It should be added that Britain hasn't had to deal with a large number of migrants at this time. Countries such as Germany are taking in a large proportion of the immigrants, but Britain has only had to face 1% of the total refugees at the Calais border crossing. Fewer still are being given access to Britain's welfare system, so this certainly isn't a domestic crisis, only one for the EU in general to take action on. In comparison Lebanon, who neighbour Syria, have taken in 1.2 million Syrians into refugee camps, which is fifty times higher than the whole of Europe. I will accept that the situation in Lebanon is a crisis, but not one for Eurocentric politics. You can hardly blame migrants for wanting to leave their war torn countries in order to travel to more desirable locations with more generous welfare systems. I know newspapers such as 'The Daily Mail' don't have the ability to empathise with any rational human beings, and so at no point should the blame be put onto migrants or their families who have no intention of stealing from their new homes, only wanting security and a future for their families.
The statistics clearly state that this is only a crisis for a small number of countries in Central Europe. Britain is not one of those countries.
In terms of trying to solve the problem I believe the EU and Western nations are going about the issue in totally the wrong manner. To target a problem such as the refugee crisis we must look at the source, and as half of the refugees originate from the civil war in Syria that's a good place to begin. Stopping a civil war is an almost impossible task, but the bigger issue is that European powers are unlikely to fund huge campaigns that won't benefit them. The probability of any large scale campaign being funded by the EU is unlikely, and that's a shame considering the one thing a country in a civil war needs is stability. Contrary to what the media are saying the sole source of stability in Syria for many years has been dictator Bashar al-Assad, who I did claim was one of the worst politicians of all time, but unfortunately the only hope Syria has for any chance of stability in the near future. When he was in power the rate of Syrian migrants was substantially lower, and it's only because of nations trying to overthrow the dictator that this migrant crisis has escalated.
In a way the resulting migrant crisis has been caused by Western nations themselves. By failing to recognise al-Assad as the leader of Syria they have inadvertently waged a war that threatens to dramatically affect the European economy. This is made worse by the fact that both the EU and USA are funding militant rebels that are only causing the problems to escalate even further. These rebels may wish for democracy, but they are in no way a long term solution, and we've seen this lack of stability with similar projects in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. If Western nations keep funding rebels then there will continue to be refugees; that's the price that Western nations have to weigh up if they continue to fund armies that claim to be for democracy. I know Syria is only one of the countries that the many refugees originate from but if this one nation reduces the number of immigrants by 50% then I would say that would be solving the root of the problem. If this really is a crisis then that 50% could make all the difference.
You can't blame the refugees for wanting to move out of their war torn countries, and a ceasefire in Syria could be a way to reduce that process of emigration.
Interestingly my logic is also the one shared by Russia, who the media like to portray as the evil power threatening global instability. They may have pissed off the US and many Western nations by funding and arming anyone loyal to al-Assad, but surely that solution is quite rightly the quickest way to solve the ongoing Syrian civil war. Russia have even set up refugee camps inside the affected areas of Syria and providing funding to protect the local civilians. In essence Russia have so far been the only nation to try and and actively combat the crisis by containing the situation and at least preventing some civilians from moving into mainland Europe. You wouldn't know it from the media, but so far the most humanitarian solution has come from the Russian government, and it's a far more logical and ingenious solution than trying to wage wars for the sake of petty democracy. In my opinion the Russians have started a much more sustainable method of helping foreigners rather than granting them asylum, and if this situation is to be solved anytime soon then other countries must join them in this campaign.
Are these camps a sustainable way to house migrants? Absolutely not, but they are the best temporary solution in a problem that unfortunately isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
If I'm being honest I don't believe that countries should be forced into taking masses of migrants if their own economies cannot take the strain. Being granted asylum is a privilege and not a right, and just because a few left wing activists have pressurised the government into accepting more migrants, doesn't mean that this is a positive move for any party involved. It's certainly not a sustainable long term solution, and by simply bowing down to the demands of masses of migrants the EU is simply going to encourage more immigrants to make their way into Europe. There is already a lot of tension between natives and migrants, so surely the best place for these refugees is back in their home countries. I know that sounded a bit UKIP, but European countries cannot realistically deal with a mass movement of so many asylum seekers, especially when the economy isn't exactly thriving. This is why development is so important in countries such as Syria, and this is why the current civil war must be stopped as quickly as possible. That's a huge ask, but one that Russia has already shown is a realistic ambition if the EU bothered to think logically about the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment