ISA
JOURNAL of INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Vol. 6 No. 1
November 13, 2015
Page 2 - Syrians Flock to Germany Page 4 - Australia’s Floating Crisis Page 6 - Rakhine Buddhists Persecute Rohingya Muslims Page 8 - Europe’s Balancing Test: Compassion Or Reality Page 11 - A Slideshow Of Refugee Solutions
2
By Giovanna Lastra
Everybody Loves Germany The Reason Germany Is The Preferred Destination Of Asylum Seekers In The EU Amidst the surge of refugees seeking asylum in Europe sits Germany which anticipates receiving the most asylum applications in the EU. On Aug. 19, Germany’s Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere revealed that Germany now expects to receive 800, 000 applications for asylum. This is more asylum seekers than all other EU member states, combined, received in 2014. Germany ranks first as the most popular migration destination among EU states and second in the world after the United States.1 The fact that refugees fleeing war torn countries choose Germany is not surprising. Germany is a welfare state, has the largest economy in Europe and is considered an immigrant country. Germany welcomes immigrants into the country and has a efficient process for refugees seeking political asylum. However, Germany’s large economy and social welfare do not distinguish it from other EU countries. France has the third largest economy in Europe and welcomes immigrants into the country.2 The process for receiving a work visa in France is relatively fast and simple. Deportation is rare in France.3 Sweden is also very welcoming of immigrants and refugees. In relation to its population size, Sweden takes the most refugees. But the difference between Germany and other European countries lies in the combination of welfare benefits and open acceptance in Germany. “I feel very good here. I’m endlessly grateful for all the help we receive, for the opportunities that Germany gives us,” said an Afghani refugee.4 Unlike many other EU countries, refugees receive a large amount of assistance when they arrive in Germany. They are entitled to social welfare, child benefits, child-raising benefits, integration allowances and language courses as well as other forms of integration assistance.5 Refugees arriving in Germany are offered free German language courses in order to become fluent in German. “I want to learn your language, definitely. I go to a language school. When I’m able to speak German, many aspects of
Photo Credit: Pixabay Refugees Welcome: Though there is some resistance from right-wing Germans, refugee asylum initiatives are popular.6
daily life will be easier. Then I’ll have a chance at finding a job. I want to stay here among you,” said a refugee from Senegal.7 Immigrants also receive sufficient unemployment benefits if they cannot find work. Many refugees can receive years of unemployment benefits if they prove that they simply cannot find work. Housing accommodations for refugees and immigrants are often arranged by the state and financial assistance for housing is often given. The government also gives financial assistance for children. Refugees and immigrants receive a monthly payment of 184 euros per child for the first two children, 190 euros for the third child and 215 euros for every subsequent child. Furthermore, the state will financially support any needs a family has in educating their child. They will pay for school supplies or tuition for the child to attend school. The Germany government also openly accepts immigrants in the country. The government acknowledges itself as an immigrant country. The German people have played a role in making refugees feel welcome in their country through small gestures. An article in “The Economist” reported that a bus driver in Bavaria spontaneously grabbed his microphone and said in English: “Welcome to Germany, welcome to my coun-
3 try,” once he realized the bus was full of refugees. The entire bus, refugees and Germans alike, broke out in applause. Refugees arriving in Germany are both welcomed by the people and assisted by the government. These combined factors distinguish Germany from other states in the EU. France has a simple immigration process but is not as friendly to immigrants as Germany is. The French government holds to a strong integrationist policy in which immigrants abandon their distinctive cultures and traditions for that of France. In the past, this has caused much trouble and controversy through events such as the 2005 riots in immigrant neighborhoods.
