World University Service HKUB, HKUSU
Current Affairs Commentry Winter & Autumn Edition Session 2015- 2016
Index
2-7 Outreach with WUS: European Refugee Crisis in Serbia context 8-10 Do refugees deserve better than migrants 11-13 Should countries integrate refugees, or prepare refugees to return to her home countries
14 Ten-word story
Outreach with WUS:
European Refugee Crisis in Serbia context
In this year’s Annual Trip, we took a bold step to explore Serbia and Kosovo, the unfamiliar lands in Eastern Europe to many Hongkongers. While we were to discern the ethical issues in these two mysterious places, before our departure, they had been oft-reported on media as they were affected Europe’s refugee crisis. It goes without saying that they are still beset with the refugee issues. In this article, the author would like to introduce Serbia to the readers, explore the attempts made by Serbia in handling the refugees, and contextualize the public response thereof by looking into the history of Serbia and the current political situation in Europe.
The Front Door Entering Europe
When the world mainly focuses on the destination of most refugees - Germany - and the world leaders, the Balkan states seem to be neglected. Nonetheless, Serbia did play an important role, or even a leading role in the refugee chaos. As such, the author feels obliged to draw your attention to this country. Serbia is presumably a must-go country for refugees to enter into the European Union zone thus into Germany. Located between Turkey and 2
the Schengen area, most Syrian refugees would first come to Serbia or Greece, then Croatia or Slovenia, and eventually entering Germany through Austria. According to Serbia's Commissariat for Refugees and Migration, in 2014, there were around 16 000 refugees
entering
this
7
million-populated
country. In 2015, the number of registered refugees was about 600 000, while 0.5 million more were believed to have passed by the country. Dramatically, 8000 people arrived at Serbia daily during October and November of the year. There
was a total of 1 million migrants getting into
damage to the region with four ethnic-cleansing
Europe up till 2015, which means that almost all
wars during the mid-90s.
refugees had stepped into the land of Serbia, whether or not they treat Serbia as their place for settlement.
Yet, the situation has changed with the refugee crisis. Despite the influx of refugees, the Serbia has been widely and frequently praised by media
Serbia has also been on the headline because of the
because of the unexpectedly warm public response
arrest of potential Paris attackers in November.
to the refugees.
When the Paris Attack has caught the globe’s attention towards terrorism and threats brought by refugees, Serbia should not be a country ignored with its involvement and exposure to the issue.
Image Altered with the Humanity Shown
The situation is best described by KOSOVO 2.0, “Most hope to reach the EU, especially Germany, but some would be happy to stay in Serbia, where they can live in peace”. From 2014 to 2015 Fall, the Serbian civilians have been giving out all kinds of necessities for the refugees, in spite of their relatively poor economic conditions. Hope was
Serbia is never a leading country in Europe.
given to the outcast since arriving the border.
Among the 7 million population, the country holds
Hungary has closed her border in October and
18% of unemployment and the average gross
used pepper spray and rubber bullet to drive out
monthly income of her people is only HKD $3 615.
refugees, while Macedonia was also accused of
Historically, Serbia did not hold a positive image
sending police to beat refugees. Yet according to
to her neighbors either. Besides being accused of
the refugees in the region, it was said that Serbian
causing World War I with the famous Sarajevo
police were mostly organized and welcoming to
assassination, Sloban Milosevic, the Serb dictator
the newcomers, some of them even brought
and leader of former Yugoslavia, also caused
children toys at the entrance. During the peak
The Republic of Serbia
Location: between Central and Southeast Europe Area: 88,361 km2 (including Kosovo) Population: 7,041,599 Capital: Belgrade Official language: Serbian
3
period of refugees arriving at Serbia, one park in Belgrade was opened for refugees to settle down, and numerous tents were set up by local NGOs as well as citizens there. Some residents provided food and clothing for refugees, some of them even let refugee family live in their houses, and some use their own water pipe to share clean water with refugees for shower and laundry. Information centers which provided services in Arab, Urdu and Farsi were opened for refugees. Some NGOs, for example the Danish Refugee Council, has created a child-friendly area which allows refugee children to play and learn during the time of survival. With around 100 refugees coming into Belgrade every day, people initiate donation gatherings, small concerts, German classes and consultation for these outsiders. The Serbians’ welcoming responses were further highlighted when Novak Djokovic, the world’s top men's tennis player and the national hero of Serbia, gave a speech about his country and refugees at the ATP World Tour Finals in London. In the press conference, he expressed the need to do more for the Syrians across Europe, adding that he is proud of his home country for people there have been generously offering migrants food and shelter. These actions shape Serbia as a highly recognized humanitarian figure in the European region during the crisis, especially when Serbia is compared with her neighbouring countries.
