Home > Politics essays > Approaches to humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees

Essay: Approaches to humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Politics essays
  • Reading time: 44 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 23 November 2019*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 12,869 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 52 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 12,869 words. Download the full version above.

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
‘Indeed, migration is as old as humanity itself.’
1.1. Background And Aim Of The Study
From the beginning of the Syrian civil war, 7.6 million people were internally displaced and 12.2 million people (5 million of which are children) are in need for humanitarian assistance (European Commission, 2015, p.1). Over 3.8 million refugees have fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and North Africa. They did all in their power to help Syrian refugees. According to International Crisis Group, Turkey has been flexible and taken important steps to help Syrians regain a sense of self-reliance and integrate in their new environment (International Crisis, 2013, p.6). However, some complaints have been made about the Turkish government. According to International Crisis Group, the main factor complicating outside contributions has been Turkey’s hesitancy to register international organizations and NGOs and the degree to which it is ready to allow them to work directly on humanitarian issues (International Crisis, 2013, p.15). At first, Turkish government named the Syrian refugees as a ‘guest’ because Turkey does not give a refugee status except for Europeans.  According to ”enay ”zden’s interview; The Syrian refugees have disturbed from the guest status.The guest status means that Syrians do not have rights in Turkey and that the State has the right to make the decision to deport them at any time (”zden, 2013, p.5). However, this problem solved with temporary protection regime. Kemal Kiri”ci has appreciated the Turkish government for the open door policy, but he thinks that the legal basis of this policy is weak (Kiri”ci, 2014, p.51) In 2013 and 2014, some European countries like Germany respond to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)’s call for more resettlement of Humanitarian admission for Syrian refugees. According to Refugee Studies Centre, although numerous European countries have initiated resettlement, humanitarian admission, or expanded family reunification programs for Syrians, the numbers allowed are low ( Orchard and Miller, 2014, p.7).
Throughout history people always moved from one country to another for various reasons: to escape from wars, violence, persecution, or just in search of a better life, and recently with education and job opportunity purposes.Refugees have been an issue of major interest to international relations goes back very deep in the human history. Even though the problems sourced by the refugees are usually solved within the countries policy making processes, it is obvious that the issue need to be addressed in international level. The Arab Spring has shown the proof of this argument with the massive refugee flows starting from the Middle Eastern and North African Countries to European Union Countries. However, usually most countries include these problems relating to refugees in domestic affairs which usually is not the best course for enabling cooperative implementations that would work in a harmony. Therefore as the main subject of these political arrangements, refugees are influenced by the every element of these policies.Refugees are not often welcomed in their hosting countries and usually these hosting countries due to their security concerns are not in favor of the full integration of these minorities. As a result, conditions of the refugees are not in a standard level and some of these refugees are in very desperate conditions. For example, some countries may be concerned with the negative perspective of the citizens about the refugees and may avoid any level of interaction between people in need of international protection and the citizens. In this kind of a situation, a government faces a wide range of problems including social, financial and locational problems which soon becomes a conflict in the state. Even though the events took part in the Arab Spring and its secondary results has led European Union to change policies towards to the people in need of international protection, there are still remaining problems which should be addressed before they become major issues with bitter results. This study will analyze the Syrian refugee wave to Turkey after 2011 and the approaches of the EU and Turkey about humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees. It will also compare the EU and Turkey policies about the wave of Syrian immigration. This study aims to find out an answer to an extent and degree of European and Turkish policy convergence. Prerequisite for understanding what the scope of this study and what is strived to illustrate to reader is to acknowledge what will be implied and deduced in advance. Within this framework, the first terms to be defined are migration, immigrant, refugee and; the EU and Turkey’s refugee status.
1.2. Methodology
The methodological focus of the study is qualitative, two data collection and analyzing methods are used. First the secondary analysis of the existing studies, documents and statistics and second the case study of Turkey. Since there is not an effective monitoring system of readmission agreements, and due to the parties’ unwillingness to share statistics on the returns applied by readmission agreements, in this study mostly the NGOs’ reports are analysed in order to be able to answer the question whether human rights may be violated by the readmission agreements. And secondly Turkey is chosen as a case study in order to be able to analyse to what extent the contracting parties are concerned about the refugee rights while concluding readmission agreemenrts and to what extent the values are embedded in the readmission agreements. The reason behind this preference is principally the geopolitical importance of Turkey. As a transit country at the junction of the Europe, Middle East and Africa, Turkey is one of the main transit routes for the irregular immigrants migrating from the countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan which are not respectful to human rights. Accordingly the potential implications of a readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey on protection seekers are highly important and to what degree Turkey is a safe country for them worth to examine. In order to refrain from being too extensive, in this study securitization theory which is highly discussed in the migration frame has not been questioned and the emphasis has been given to the externalization of migration as a consequence of the securitization of migration.
1.3. Content of the Thesis
This study is organized in four chapters including an introduction and a conclusion chapter.In the first chapter, conceptual framework has been used by defining key terms necessary to understand the study will be examined by divided into six sub-titles. In the second chapter, Turkish perspective about Syrian immigration wave will be examined by divided into five sub-titles.The Turkish government’s approach, Turkish Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs)’ perspective and Public Opinion’s attitude to Syrian refugees will be examined. In the third chapter, EU perspective about Syrian immigration wave will be examined by divided into six sub-titles. The EU’s perspective, European NGOs’ perspective and European Public Opinion’s attitude to Syrian refugees will be examined. In the EU and Turkey’s approach will be analyzed about Syrian immigration wave by comparing all actors, thus the reasons and results of policies which were implemented have been compared.The problem of Syrian immigration wave have been looked up in different resources and discussed. Primary sources, public opinion polls, newspaper articles, EU Commission reports and AFAD reports will be used. This study will be carried out on the basis developments after 2011.
1.4. Definition of the term Refugee and the Differences between Asylum Seeker, Immigrant and Refugees
Who is a refugee and who is not a refugee? Asking and answering this question is very important to this research. This has to do with the fact that most of the literature on refugees seldom deal with the definition refugee. There are different names used to refer to refugees in the literature: asylum seekers, stateless people, environmental refugees, Internally Displaced People (IDP), and so on. Ironically they are all victims, but defining who refugee really is will allow us to understand more about the most vulnerable people on earth.
16 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Refugee Protection: A guide to InternationalRefugeeLaw,01/12/2001,Refworld,http://www.refworld.org/docid/3cd6a8444.html (10/06/2016).  17Human Right Watch (HRW), ‘Responsibility for Camp Conditions:HostGovernment’,2002,http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/kenyugan/kenyugan1002%20ap%20alter-19.htm (12/05/2016)
There are several terms defining the similar cases in daily life such as Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Immigrant and yet each definition is perceived and applied Differently in International Treaties and Laws, therefore it is necessary to separate the notion of Refugee. Even though all these minorities might look the same to the people on outside, refugees think completely different about their status.
1.5. Definition of the term Immigrant
Immigrant is a person who is a citizen of a country and had a specific intention (Study, work, or other reasons) to live in another country. However there is also the ‘illegal immigrant’ term to be aware of. Illegal Immigrant is someone who enters a country with an intention but without following the proper legal process. There are many different ways to gain the immigrant status, for instance having a family member who already is a citizen in the country to immigrate to or as the result of the lack of qualified naturals for certain employment in certain employment positions. Importantly, every country has different migration policies and there can be differences in the processes. It is also possible to gain an immigrant status by seeking refuge (from outside the country), or asylum (from inside the country) if you can prove that you are in a specific danger when you return to the country of your citizenshipMoreover, according to Jeremy Hein (1993), the difference between the Immigrants and Refugees was for a time supposed to lay in their formative indicator that immigrants compose an economic form of migration while refugees has the political form partially due to the coverages on the media news relating to the refugees. However, now in the current literature, it is seen as a label for these individuals as a result of the political strategies of the hosting nations (Hein 1993: 44). With this simple nuance pointed out, it is much simpler to understand the main differences in the mentioned similar terms.
(http://immigrationassist.co.uk   20.06.2016).