“I’m endlessly grateful for all the help we recieve, for the opportunities that Germany gives us.” -An Afghani Refugee Other European nations specifically discourage refugees from seeking asylum in their country by restricting welfare benefits among immigrants and refugees. Denmark created a new law just last week to restrict welfare benefits among immigrants and refugees in the country. Reporter Malcolm Brabant of “PBS” said, “The center-right minority government introduced the law to dissuade refugees and economic migrants from heading to Denmark.” The Danish Refugee Council fears this new law will lead to discrimination, marginalization, and possibly immigrant ghettos.8 In many ways, it seems that Germany has an open perspective to immigrants because of its own dark history. Years ago, Germans were the refugees fleeing a war-torn country after the Second World War and now Germany has become a refuge for others escaping dangerous conditions in their home country. “The situation in my home country was horrifying,” said Mudasar, a refugee from Pakistan, “I had to get out, there
was no other choice. The Taliban shot pretty much anything that moved. It was bestial. Every day there were new attacks. In Germany, I finally have the chance to live in peace. I hope that I can stay here.” 9 However, Germany’s acceptance has come at a cost. The preference of Germany among immigrants and refugees has strained the German government and migration services. On a televised program, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in response to a young refugee who declared her desire to stay in Germany, said: “Politics is sometimes hard. You’re right in front of me now and you’re an extremely nice person. But you also know in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon are thousands and thousands and if we were to say you can all come ... we just can’t manage it.” Unfortunately, these strains have forced Germany to introduce temporary border controls in order to cope with the influx of immigrants. These strenuous conditions reflect the horrific crises occurring around the globe. One can only hope the victims of these dire circumstances will find safety and refuge somewhere.
1. Webb, Alex. “Germany Top Migration Land After U.S. in New OECD Ranking.” Bloomberg Business, May 20, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2015. 2. “France Economy.” Economy Watch, March 18, 2010. Accessed October 20, 2015. 3. Lundberg, Claire. “”But You Speak French So Well!”: Why Are Parisians so Surprised That an American Would Want to Live in France?” Slate, February 13, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2015. 4. Asche, Christophe, and Jan David Sutthoff. “9 Refugees Share Personal Stories About Why They Fled To Germany.” Huff Post Germany, October 4, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2015. 5. “Navigation and Service.” BMI. Accessed October 20, 2015. 6. Martin, Rachel. “In Germany, Migrants Find Footing But Also Some Resistance.” NPR, September 20, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2015. 7. Asche, Christophe, and Jan David Sutthoff. “9 Refugees Share Personal Stories About Why They Fled To Germany.” Huff Post Germany, 8. “As Sweden Offers Shelter, Denmark Tries to Discourage Refugees.” PBS. September 4, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2015. 9. Asche, Christophe, and Jan David Sutthoff. “9 Refugees Share Personal Stories About Why They Fled To Germany.” Huff Post Germany, 10. Connolly, Kate. “Angela Merkel Comforts Sobbing Refugee but Says Germany Can’t Help Everyone.” The Guardian, July 16, 2015.
4
By Josh Amberg
Marine Migration Examining Australia’s “Pacific Solution” For Immigration As boats crammed with would-be immigrants appear on the horizon, Australia struggles to find a morally satisfying solution for the influx of illegal immigrants, refugees, and human traffickers.
risen up and taken advantage of the situation. Immigrants enter into these smuggling and human trafficking rings to avoid the danger of attempting the voyage alone. The hazardous voyages, the flow of illegal immigration, and the rise of criminal enterprises forced the Australian government to From its founding as a penal colony, Australia’s history respond. In 2001, Prime Minister John Howard of the Libhas involved immigration. The compulsory immigration eral Party adopted the “Pacific Solution.” of English debtors and criminals created tension and strife The Liberal and Nation parties passed the “Pacific Solubetween the native Aborigines and the English immigrants. tion” to deter immigrants from even attempting the voyage. Today the issue of immigration is once again tense. Spe- The Australian navy would intercept boats and either force cifically, Australia’s policy towards immigrants arriving via them to return to Indonesia or deposit them in detention cenboat has outraged many people including its own citizens. ters outside the Australian migration zone. Prominent detenThe vast majority of illegal immigration in Australia cen- tion centers were established on Papa New Guinea, Naura, ters on nautical immigration. Australia is an island-nation Manus and other island nations. The centers would hold and because of this illegal immigrants almost always arrive potential immigrants while their refugee status was deterby boat. Poorer immigrants in particular will endeavor to mined. Initially, the policy seemed to significantly halt the cross over from Indonesia and neighboring islands, often in flow of immigration. rickety boats and rafts. The year after the policy was introduced “The Guardian” It is estimated that thousands have died attempting the reported, “Arrivals dropped from 43 boats carrying more voyage. Smuggling and human trafficking enterprises have than 5,000 people, to one boat carrying one asylum seeker.” However, moral questions dogged the policy. Opponents argued that the measure prevented poor immigrants as well as persecuted refugees from reaching safety. Additionally, parliamentary inquiries reported conditions in some of the refugee centers qualified as violent, abusive, and dangerous. In 2008, the newly elected Labor Party dismantled much of the policy and its programs. Refugee boats returned in large numbers once the government softened the policy. This meant more illegal immigrants, more deaths in the ocean, and more human trafficking. Thus, the “Pacific Solution” has resurfaced. Beginning in Aug 2012, the Australian government revived major aspects of the policy and reopened detenPhoto Credit: Trakver via Flickr Think of the Children: On July 9, 2011, the Refugee Action Collective tion centers on Nauru and Manus. protested outside the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation However, the refugees are still coming. “The (MITA) where unaccompanied minors were detained.