“The Serbian people are very good people. When I go outside, they welcome me, they kiss my baby” -KOSOVO 2.0 A Mutual Understanding Between Refugees When the outside world is still arguing whether the refugees will harm social security or welfare of the country, people are interested in why Serbians can readily welcome the influx of foreigners. It appears that the answer is their experience as past refugees. During the Yugoslavia war in 1990s, Serbs were one of the groups expelled and threatened by violence by surrounding countries. During that time, more than 100 000 Krajina Serbs fled Croatian forces, while more than 500 000 Bosnian and Kosovar refugees came into Serbia. Although the war has already ceased for 20 years, the memory of war and unwilling flee is still vivid in Serbs’ mind. People thus generally show empathy with the Syrian refugees. It is surprising that similar empathy was also found in the younger generation. When WUS received talk by the representative of DRC, Selena Torlaković, the 25-year-old humanitarian worker was asked why she joined the organization, and her answer was that her childhood memories of seeing refugees stay
in
the
Gymnasium
and
that
their
unforgettable plights gave her much motivation to engage in the field. While it is plausible that such memory could not be a direct cause, it still shows how a country sharing similar experience could be more ready to mobilize people to offer a helping hand to the refugees. 4
To
encourage
society
to
accept
refugees
whole-heartedly, it is crucial that the public do not stigmatize the refugees - not attaching to them labels such as illegal migrants or criminals. This hinges on how well the public understand the refugees. Such understanding explains why Serbians can calm and warm reactions to the refugees. The Serbian community also walked ahead in handling this issue because of their own similar experience. They know what a refugee needs - not merely bureaucratic arrangement and coordinations and materials for survival, but dignity and respect. As a Belgrade citizen says, "What gives them dignity is to eat with them, to spend some time with them, to talk to them. That's what they need, a sense of normality”. Observing the Red Houses which isolated refugees in the UK and the segregation camps in Germany, this line of Serbians could account for the way through which Serbia is leading ahead in offering humanitarian assistance to refugees.
A Good Place To Rest, But Not A Home Although the community has done a lot for the refugees, people should be aware of the position of Serbia, and how she shares different kinds of burden with Germany and other countries. It should be highlighted that despite the large flood of people passing the country, the number of refugees settling in the country is very small
of relevant laws. Between 2008 and 2012, the Serbian government did not grant asylum for any applicant, while in 2013 there were only very few successful applications. It is strange that while Serbia has become a preferred migration route connecting Turkey and Europe, the percentage of refugees entering the country seeking asylum there has decreased in the year. According to Jovana Zoric from the Belgrade Center for Human Rights, “Most migrants perceive Germany as a better option because Serbia is not sending a message to asylum seekers that they will be given refugee status or receive any efficient and fair procedure”. Besides, with poor economic conditions and high unemployment rate in Serbia, refugees generally hold the impression that the Serbian government is incapable of providing satisfactory welfare and they find it hard for subsistence. The Serbian government has failed to outline a long-term plan to host the refugees. Refugees are not convinced to stay in the country, and what the government has been doing is more like short-term voluntary work than sharing the responsibility in resettling refugees in the region.
