Europe's back door it has become not so much a foundation stone of European civilization, as the refugee lobby claims, but an embarrassing example of European hypocrisy and wishful thinking.

We need different rules to reflect our more mobile times and to keep numbers to a level that is broadly acceptable to European publics—for too long this issue has been a matter of law and not of politics, the preserve of small groups of legal experts and NGOers.

That means keeping the offer of permanent refuge to those genuinely facing individual persecution—people such as 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—but not extending it to everyone who lives in an authoritarian country or whose country is experiencing some kind of conflict.

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. Though even in the Syrian case we should select the most needy—not allow the most mobile and affluent to select us, as we do now—and for the rest turn refugee camps into decent small towns with schools, clinics and jobs, where people can remain as close as possible to their homes and can prepare to rebuild once peace returns.

This is what most people want and it is up to us in the rich world to make sure both that the conditions in temporary towns are good enough and that the poor neighbouring countries where they are mainly situated are adequately compensated for the disruption.

The idea that 1.5m refugees a year is trivial for a continent of 500m ignores the cumulative effect of such small changes and the fact that they are not spread evenly but are mainly coming to 30 or 40 urban areas in north western Europe. Illegal Mexican immigration into the US started as a trickle in the late 1970s and in another 20 years the US will be one third Hispanic—one of the factors behind Donald Trump.

As Dutch writer Paul Scheffer has put it—we in Europe tend to underestimate our ability to control our borders and vastly overestimate our ability to integrate people into our complex, liberal, modern societies.

 

 


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

Featured guest

Ambassador Tariq Osman Hyder

Former Pakistan Ambassador to Ashgabat and to Seoul - Pakistan

This has of late become an emotive issue though for a country such as Pakistan, till recently the refuge of the largest number of refugees in the world till eclipsed recently by Turkey, it is not an academic or debating question, rather a national issue with many ramifications. 

It should also be clarified at the onset that Pakistan is not party to the 1951 Convention and therefore its hosting of some four million refugees at the high point in the last over 3 decades to 2.6 million registered Afghan refugees in 2005 which have declined to almost 1.6 million refugees now, has been all the more remarkable. 

Origins in the Muslim world predate relatively recent international legal instruments and international 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. In this exemplary case the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and his followers in time as conditions permitted, thanks to their own efforts, returned to Mecca Sharif. 

The Time Duration Factor 

However the very meaning of giving refuge or shelter is that it is temporary, an opportunity for the refugee to rest, regroup and eventually to go back. Otherwise it would have simply termed as giving the right of permanent abode to all those who apply for refuge driven by the adverse conditions and environment foreseen and spelt out by the 1951 Convention or any other reason such as  being in search of better economic prospects.

Hence while providing refugee to all who apply and who are manifestly in such need not economic migrants is a matter of principle and national morality to aim for, it is not unconditional from many aspects. Take the case of Pakistan. Three decades have gone by and the presence of a large number of remaining refugees who have in turn attracted between one and two million illegal migrants from Afghanistan in addition, has given rise to many issues including of security at a time when the twin threats of extremism and terrorism constitute the main internal challenge faced by Pakistan. Apart from that the economic costs when 1.6 million Pakistanis seeking work remain unemployed. This apart from environmental costs and problems related to law and order. Hence acceptance of refugees is not of indefinite duration or absorption. 

Refugees versus economic migrants 

In Adam Smith’s classical concept of capitalism and market forces the movement of goods, capital and labour was meant to be unrestrained so that market forces could find their own equilibrium and operate at maximum efficiency. However the western world which has in the main dominated the global system since Adam Smith’s time, has insisted on the right for progressively enhanced free movement of goods and capital in a system they have dominated till the rise of China, but at the same time have increasingly constrained the movement of labour fearing that any resulting equilibrium that would be reached would be at their expense.