5
Photo Credit: Trakver via Flickr A New Civil Rights Issue: About 300 people gathered on April 28, 2013, calling for the closing of MITA and the detention centers.
Guardian” reports that over 1,500 people are detained on the Nauru and Manus centers. Critics argue this is both immoral and unnecessarily costly to Australians. Current events involving Syrian refugees only complicate the situation. On Sept 8 2015, Australia agreed to relocate 12,000 Syrian refugees. Additionally, Australia will spend over $44 million in aid to help over 240,000 Syrian refugees find food, water, and shelter. Opponents of the “Pacific Solution” argue that such actions, while laudable, highlight the financial waste and moral hypocrisy of the offshore Australian detention centers. It is estimated that keeping the detention centers open costs nearly 60 million dollars per month. An audit of the government reveals that it costs $400,000 per year to keep an individual in one of the detention centers. It would cost about $40,000 to allow refugees and asylum seekers to live in Australia on bridging visas. Critics call this a waste money and resources that could be used in relocation efforts. They also describe the detention centers as unjust, immoral and illegal. Opponents argue that the Australian government is discriminating against refugees and immigrants based on how they arrived. The government aids Syrian refugees who stayed in Syria, but rejects other refugees who fled dangerous political situations, holding them in detention centers. A petition signed by the detainees on Manus Island reads,
“We have fled war and persecution just like the asylum seekers in Europe. We need safety and resettlement. The Australian government has treated us like criminals and called us boat criminals because we came by boat.” Legal advocates of the refugees point to the 1951 Refugee Convention Australia drafted and ratified which explicitly states that refugees must not be penalized or punished for their method of arrival into the country. “States shall not impose penalties [on refugees] on account of their illegal entry or presence,” it says. The Australian government contends that many of the detainees are not refugees but immigrants, which is an important legal distinction. They maintain the detention centers help determine whether or not someone is actually a refugee. Additionally, the government argues that granting the detainees asylum will incentivize more immigrants to attempt the dangerous voyage and engage in human trafficking. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot declared, “We will never ever do anything that encourages the evil trade of people-smuggling and all of those who have come to Australia by boat are here as a result of people smuggling and this is the selfsame trade which resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000 people at sea in the waters to our north and has currently resulted in the deaths of perhaps many, many more thousands in the Mediterranean.”
6
By Adam Lebbs
Failure to Coexist Buddhist Majority Marginalizes Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State of Myanmar A centuries-old ethinic and religious clash in Southeast Asia is making headlines as the root of discrimination, terrorism, and yet another refugee crisis.
