Daily Times

When fleeing from war and persecution, from a violence-riddled country to a safer place for refuge, terming these people with the status of immigrant instead of refugee is perhaps the worst form of injustice we often notice in the media. Suffering from emotional strain and identity crisis, the sense of helplessness they feel when sailing to foreign lands is never easy because nothing can be more shattering for them than the feeling of loss, alienation and subsequent humiliation.
The current fiasco in Syria has resulted in the displacement of millions of its people who are desperate to escape the hell that was once their home. They have to make a choice for themselves: either risk dying in their homes destroyed by civil war or take a long journey away from their homes that has some possibility of hope for them. These are the hard decisions they have to take, placing their lives and fortunes at stake; for them it is a do or die predicament.
While being most vulnerable to dangers in the difficult journeys they have undertaken for themselves and their children, they are further scrutinised by immigrant and border patrol officers to determine whether they should be allowed in or not. Furthermore, most of these refugees easily fall prey to human smugglers to whom they pay a fortune to help them land in safer places. They are often met with tragic repercussions, as we have seen in Aylan Kurdi’s case, an example of the many that has finally forced open a new debate on dealing with this human catastrophe.
According to the UNHCR, since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, nearly four million refugees have fled the country and 6.5 million have been displaced within the country. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has recorded that 210,000 people have died in the conflict. Who is to be blamed for this crisis? The manifestation of global political alignments and interference in nations through weapons infiltration to achieve political gains, as seen in the Arab world recently, has caused an unsettled future for the current and coming generations that have to endure civil wars and militancy in their home countries. Syria’s tragic story is no different. The start of the conspiracy to oust President Bashar al-Assad by encouraging the opposition to stand up against him prompted severe action from the president to assert his reign. A rebellion took place with arms allegedly supplied by other countries to arm opposition groups in Syria. This has come with serious repercussions as it is believed that among the opposition forces that are being aided militarily, extremist groups have also acquired arms (especially from Qatar) and ammunition to further their goals in the region. On the other hand, it is alleged that Bashar al-Assad’s regime has support coming in from Iran and Russia. What is ironic here is that the countries contributing most to the rebels are among the most hesitant nations to take in the influx of refugees who have to pay the price of the war inflicted on them.
The eight countries that supplied most weapons to Syria have at present accepted only about two percent of the refugees in their countries. What is most troubling to note is that the finances in military aid to the opposition forces in Syria are said to be about $ 16 billion, accrued since 2011. It is estimated that the US has spent $ 7.7 billion and EU nations (Denmark, the UK, France and Netherlands) have spent $ 882 million since 2011. Among the Gulf countries, Qatar has spent three billion dollars, Kuwait has spent $ 400 million, the UAE has spent $ 215 million and Saudi Arabia has spent $ 136 million in supplying arms to the opposition groups in Syria. In comparison to humanitarian assistance, only about four billion dollars has been pledged by the international community, which is not even half of what has been appealed for by the UN.
As for the refugees, the Gulf countries are facing severe criticism over their nil intake of refugees as compared to the west. In one of the most obscene remarks presented by a Kuwaiti official on why the Arab countries should not take refugees it was said that Kuwait and other Gulf countries are too “valuable” to accept refugees and that “it is not right for us to accept a people that are different from us”. This mentality speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the Gulf States that keep on criticising the west for not assimilating Muslim immigrants there. And they also seem to ignore the fact that Syrian neighbours that are way poorer than the Gulf countries are able to host more than four million refugees. If virtues are to be compared, even Israel has allowed afflicted Syrians to enter through its borders to receive necessary medical treatment.
There are more than 220,000 refugees who are seeking asylum in European countries. In that, Germany has taken a morally leading role in opening its doors to refugees. For Germany, it is not only a moral decision but also a rational one in light of its falling population and rising dependency ratios. That is why the people coming in to seek refuge are not an economic burden but a welcome move. For the UK it is quite the opposite, however, giving in to the public outcry over the refugee crisis. Prime Minister David Cameron has also accepted taking in more refugees. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has announced the quota plan for European countries to take in refugees. Though not all European nations are in favour of the move and that plan is yet to be deliberated upon, there is at least an acknowledgment of the fact that with wars come a human price and that the international community should take a moral responsibility to alleviate human misery through diplomatic means, humanitarian aid and relocating and settling afflicted refugees. It is only humane to imagine oneself in their place and relate to the experiences a refugee has to undergo to lay a claim for a better and safer tomorrow.

The writer is a freelance columnist and may be contacted at zeeba.hashmi@gmail.com