1.6. The  History  of  International  Protection  of  Refugees
Every week on the global media there are a couple of news stories about groups of illegal migrants who are caught or found to be dead while trying to reach their destination. The difficulties they have to suffer during this trip hint their hopelessness at home countries. On top of it, illegal migrants at times have to resort to human smugglers to take them to their destination due to the complexities involved. At this point there enters an international security concern in addition to the human tragedies. Characteristically, migration occurs from underdeveloped to developed areas. Turkey historically lies on one of the main routes of illegal migration (Pugh, 2000). However, it is with the momentum her candidacy to the European Union (EU) gained after the European Union Council summit meeting in Helsinki in 1999, Turkey started to take concrete steps to fight against the illegal movements of migrants on her territory. However, it has been and continues to be a thorny process, aligning Turkey’s relevant policy and practices to the EU acquis communautaire at that field.
In the context of Turkey’s candidacy to the EU and broadening of the global security agenda after the End of the Cold War, there remains a number of conflict creating areas between Turkey and the Union namely, signing a readmission agreement between the parties, Turkey’s geographical limitation to the UN Convention on the status of Refugees dated 1951 and burden sharing. It is not possible to understand the current refugee protection system without first taking into consideration the historical background of the creation of the legal framework of this protection, The international community in the 20th century, beginning right after the First World War felt the responsibility to create the necessary conditions to provide protection and create solutions to the undefended displaced people, to the refugees.Those people “constitute a population whose origins are vitally connected to many of the most pressing issues confronting our world: the  protection of human rights; the resolution of conflicts; the promotion of economic and institutional development; the conservations of the environment; and the management of the international migration” (Donkoh 2000, p. 263), The refugees throughout the years influence the world order and given this fact it became apparent that it was an international obligation to  ensure the protection goals to millions of displaced people after both World Wars.  The conditions that shaped the international era in the interwar period but also those ones in the afterwards of the Second World War have played an important role in the shaping of the international protection and to its development which continues to prevail even  today.
 
CHAPTER II
2.1. Turkish Perspective about Syrian Immigration Wave
In the April of 2011, the conditions in Syria became worse and firstly two hundred and fifty two Syrian citizens have entered the gate of Hatay Cilveg”z” border. Within twenty four hours, Turkish government has set up a tent camp urgently in the province of Hatay (Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency [AFAD], 2014, p.4). According to recent survey conducted by Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency in 7 November 2014, the number of Syrian refugees who migrated to our country from 2011 to date is nearly 1 million 645 thousand.  From 2011 to now, the expenditure was made by Turkey has surpassed $ 3 billion According to the United Nations standards. From the first day, ‘open door policy’ has applied and as a humanitarian responsibility none of the Syrians was sent back (AFAD, 2014, p.5). According to the latest data, 221.447 refugees have guest in 22 shelters which were established in 10 cities. However, these numbers that can only be taken under record. Although the numbers of Syrian refugees who are living the outside of the camp is exactly unknown, total number of Syrian refugees in Turkey is approximately 1 million 645 thousand people. Turkey carries on their activities about Syrian refugees with the helping of Turkish Red Crescent and AFAD which connected to prime minister. 22 camps which were established in 10 provinces consisted of 16 tent cities and 5 container towns (AFAD, 2014, p.18).
Figure 1: The Syrian Refugee Statistics from AFAD
Until the April of 2012, Turkey has never received any aids from none of international or national non-governmental organizations or countries about Syrian refugees. However, with the conditions of Syria became worse, the number of refugees which fleeing from cruelty and came to Turkey started to increase, thus this situation has affected Turkish economy badly. Because of this reason, Turkish officials have been forced to announce that they are open to all kinds of support to international organizations.