1.3 million Rohingya in Burma are recognized as citizens. The modern era of persecution against the Rohingya began in 1991 when a new military regime deployed troops to the Rakhine state to terrorize both the Rakhines and the Rohingyas. The troops abused the Rakhines both physical ly and economically, imposing arbitrary taxes, forced labor, and confiscation of property in addition to executions and torture. Many Rohingya, about 200,000, fled to Bangladesh, but were eventually repatriated by the UN. The Rohingyas have seen greater persecution since the government began liberalizing in 2012 and lifted controls on free speech and press. In order to gain votes and limit the Rakhine party’s success, the regime-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party promised to grant the Rohingyas citizenship. This measure inflamed the Rakhines and aroused resentment against the Rohingyas. Recriminations followed the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by several Rohingya Muslims, resulting in the death of about 300 people and the displacement of about 130,000 more. The camps for the displaced Rohingya have come under heavy criticism, particularly because of a Pulitzer-winning “Reuters” article that implicated Thai immigration officials
In May of this year, refugees fleeing Myanmar, known as Burma until 1989, drew international attention when they were stranded in the Bay of Bengal. No country wanted to accept the refugees who are predominantly Rohingya Muslims from in the Rakhine state in Myanmar. Eventually, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand accepted them, provided the refugees repatriated within one year. The measure is temporary at best and has the potential to reignite following the upcoming elections in November. The Rakhine state is at the eastern edge of Bangladesh, which is predominantly Muslim, and at the western edge of Southeast Asia, which is largely Buddhist. The state is isolated from the rest of Myanmar by the Rakhine Yoma mountain range. That isolation led the Rakhines to develop a culture distinct from the rest of Myanmar, which did not become a part of the country until 1785. The Rakhines feel their culture is threatened by the Rohingya Muslims, both demographically and by the rise of radical Islam. The tensions between the Rohingyas and the Rakhines can be traced several decades, however, World War II sparked the first direct conflict between the Rakhines and Rohingyas as the Rohingyas supported the British and the Rakhines the Japanese. The conflict sporadically continued over the years, erupting against again after World War II, and during the 1960s and 70s as the Burmese government cracked down on illegal immigration, chasing many Rohingya to Bangladesh, although many eventually returned. Because of the fluid state of the border, the Burmese government claimed that the Rohingya are not citizens, but illegal “Bengali” immigrants. AcUnhappy Neighbors: For 400 years, Muslims have migrated from moderncording to some estimates, only 40,000 of the day Bangladesh to the Rakhine state in Myanmar.
7 as participating in human trafficking of the displaced Rohingya. Several groups, such as the Simon-Skjodt Center for Genocide Prevention, have also suggested that the Burmese policies towards the Rohingya is a prelude for genocide. Several factors contribute to the persecution of the Rohingya. First, it should be reiterated that the Rohingya are not the only minority in the Rakhine state. The Rakhine Buddhists are also a minority inside of Burma and have seen repression by the government. While two rights do not make a wrong, the Rakhines also feel increasingly persecuted and threatened by a growing Muslim presence. This sentiment is furthered by the Rohingyas voting against the Rakhine party in the last two elections. A second factor is the growth of Islamic extremism. The Rohingyas have a history of rebelling against the state in the name of religion. Global terror leaders, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, have provided tacit support for Rohingya terrorism, asking, “Where is the support of al-Salul [a derogatory term for the Saudi royals] and their allies for a million of the weak Muslims who are all without exception being exterminated in Burma?” However, there has been no reliable report of Rohingya terrorist activity since the defeat of the rebellion in the early 1960s. Nevertheless, the Burmese government has used terrorism as an excuse to single out the Rohingya. The most important factor in Rohingya persecution has been chauvinistic Buddhism. While some of this is rooted in the Rakhine state’s historical circumstances, this aggressive and nationalistic side of Buddhism has been emerging elsewhere in recent years. In Myanmar, the 969 movement is based in numerology and believes that the Muslims are trying to take over Burma in the twenty-first century. In South Asia, Muslims identify through displays of the number 786, placing it on their businesses to indicate Muslim ownership. When added together, 7,8, and 6 equal 21, which is indicative Muslims trying to dominate Myanmar in thetwenty-first century to the Buddhists. As a result, some Buddists have responded with the 969 movement, which represents “the nine attributes of the Buddha, the six attributes of his teachings, and the nine attributes of the Sangha, or monastic order.” Monks who
Photo Credit: Flickr “Rohingya is not a nationality in Burma”: Rakhine Buddhists protest Rohingya claims of citizenship.