“There is a sentiment of solidarity with the refugees, some people recognize their own past in what is happening,” -Dušan Janjić, a Serbian sociologist
indeed. According to DRC, Syrian refugees mostly stay within 24 hours and they would cross the Serbia considered as the final destination?
Good Intention or Selfishness After All
Before the Refugee Crisis, report by the United
Such approach of Serbian government is very
border. Here comes a further question: why is not
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 2012 criticized the Serbian government for being “unable to recognize those in need of international protection”
with
poorly
drafting
and
tricky for the European Union to respond and evaluate, especially when they were planning to release the uniform refugee arrangement in Europe. 5
Serbia in 2016
To reason why Serbia has taken such a position in the Refugee Crisis, some explain that Serbian government has intended to use their welcoming of refugees as the justification for its EU accession. As a candidate to join the EU, protection of human rights is one of the highlighted requirements, while Serbia continuously failed to fulfill because of the ethnic conflict in recognizing Kosovo’s independence and treatment to minorities in the nation. The well-recognized performance during this Refugee Crisis is said to be the best chance for Serbia to convince the EU, while a EU representative in Serbia described the country as becoming a “normal, fully-fledged” European country after many difficult years of transition. However, when we go back to the number of granted asylum cases, we could see that Serbia is still not fully contributing to help refugees to settle their new lives, while it is the responsibility stated by the United Nations Refugee Agency (this was a condition for being granted visa-free travel to the EU). Besides the needs to respond to the EU’s requirement, some also argue that the reason why Serbia is receiving refugees without limitation is based on the national consensus that refugees won’t stay in Serbia, while Serbia does not have the pressure to uphold EU frontier and accept EU-imposed quotas on refugees, since Serbia is STILL not a EU member. Therefore, Serbia could have less concern and long-term worries in terms of social security, international linkage and economic burdens than it does to the Schengen countries. 6
Although there are several sayings accusing Serbia of not really paying efforts in resolving the Refugee Crisis, the instant efforts done by both the government and the public should not be eliminated when this small and still developing country has accepted 1 million population in the year. When Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia are working as the frontline in dealing with the influx, the European Commission pointed out in November 2015 that other countries have not responded to the calls from the three countries, leaving them with insufficient financial aid, materials and transition arrangement for the refugees. Instead of giving a helping hand, the EU member states fails to act out their main commitments agreed in September but they are closing down borders and setting intake quotas that only create fear among refugees to rush into Europe. Such acts also entrapped refugees that are already in the Balkan States, leaving them with the unassisted governments. To respond to the crisis out of control, updated on 2 February 2016, the EU is now planning to operate a funding of EUR 650 million, which was originally for Middle East regions to assist Syrian refugees, now in Western Balkan including Serbia to ‘keep refugees where they are’. The new arrangement intended to slow down the flow of refugees through Serbia and Macedonia, also
“Individual countries making arbitrary decisions about how many or who they welcome does not constitute a European policy.” -Kirk Day,
the International Rescue Committee’s Europe representative
transforming the Balkan States from merely a channel into another host countries. However, it is questioned that the Serb community may not be ready to receive refugees as a long term integration with their original practice mentioned above, while discontent could be raised for Serbia has to bear the burden when far richer members of EU continue to build their fences and walls. When news about refugees started to diminish from Hong Kong media, it does not mean that the crisis has resolved or fleeing people has decreased. From the latter 2015, “second wave” of refugees was said to be coming into the Europe. The new round of people came from the men who have safely reached Europe, now sending their families to reunite in the new land. Therefore among the “second wave”, many migrants are women, children and elderly, who makes the group more
vulnerable and needful for assistance, as a refugee mother said, “I wanted to come fast. I need help with the children, I need my husband”. It is predicted that in 2016, the number of refugees crossing the borders would reach 2 millions, which is again the double of 2015. When Serbia geographically remains at her location, it is inevitable that Serbia would take up the role to transit the 2-million population, and it is obviously urgent for the European countries to really design a comprehensive strategy for both settlement of refugees, and helping countries of different economic and development degrees to handle with the rapid increase of population. After all, we should be aware of the fact that refugees are not migrants who choose to leave their homeland, but they could only survive rather in sea pale and starvation into comparison with the death and destruction they are fleeing.