2.2. Turkish Government’s Perspective
The tensions between Turkey and Syria date back very old time. Nonetheless, their relations entered the normalization process with the government of Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Ahmet Davuto”lu’s ‘zero problems with neighbors’ policy. Between 2006 and 2010, the trade between two countries has increased and even visa application mutually has lifted. Thanks to Turkey, Syria gained a better image on the eyes of European Union and thanks to Syria; Turkey escalated their prestige and effectiveness in Arab World (Phillips, 2012, p.137). In March 2011, when the events in Syria started, Turkey warned the Assad regime to make democratic reforms. At the beginnings of the situation, Turkey defended the Syria in the international arena (Cebeci and ”st”n, 2012, p16). Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister have made many times bilateral contacts to change of Assad’s attitude against demonstrations.After this point, Turkey gave up to warning Assad’s regime and Syria and she has begun to take place directly across the Assad. In addition to this stance, Turkey gave a permission to establishment of the Syrian National Council in own soil (Phillips, 2012, p.138). Unlike all other international actors, the Turks approach should be perceived as more emotional to this issue. Because Turkey has seen the Syrian people as her ‘eternal brother’ regardless of the identity of religion and ethnicity in her own region. Because of this reason, Turkey interprets management changes which experienced in Arab World as necessary and important (”zt”rk, 2012, p.47). As a result of the stance of Turkey towards the Assad regime, Turkey gave up from see the Assad regime as legitimate authority. With this reason, Turkey has started to establish their policy above an absence of Assad in Syria after the middle of 2011 (”zt”rk, 2012, p.48).
Considering the border between Syria and Turkey, where stay silent across the Violent in Syria before everything is a crime of humanity. In some places, when the border passes from one place that bisects the village so in fact many Turkish and Syrian people who live in the border city are relatives. Because of this, it is impossible to silence of Turkey against Syrian civil war. When we left the human dimension of the event on one side, on the other hand it is a very big threat to Turkey to have been experienced such a civil war in her border. Turkey has created their policy formed as to Assad will go. However, when the Assad regime continues to remain in the management of Syria, Turkey is losing prestige. Meanwhile, this policy of Turkey actually led to isolation in their region. Because the sayings of Turkey to against Assad regime, it is considered to have been said Ahmadinejad, Medvedev, Maliki and Hassan Nasrallah (Bozkurt, 2012, p.36). The zero problems with neighbors policy of Turkey has led to become the point of zero solution as a result of the stance against the Syria.The Syrian administration called and announced the demonstrations as a terrorist Act. However, Turkey claims that the Syrian government made an armed intervention against its own people. Institutions such as NATO and UN have shown their moral support but they did not make tangible sanctions. As a result, Turkey wants to fill the power gap of the Middle East. It has been drawn an image That Turkey is a powerful and leader country with the oppressed people in the Middle East (”a”lar, 2012, p.49). The March of 2012, Turkey emphasized that the options of safe zone should be assessed. Nonetheless, Turkey’s words were in the air due to the absence of needed support (Cebeci and ”st”n, 2012, p.17). Lots of thinker emphasized safe zone as an option but none of them did not meant military intervention (Cebeci and ”st”n, 2012, p.18). Since the beginning of the summer of 2012, ropes between Turkey and Syria were stretched thoroughly. In June of 2012, Turkish plane of F-4 was reduced immediately after some people was injured and died due to the falling of the mortar shells. As a result of these incidents, the impression above Syria has increased and even the mandate for military action was given for use beyond the borders. However, Syria has never taken a step back with the support of Russia and Iran (”a”lar, 2012, p.50). When we looked at general trend in the region, the process has such happened. However, this civil war still continues with the support which Syria has taken and nobody’s support to Turkey.Turkish government has taken Assad a little more undervalues.
Nevertheless, opposition groups have been overestimated in our eyes but they do not have a smooth cooperation in their selves. Turkey needs to the lowering of the Assad regime from management with an intervention which has international legitimacy and fulfillment of a government which elected with fair elections (”zt”rk, 2012, p.20). The number of people who escaped from Syria and took refuge in Turkey continues to increase exponentially in every day. These people who were named as ‘refugee’ by press and local people actually are not legal refugees according to Turkish law. Turkey is a signatory of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) and she had made geographical limitation. Turkey’s domestic legislation is the 1994 Asylum Regulation. According to the 1994 Asylum Regulation, the status of refugee has only given the people who escaped due to events occurring in Europe and took refuge in Turkey (Kiri”ci, 2014, p.14). Refugees who came from non-European zones are only allowed to stay in Turkey on temporary basis until the completion of the process of inserting in a third country. According to Turkish law, the people who came from non-European zones named as an asylum seekers (Kartal and Ba”c”, 2014, p.283). Because of this reason, the people who came from Syria named as a ‘guest’ by Turkish government. With the first refugees crossing in April of 2011, Turkish government started to application ‘the policy of open door’ and they have never rejected anybody who came to border. These policies which applied in the first time are vital importance. However, the number of refugees passed two hundred and twenty thousand and these guests have stayed in here for three years. In addition to this, nobody knows that when the civil war will finish and it is still unknown when the people will return to their homes therefore the implementation of guest is a disadvantage to Syrian refugees.The Syrians who are not accepted as a refugee do not apply to UNHCR for taking refuge in a third country. Above all, they do not have any rights which the refugees have.To eliminate this uncertainty, The Prime Minister’s Office published circular letter which is recognized the temporary protection status to Syrians in the April of 2012.