are involved in the movement have been linked to the rioting that displaced a large number of Muslims in 2012 and 2013 and their leader, Ashin Wirathu, has called himself the “Burmese bin Laden.” Wirathu’s actions have garnered the movment international attention, as he tells the BBC, “Muslims are only well-behaved when they are weak.” The international response to the Rohingya crisis has been tepid at best. While the United States has not imposed sanctions on Myanmar for its human rights violations, President Obama remarked in his November 2014 visit, “Discrimination against a Rohingya or any other religious minority, I think, does not express the kind of country that Burma over the long term wants to be.” The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the main regional authority, has little in terms of political or legal framework that can help resolve the crisis. Most of the countries in the region have not signed the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which would provide some regulation for the treatment of migrants. It is unlikely that Myanmar will take any political action
Continued on Page 10
8
By Rodney Dowty
Pick Your Policy
Germany, Britain and Hungary Respond To Migrant Crisis According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), a staggering 59.5 million people worldwide, many from the Syria and Iraq, were displaced from their homes by war, conflict, and persecution in 2014.1 While most refugees have remained at the hastily constructed refugee camps build in neighboring countries, many have looked to find sanctuary in Europe.
Europe is an ideal destination for refugees due to its proximity and its social and economic benefits. The journey from Syria to Greece and up the Balkans into Eastern Europe can be perilous, but the potential rewards outweigh the risks. Asylum in Europe means access to free health care, potential employment, educational opportunities, etc. Technically, the European Union requires refugees to apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter or risk deportation according to the Dublin Agreement.2 However, the sheer volume of refugees streaming into Europe forces border countries like Hungary to bear a growing burden. As tensions and the number of refugees attempting to get into the EU continues to rise, European leaders have adopted one of three attitudes towards the growing migrant crisis. The first response, championed by German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, calls for an increase in European relief efforts. Merkel established herself as the most vocal promigrant advocate by temporarily suspending the Dublin Agreement, allowing Syrian refugees to seek asylum in Germany without threat of deportation.3 She also voluntarily increased the number of migrants Germany is willing to support multiple times and publically condemned a violent wave of anti-immigrant protests.4 Her most ambitious action called for the creation of a joint transfer system that would require virtually all EU member states to help relocate and look after a certain number of migrants based on their size, population, and economy.5 This is a significant change from the status quo, as Europeans have traditionally regarded policies concerning migrants and refugees as a national, rather than EU issue. As of Sept 10, French President Francois Hollande was
the only other major European political leader backing Merkel’s ambitious proposal. Until Merkel can rally the support of other EU members, there is little Germany can do to resolve the migrant crisis on their own. The second European reaction is an attitude of casual indifference. The best example is from UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who has largely ignored the crisis altogether and given higher priority to other political and international issues. So far, Britain’s involvement with the migrant crisis has been trivial at best. After an embarrassing story leaked involving the deportation of Syrian refugees, the British government quickly pointed out that the UK had given sanctuary to almost 5,000 Syrian nationals and their dependents since 2011.6 However, compared to the 800,000 migrants expected to apply for asylum this year in Germany alone, Britain’s level of involvement is virtually meaningless.7 Merkel and other European leaders have pressured Britain to make a larger commitment towards the EU relief efforts. They achieved a partial victory when Cameron announced the UK would resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.8 However, he specified that the refugees would be specifically taken from refugee camps in the countries surrounding Syria. While certainly a noble gesture, Cameron’s course of action offers little respite to the swarms of migrants seeking asylum in Europe. The third major response to the migrant crisis has been a wave of anti-immigration sentiment originating in Eastern Europe. Hungary, one of the most significantly affected nations, has taken a particularly hardline position. In June, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced plans to build a 109 mile steel fence along the entirety of the Hungarian-Serbian border.9 When this measure failed to stop the increasing flow of migrants, Orban deployed 2,100 police officers armed with tear gas in the attempt to lock down the border.10 While the officers have successfully detained and processed more migrants, the increased security has done nothing to stem the tide of migrants.