7
Do refugees deserve better treatment than Vanessa Cheng migrants? Year 4, LLB The shocking and distressing scene of a Syrian boy whose body was found washed ashore on a beach has drawn the world’s attention to the tragic plight of hundreds of thousands of refugees. Since then, many countries have started to provide more assistance and agreed to increase the quotas for hosting these fleeing refugees. However, it is a shame for hosting countries to react only after this incident and under profound public pressure. They were well aware of the terrible predicament faced by refugees before but they simply turned a blind eye to this as hosting refugees could be a huge burden to both the government and the economy. Today, it is reassuring to see that more and more countries in the world are willing to lend a helping hand to refugees and accept them. What is more people around the world have now been more aware of the difficult situations encountered by refugees.
protecting the rights of refugees. One of the most elementalprotection is to rightly accord them the status of “refugees” instead of mere “migrants”. This is because, as will be seen, there is substantial difference between refugees and migrants in terms of the rights they enjoy and their respective treatment.
Some people tend to conclude that refugees should deserve “better treatment” than migrants. However, this article submits that it is of little help to generalise the issue this way and discuss which class deserves “better treatment” over another when the two groups are facing wholly different problems. What is important is to recognise their difference in needs and to provide the most appropriate assistance accordingly. This article advocates that the difference in treatment between the two groups of people. It is however difficult to judge if the differences are better or not when their needs are different. Nevertheless, it is of vital importance to classify one as either a refugee International human rights organizations such as or a migrant. As some commentators noted, if this is the United Nations High Commissioner for not properly done, it could mean the difference between life and death. In the following paragraphs, Refugees (UNHCR) have been working hard on 8
the respective definitions of migrants and refugees will first be discussed. Migrants are people who move from one place to another with a view to seek better lives in a different country. There could be a mixture of reasons behind this move which include finding jobs, family reunions or seeking better educational opportunities. More importantly, migrants have the choice to return home if their prospects are not as promising as they first imagined. In that case, they still enjoy the protection and support from their home country. However in contrast, refugees obviously do not have such a choice. They are forced to flee from home probably due to wars or other kinds of persecution in their home country. As can be seen in the news, refugees are facing life-threatening challenges and experiencing enormous dangers when they try to reach another country by sea. When a boat capsizes, all of them could die. Despite all the uncertainties, refugees are still determined to leave just for survival. One can therefore imagine how miserable their lives are in their home country that they are willing to risk their lives for anything better. In fact, refugees are protected under international law and they are defined in Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which is supplemented by the 1967 Protocol) as any person who “owing to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or…is unwilling to return to it”.protection and support from their home country. Furthermore, the Convention also outlines the fundamental rights of refugees which should be protected by signatory states. These rights range from right to One of the key protection which is specific to refugees is the “non-refoulement” principle which is detailed in Article 33 of the Convention.education to the right to own property, and access to public relief and
assistance.One of the key protection which is specific to refugees is the “non-refoulement” principle which is detailed in Article 33 of the Convention. This principle prohibits the expulsion or return of refugees “to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened”. Another provision which is worthy of attention is Article 31 which precludes the imposition of penalties on refugees, who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, on account of their illegal entry or presence, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry. The “non-refoulement” policy, together with the protection accorded in Article 31, are particularly important to refugees. As mentioned, they take refuge because of the fear of persecution from their home country. “Non-refoulement” guarantees that they would not be sent back to their home country where they would have to face persecution and where their lives would be put under threat. As