‘ It will continue to an ‘open door policy’
‘ It will not apply to forcibly refoulement    .
‘ The Syrian refugees will be recorded and their needs will be fulfillment by Turkish government (”zden, 2013, p.5).
2.3. Turkish Non-Governmental Organizations’ Perspective
Turkish people have been deeply concerned about the humanitarian plight which has begun and still continued in Syria from April of 2011. In particular to Turkey, all neighbor countries of Syria have made every effort to do for this issue. In April of 2011, Turkish authorities began to make essential provisions with first refugee group which entered from Hatay. It was set up 22 camps which were established in 10 provinces consisted of 16 tent cities and 5 container towns with works which were handled by AFAD. AFAD has conducted these works in collaboration with Turkish Red Crescent. Until the second half of year, all camp expenditures have been covered by only AFAD. But after this date, number of refugees showed increase more than expected. The conflicts in Syria were intensified and people continued to refuge into Turkey. Turkey repatriated no one for the sake of her open door policy. However it has been known that the border crossing is getting harder as of late. Because of that, camps were established in Syrian side of border. Many Syrians who do not want to leave the homeland are staying in these camps. These aids which are called as border assistance have maintained with the support of Turkish and international NGOs. Turkish government did not permit to entering of national and international NGOs to camps for a long time.The NGOs wanted to visit the camps for making a list of requirements and taking away to aids. But AFAD authorities did not find this request favorable. According to 2013 Turkey Development Aid Report, bilateral aid made in 2013 showed a 30% increase compared to the year 2012. Due to the contribution made to the Syrian guests, the region of Middle East has been the most benefit region from assistance with 1,776,54 million dollars. The 49% of Official Development Assistance which Turkey made in 2013 was made as humanitarian aid. In the same time, the sum of the contribution made by NGOs is 280, 23 million dollars. In NGOs’ assistance, there is an increase of 85% compared to the previous year. The aids made to Syrian refugees constituted 93, 95 million dollars of the said figures so the 33% of all NGO’s assistance are made to Syrian guests.
2.4. Turkish Public Opinion
In the year of 2010, the unrests which began in the Arab World have happened by The side of our country. The revolts which have started in Syria that is our longest borders in the April of 2011 have been affected us deeply. Many of Syrian and Turkish people who live in the southern of Turkey have kinship relations. Because of this reason, Turkey has emotionally approached the events. Moreover, the desire of Syrian people is seen justified by Turkish public opinion. The public who lives under the dictatorship for a long time wants to democracy. Despite all the international pressure Assad regime has applied the persecution to his public instead of making the reform. The government has developed many policies to meet the needs of Syrian refugees. Firstly, they were named as the guest because this process is temporary and all of them will turn back when the problem is resolved in their country. However, it is understood that this civil war will not end soon since the second middle of 2012. Moreover, the number of people who came from Syria is increasing day by day. Because of this reason, temporary protection status has been given to Syrians with the circular letter which was enacted from the ministry. However, this status is not enough to the current state. More than 1 million of non-camp refugees needed food and money so they have to work. Because of them, many Syrians have left the camps. Many people who live in Kilis and Gaziantep have described Syrians as a kinship. Nonetheless, there is an increasing uneasiness in anywhere of Turkey in general, especially the number of non-camp refugees have much increased so local people are started to feel themselves as a foreigner in the provinces of border. Moreover, the local people were extremely disturbed from Syrians who carried their own culture to here. Some Turks say that they understand the escaping of women and children but they do not understand why men escaped from their countries’ war instead of defending their country. Women and children certainly are most affected from the war and they always open to abuse in every environment. Because of this reason, it is important that their protection by the government in everywhere. With the lack of space in the camps, the refugees who started to immigrate from the provinces of border to major cities have become visible in the press and public. At first, these people who Turkish public approached with understanding and tolerance were seen as a problem (G”l”, 2014, p.2).