9
Courtesy of Freedom House via Flickr While Merkel and other European leaders have criticized Hungary’s somewhat medieval response, Orban’s policies continue to enjoy widespread domestic support. Perhaps the greatest reason is Orban’s ability to articulate the frustrations of his countrymen. Many Eastern Europeans share his view that the migrants, the majority of whom are Muslim, represent a threat to Europe’s Christian heritage. Janos Kassai, a 54-year-old security guard in Budapest said, “Mr Orban is perfectly right. We have to defend our culture. There’s a threat that people who are undesirable, who would do bad things to Hungary, such as terrorists may land here.” 11 Orban has also claimed an “overwhelming majority of the migrants aren’t refugees at all.”12 Since these “economic migrants” are merely seeking to improve their lives, the EU is under no obligation to assist or improve their prospects. Although negotiations continue, Angela Merkel stands out as one offering a substantive solution to the Migrant Crisis. As the situation continues to deteriorate, it appears likely her plan will eventually be adopted. While a positive step towards assisting refugees, the negative ramifications remain to be seen. Perhaps Orban is right and the immigration problem will continue to grow worse. Merkel’s plan will also likely place a greater strain on relations between the UK and the EU, as British voters remain hesitant to take a heavier responsibilities for Europe’s problems. Regardless, Merkel’s plan is a necessary first step toward solving this massive humanitarian crisis.
Sneaking In: This family of Syrian migrants crawled under the barbed wire fence into Hungary on Aug. 27, 2015. 1. “Worldwide Displacement Hits All-time High as War and Persecution Increase.” UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency. June 18, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015. 2. Holehouse, Matthew, Justin Huggler, and Andrea Vogt. “Germany Drops EU Rules to Allow in Syrian Refugees - Telegraph.” The Telegraph. August 24, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015. 3. Holehouse, Matthew, Justin Huggler, and Andrea Vogt. “Germany Drops EU Rules to Allow in Syrian Refugees - Telegraph.” 4. “Merkel: “No Tolerance” for Xenophobic Attacks on Refugees.” Www.efe. com. August 26, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015. 5. “Merkel the Bold.” The Economist. September 5, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015. 6. Gadher, Dipesh, and Bojan Pancevski. “UK Deports 52 Syrian Refugees.” The Sunday Times. August 30, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015 7. Benoit, Bertrand, and Nicholas Winning. “Germany Feels Backlash for Welcoming Migrants.” WSJ. September 6, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015 8. Bender, Ruth, and Laurence Norman. “Merkel Calls for More Help in Migrant Crisis.” WSJ. September 7, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015. 9. Thorpe, Nick. “Hungary Races to Build Border Fence as Migrants Keep Coming - BBC News.” BBC News. August 6, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015 10. “Hungary Sends 2,100 Police Officers to Control Border.” - Al Jazeera English. August 26, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015. 11. Moffett, Matt, and Margit Feher. “Criticized Abroad, Hungary’s Orban Gains Support at Home With Migrant Crackdown.” WSJ. September 17, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015 12. “How Many Migrants to Europe Are Refugees?” The Economist. September 7, 2015. Accessed November 7, 2015.
10 “Coexist,” Continued from Page 7
“Muslims are only well-behaved when they are weak.” -Ashin Wirathu to safeguard the rights of the Muslim minority as even Aung San Suu Kyi, the foremost advocate of democracy in the country, has been reluctant to speak on the issue because of the potential backlash from the Buddhist community. At the current time, any reform efforts seem likely to fail, but the problem will continue to fester until action is taken. While the Rohingyas are right to demand citizenship, part of the problem is the 1982 law, which made nationality dependent on ethnicity, further enflaming ethnic tensions. The Rohingya label is contentious for many reasons and recognizing certain groups on the basis of ethnicity elsewhere in Myanmar has caused the Rohingya to form a political identity around the idea. Making citizenship based on grounds other than ethnicity would do much to reduce ethnic tensions. However, the nationalist Buddhist movement is a large problem and will require strong action by the government to reduce resentment, much like the federal government in the United States had to address civil rights in the 1960s. Until action is taken to counter these problems, the Rohingyas and Myanmar will continue to experience ethnic and religious tensions.