Nowadays despite the increase in region and countries beset by strife, the fact remains that a large number of people, potentially the majority in developing countries, not just in troubled countries, would like to emigrate to more developed countries. 

This is not to say that many seeking refugee status are not genuine but many are not and in fact are economic migrants not entitled to the protection of the 1951 Convention or under the practice of providing such refuge in countries such as Pakistan not party to the 1951 Convention. 

Morality - both sides of the coin 

One could argue that it is the duty of some of those accepted as refugees, those in a position to do so due to their status and position of respect at home or due to their political or economic position, to make an effort to return if it is indeed possible to help improve the conditions that forced them and those less fortunate to leave. 

However as at time the conditions which refugees are fleeing from are beyond rectification by the refugees we will not go into this. 

But there is no doubt that it is the legal responsibility under all national and international laws that any country from which refugees have sought protection abroad has both a legal and moral responsibility which is absolute to create conditions to enable its citizens the return and to take them back if not considered as refugees elsewhere. 

No doubt this may be difficult and may take time but not working towards that objective and paying lip service to this fundamental right to return would lose that state both sympathy and moral standing, leaving in some cases the suspicion that the state concerned is all too happy to lessen its burden by having many of its citizens abroad. 

Hence 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. 

Equity and burden sharing 

The responsibility to give refuge is not selective at the subjective judgement of other countries. It is a morally and ethically a common responsibility. Yes countries adjacent to other countries or regions in turmoil are the natural location if not choice of those seeking refuge. 

However equitable burden sharing requires that countries share the burden of sheltering such refugees by giving economic assistance, taking their fair share of refugees in their own countries and not increasingly restricting their own practice while at the same time lecturing to those countries that carry such a burden for at times decades. 

However the reality is far different. Worldwide, despite the German example to prefer refugees from Syria partly because they are well educated and capable of integration at a time of labour shortage and a declining birth rate, the trend has been the opposite. The effort has been to stop refugees reaching their shores or borders and if they do to make gaining refugee status even more difficult. Australia stops boats at sea and interns such aspirants in Christmas Island or Papua New Guinea, making it clear that any person that reaches it shore without prior refugee status accorded by Australia will never be considered for staying on. 

The example as it unfolds in the EU is before us. In the case of Pakistan, international assistance for the 1.6 million Afghan Refugees continues to decline to around $50 million a year, less even than the Iranian programme for their lesser burden of one million refugees there. 

Compare this with the 7 billion Euros for Turkey from the EU to look after the 2.5 million predominately Syrian refugees on its soil. 

From 2001 till today over a span of 16 years only some 700 registered Afghan Refugees in Pakistan have been accepted for settlement by the developed countries in their own countries. 

In conclusion true refugees not economic migrants should be accepted by all countries, but temporarily not permanently and if there is no equitable burden sharing and equivalent practices by all countries then no one country can be held to a higher standard and expected to do more than others. Unconditional and permanent refuge would also weaken the obligation of the state and state system from where such refugees originate to improve its own condition and when it is manifestly unable to do so, for the international community to play its part towards that objective particularly when foreign intervention has been a major cause for continuing turmoil, breakdown and refugee exodus.

 

(Ambassador Tariq Osman was the lead Pakistani negotiator in the process in which agreement, termed the PoR MoU was reached with the UNHCR in 2004 for the 18 months exercise; in which 2.6 million Afghan Refugees were adjudged entitled to refugee status under Pakistan's own discretion not the 1951 Convention to which was it has never been a Party; and were issued a Proof of Residence ID card entitling them to legally reside in Pakistan for a fixed period of 3 years which has been renewed from time to time and remains valid till 30 June 2016)



MUSLIM Institute Latest Reports


Islam and the West

Emerging challenges and way forward (Seminar)



Myanmar's Stateless Rohingyas

The Dilemma of Myanmar's Stateless Rohingyas



Syrian Refugees Crisis

Responsibilities of International Community


View all MUSLIM Institute reports