a matter of logic, this is what refugees want most. As long as they can leave their home country, migrants who enter a country under normal immigration procedures, what they care most is early settlement and acquisition of citizenship. They are subject to the national laws in the particular country to which they have migrated rather than international law. Non-refoulment policy may therefore not be applicable to them. Even if they are deported eventually, their lives are not under threat in their home countries, unlike refugees. Therefore, owing to the different circumstances faced by refugees and migrants, they ought to have been given different rights and obligations. Refoulment policy aside, when other rights such as freedom of religion or right to legal assistance are at stake, it is submitted that both refugees and migrants should be given the same level of protection. If refugees are given more protection in this regard, it will be unfair to some migrants who enter the country with strict adherence to the relevant immigration laws. However if these rights of refugees are not duly recognised, it would be in violation to their most basic and fundamental human rights. The current Convention has been satisfactory in striking an optimumbalance between the rights of refugees and 9
Refoulment policy aside, when other rights such as freedom of religion or right to legal assistance are at stake, it is submitted that both refugees and migrants should be given the same level of protection. If refugees are given more protection in this regard, it will be unfair to some migrants who enter the country with strict adherence to the relevant immigration laws. However if these rights of refugees are not duly recognised, it would be in violation to their most basic and fundamental human rights. The current Convention has been satisfactory in striking an optimumbalance between the rights of refugees and other nationals in the host country. For example, freedom of religion enjoyed by refugees is “as favourable as that accorded to their nationals (of host countries)” (Art. 4) and refugees are given “the same treatment as is accorded to nationals with respect to elementary education” (Art. 22). In conclusion, it is important to give due regard to the different situations faced by refugees and migrants respectively so as to accord them the most appropriate treatment. Countries should also duly comply with the 1951 Convention when it comes to refugee policy so as to safeguard refugees’ most fundamental rights.
10
Should countries integrate refugees, or prepare refugees to return to their home Chu Man Chung countries? Year 1, BSocSc (Govt & Laws) & LLB The pursuit of world peace has never been successful. Having experienced two World Wars in the last century, mankind’s continued greed and refusal to reconciliation have since produced more conflicts in the twenty-first century. The ongoing warfare in Syria which saw the rise of Islamic State, for example, has put millions of people’s lives at risk. To obtain humanitarian sanctuaries, many of those scourged by war gradually became refugees and sought for protection by migrating to well-developed countries, notably nations within the European Union which have well-developed welfare systems. Whilst many citizens understand the dire circumstances refugees must face when attempting to migrate to their countries, others are less compassionate, and even occasionally antagonistic towards these refugees. The Hungarian government, for example, has recently used tear as and water cannons againts refugees to deter against refugees to deter them from migrating, a
move which has been denounced by the international community. Hence, dichotomy of opinions pertaining to the from migrating, a move which has been denounced by the international community. Hence, dichotomy of opinions pertaining to the treatment of refugees have sparked off debates on whether countries should integrate refugees, or should refugees be sent back to their places of origin. In my opinion, countries should integrate refugees. Nevertheless, reservations over refugee integration are understandable. I will address these concerns one by one. Firstly, most of the anti-integration sentiments can be attributed to xenophobic attitudes. Undeniably, stigma is attached to the term “refugee”. People fear refugees would compete for social resources, welfare and job opportunities. More expenditure on social welfare would have to be spent in response to the surge in refugees’ numbers, adding on to the
11