1. Cunningham, Susan. “Myanmar’s Rohingya Boat People Are Safe For Now But Root Issues Unsolved.” Forbes. June 3, 2015. Accessed November 8, 2015. 2. Albert, Eleanor. “The Rohingya Migrant Crisis.” CFR Backgrounders. June 17, 2015. Accessed November 8, 2015. 3. Andreychuk, Raynell. “Protecting the Rohingya Muslims in Burma.” August 26, 2015. Accessed November 8, 2015. 4. “Bangladesh/Burma:Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: The Search for a Lasting Solution.” Bangladesh/Burma. Accessed November 8, 2015. 5. “Burma: The Rohingya Muslims: Ending a Cycle of Exodus?” Accessed November 8, 2015. 6. “Patterns of Anti-Muslim Violence in Burma: A Call for Accountability and Prevention.” August 1, 2013. Accessed November 8, 2015. 7. Szep, Jason, and Andrew Marshall. “Special Report: Thailand Secretly Supplies Myanmar Refugees to Trafficking Rings.” Reuters. December 4, 2013. Accessed November 8, 2015. 8. “’They Want Us All To Go Away’: Early Warning Signs of Genocide in Burma.” Accessed November 8, 2015. 9. Lumpar, Kuala. “The Most Persecuted People on Earth?” The Economist. June 13, 2015. Accessed November 8, 2015. 10.
Brennan, Elliot, and Christopher O’Hara. “The Rohingya and Islamic
Extremism: A Convenient Myth.” June 29, 2015. Accessed November 8, 2015. 11. Kumar, Sanjay. “The Rise of Buddhist Nationalism in Sri Lanka.” The Diplomat. July 9, 2014. Accessed November 8, 2015. 12. Bookbinder, Alex. “969: The Strange Numerological Basis for Burma’s Religious Violence.” The Atlantic. April 9, 2013. Accessed November 8, 2015. 13. Marshall, Andrew. “Special Report: Myanmar Gives Official Blessing to AntiMuslim Monks.” Reuters. June 27, 2013. Accessed November 8, 2015. 14. Ferrie, Jared. “Obama Calls on Myanmar to Protect Rohingya; Suu Kyi Urges Harmony.” Reuters. November 14, 2014. Accessed November 8, 2015. 15. Webb, Joshua. “Solving the Rohingya Crisis.” The Diplomat. May 27, 2015. Accessed November 8, 2015. 16. Fisher, Jonah. “Aung San Suu Kyi: Where Are You? - BBC News.” BBC News. June 2, 2015. Accessed November 8, 2015. 17. “Myanmar: The Politics of Rakhine State.” October 22, 2014. Accessed November 8, 2015.
By Andrew Bambrick
11
The Nations Respond to Syrian Refugees An estimated 9 million people have fled their homes since the deaths of pro-democracy protestors in Deraa, Syria sparked the Syrian Civil War in March 2011. With the growing number of refugees, the nations neighboring Syria, the nations in Europe, and the US are forced to decide about how best to handle this crisis. On Sept. 6, Pope Francis exhorted all European parishes to welcome the refugees, saying that the Vatican would host two families. Some European nations are welcoming the refugees, such as the UK which just announced that they will welcome, 20,000 new refugees, Prime Minister Cameron announced that, “We will continue to show the world that this country is a country of extraordinary compassion, always standing up for our values and helping those in need.” The United States is taking in 10,000 refugees, but various organization, such as the Human Right Campaign, are pushing President Obama to do more to aid the refugees. Other European nations, such as Germany and France, beleive there is more the European nations can do, particularly pushing other nations such as Poland, who has announced a Christian only policy regarding selecting the refugees, to allow more people in. Others, such as Poland, are not as willing to take them in. Benjamin Netanyahu the Prime Minister of Israel announced on September 6th, 2015 that Israel would build a fence along the Israeli-Jordanian border in order to prevent the refugees from coming into Israel. “Israel is not indifferent to the human tragedy of the refugees from Syria and Africa, But Israel is a small country, a very small country, that lacks demographic and geographic depth,” he said. “Therefore, we must control our borders, against both illegal migrants and terrorism.” According to Amnesty International, the six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- like Israel, have offered zero resettlement locations to the refugees. The reason for their refusla - they were not members of the 1951 refugee convention. This excuse however, rings hollow as other non-conven-
tion signees, such as Jordan, Lebanon, have agreed to allow refugees in. But of these two nations Lebanon’s response is astonishing due to the fact that they host the largest number of refugee’s per-capita of any nation and that Syria and Lebanon established formal diplomatic relations only three years before the start of the war. The Lebanese government grants the refugees access to the most basic public institutions, but with the vast poverty in Lebanon and no sign of the humanitarian need abating there anytime soon, the question must be asked, why is the Lebanese’s Government so open to the refugees? Brett Larson, a Professor of International Politics and Policy at Patrick Henry College, has stated that, ‘Lebanon will not benefit from this economically, however their aim could be to raise their standing past that of a secondary middle eastern nation, or it could be to attract aid from other nations’ As the refugees continue to flee from Syria, and each nation is pressed to decide the course of action to take regarding the refugees, the situation begs the question, ‘how long will the refugee crisis last?’ Aron Lund, the editor of the Carnegie Endowment’s Syria in Crisis blog and the author of a book on Syria’s opposition said this about a projected end to the Syrian conflict “I think the idea is that Syria will not be a united country for a very long time to come, if ever.” 1. Harris, Gardiner, David E. Sanger, and David. “Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Sept. 2015. 2. “Refugee Crisis: UK Will Resettle 20,000 Syrian Refugees over Five Years - as It Happened.” The Guardian. Http://www.theguardian.com/, n.d. Web. 07 Sept. 2015. 3. Tharoor, Ishaan. “The Arab World’s Wealthiest Nations Are Doing next to Nothing for Syria’s Refugees.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015. 4. Lebanon. United Nations. Refugee Office. 2015 UNHCR Country Operations Profile - Lebanon. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. 5. Pizzi, Michael. “After Four Years of Syria’s War, No End in Sight.” Http:// www.aljazeera.com/. N.p., 13 Mar. 2015. Web.
12
High Hopes for Cuba’s Reform By Josh Amberg
Change comes slowly, if at all. Recent political gestures would suggest that Cuba’s standing within the international community has increased. Several signs point to this. In 2013, Cuba was reelected to the United Nations Human Rights Council. President Obama announced in December 2014 that the United States would normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba. He also lessened restrictions on both travel and commerce, in exchange for Cuba releasing 53 political prisoners and allowing access to UN and Red Cross human rights monitors. The European Union’s relationship with Cuba has also shown signs of improving as well. EU and Cuban officials convened in Havana in April 2014 to lay out a “road map” for normalizing diplomatic relations. In addition to these changes, Pope Francis is visiting Cuba on Sept 19 to Sept 22. The Vatican has stated it hopes that trip will help bring an end to the 53-year-old U.S. embargo on Cuba, as well as lead to more freedom and greater human rights. Viewed without context these series of event appear to demonstrate an upward trend in Cuba’s treatment of human rights. While partially corre1ct, the truth is that many of Cuba’s human rights violations have not ended. They have merely changed form as the government has shifted suppression tactics. Amnesty International’s Americas Director, Erika Guevara-Ross, declared, “Over the past few months, we have seen unprecedented openness when it comes to Cuba’s international relations. However, the country still needs to make progress when it comes to allowing people to peacefully express their views without fear of being harassed, detained, or attacked.” Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both documented the shift in governmental suppression tactics. Cuba has switched from long term incarceration to consecutive short-term arrests and public slander campaigns. The number of arbitrary detentions has risen significantly over the course of the last 5 years. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation received 1,100 reports of arbitrary detention in 2010. They received 7,188 such reports in 2015. This increase indicates that while the methods of suppression differ, the overall state of human rights within Cuba remains largely the same.
FALL 2015 STAFF RESEARCHERS AND WRITERS Josh Amberg Andrew Bambrick Rodney Dowty Giovanna Lastra Adam Lebbs
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Rebecca Cambron
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Lauren Bellamy
The Journal of International Social Affairs is a journal written and published by Patrick Henry College Strategic Intelligence, International Politics & Policy, and Journalism undergraduates.