of refugees they were obliged to intake did not commensurate with their economic capacities. These countries have already been suffering from severe economic recession when the European refugee crisis erupted, so intuitively it seemed impractical to expect them to adopt welcoming attitudes towards incoming refugees. However, their worries turned out to be baseless. Professor Alexander Betts of the University of Oxford concluded in Refugee Economies: Rethinking Popular Assumptions that refugees do more good than harm to the economy, by providing additional purchasing power and bolstering levels of employment. Secondly, some people argued by allowing refugees to settle, governments would set a bad precedent and encourage even more refugees to choose their countries as immigration targets. Worse yet, this may also attract non-refugees to those countries to seek for a better life. The Czech government, for example, has asserted the majority of the so-called “refugees” are actually economic migrants who have exploited the refugee intake system. However, the distinction between “economic migrants” and “refugees” is not clear-cut. Even true refugees have a cluster of reasons to migrate to other nations, including economic considerations. Sending refugees home by categorizing them as “economic migrants” essentially means denying their pleas for sanctuaries, which they are entitled to under international law. Finally, refugees, especially those originating from the Arab World, are often associated with crimes and terrorism. These sentiments have risen in light of recent terrorists attacks in Paris, where the perpetrators were allegedly Islamic extremists disguised as refugees. However, contrary to popular belief, direct correlation between crimes and immigration is yet to be scientifically demonstrated. For instance, professor Jörg Spenkuch of the Northwestern University agreed there is no apparent linnk between immigration and iolene. In fact, this fear of “refugee terrorism” is largely deried from “islamopobia” initiated by western propaganda onstantly portaying Muslims 12
as tantamount to terrorists. The truth is, Islam is a peaceful religion. Those so-called “Islamic terrorists” are nothing more than enemies of peace exploiting religion to wreak havoc on the human race. Global response towards crimes and terrorism is imperative, but rejecting refugee integration solely due to baseless claims of connection between terrorism and immigration is illogical and despicable. Next, I will cite reasons to substantiate my support for refugee integration. From a humanitarian perspective, the rights and liberties of refugees are recognized internationally. Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights spells out everyone has a right “to seek and enjoy asylum from protection”. Countries must realize refugees have already conducted “cost and benefit analyses” before deciding to seek refuge. They must have explored other alternatives which could put them away from imminent danger before resorting to seeking refuge. If countries are to deport these refugees back, not only are they denying the rights possessed by these refugees under international law, they are also effectively depriving them of their security and health. We all live in the same global village. As global citizens not facing threats to livelihood, we have a duty to exert care to those less fortunate than us. Consequently, countries should act humanitarianly. Rather than treating refugees as intruders, they should enact all measures necessary for refugee integration. From an economic perspective, as mentioned before, the influx of refugees generally do more good than harm to a country in the long run. For example, Germany has a low-birth rate and a shrinking population. Consequently the country is heavily reliant on refugees to plug a growing workforce hole. It is also important to realise most of the refugees are properly educated and are skilled. Therefore, German officials are confident, in the long run, refugees can contribute more to the economy than the welfare they received. Statistics indicate Germany generated a surplus of 22 billion euros in 2012 by integrating refugees and other immigrants to their communities. No wonder why Germany is delighted to integrate up to 800,000 refugees by te end of 2015.
No wonder why Germany is delighted to integrate up to 800,000 refugees by te end of 2015. If countries see refugees as a source of income and opportunities, rather than a burden to society, economically speaking, they would likely opt for integrating refugees into their communities. Integration is a prolonged, tedious and economically demanding process. Nevertheless, it is a better alternative compared to irresponsibly preparing refugees for returning home. It is a decision of great gravity for countries to make, yet it means a lot to the lives of refugees, to the promotion of universal values we share, and to the unity of mankind.
13
Ten-word story
14
“Daddy, why grandma is not getting on the boat too?”
“He didn’t learn swimming, before he got on the boat.”
“I born here, but I can’t find my way home. ”
“Sleeping on Germany’s street, the best we could dream of. ”
“Policy changed. Border closed. Another kilometer. ”
“The only thing I brought on the boat, identity card. ”
“Capsized boat found, originated from Syria to Turkey, no survivors.”
I once had a home. I once called Syria home.
“They say Europeans are welcoming, but I say only Germans.”
“ "Poor Syrians", they said to the TV, and changed channel.”