Syrians draws response by the host due to have not paid their rent because their money already finished. In addition to this, Syrians who work in each job have affected the labor market badly. Since there is no work permit, Syrians who work with low wages disturbed Turkish worker (”zden, 2013, p.7). Moreover, Fatma ”ahin indicates that the government knows the problem and works to solve. Many of Turkish employers have benefited from this situation and they have exploited Syrian workers. Many of them work in fields as seasonal worker and when the winter comes; the only request of Syrians is getting rid of the camp environment and rent a flat (”zden, 2013, p.8).Many Syrians who want to stay the province of border lead to increase in rent. Because of these reasons, the local people have badly affected. For instance, the rents of houses have increased from 200-300 TL to 700-1000 TL in Kilis. It is the most horrible thing that the rents of houses even have increased from 700-800 TL to 1400-1500 TL in the poorest place of ”stanbul (Din”er and others, 2013, p.17). The trade between Syria and Turkey has been affected badly from the events which experienced. This situation has affected the local people who engaged in trade in the province of border and their incomes decreased (Din”er and others, 2013, p.27-28). While attempting to eliminate the needs of non-camp refugees, the poor people who live in Turkey have complained about the situation. As we mentioned earlier, many of them has entered the country illegally due to the lack of a valid passport, therefore none of their transactions have not recorded. Both their marriage and newborns has not recorded. This issue is also among the issues which are trying to be resolve by the government. The Minister of Labor and Social Security indicates that they are working about identity which will describe the Syrian refugees. At the same time, these identities are important for security. Many vehicles belonging to the Syrians are circulating in traffic but these vehicles do not have insurance and they are not registered in traffic. When they involved in any accident, people have faced with many problems (Din”er and others, 2013, p.29). Although Turkish and Syrian people have a kinship relation, their culture is completely different from each other. For example, Hatay has urban and educated population, but many Syrian people do not know reading and writing. Because of this reason, the behavior in social life has differentiated so the local residents disturb from Syrians who talking and laughing loudly (”zden, 2013, p.10).
One of the biggest problems which experienced especially in hospitals in the border provinces is brimmed with Syrian refugees. With the circular letter which published by the prime minister’s office, Syrians are treating as a free in everywhere of Turkey. Especially, many injured people are treating in the border provinces. Since their situation is an emergency, Syrians treated firstly so local residents are complaining that they do not benefit from hospitals (”zden, 2013, p.11). In addition to these, people say that not only innocent people but also fighters have stayed in camps and the local residents have disturbed. The government supports for rebels of Syrian lead a concern, especially among people living in the border provinces but the government rejected these assertions. As emphasized by Frelick, ‘when Turkey first opened its doors to Syrian refugees, it expected that Assad would fall quickly and the refugees would return home.
2.5. Health Problems
The increasing interest in refugees since the 1980s was met with a growing number of articles in the literature on refugee health. Describing the health situations of refugees and asylum seekers in the countries of resettlement, many scholars have pointed to the problems encountered in the delivery of health services and developed recommendations for the improvement of health services for refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees in Turkey can have access to health services. Therefore, the main question of the research was whether the health to right, as a fundamental human right, is realized for asylum-seekers and refugees in Turkey Health care services are provided for thousands of Syrians in primary health care centers, in camp hospitals, and in ambulatory care service stations. Until now, for more than 1, 5 million patient consultations have been provided for Syrians in outpatient clinics. 6051 babies have been born in the camp hospitals.373 For the Syrians both residing in the camps and outside the camps, free medical treatment is provided. Specifically for Syrians who live outside the camps, a circular was issued by AFAD on 18 January 2013 stipulating that Syrian nationals who reside outside the camps can receive medical treatment from hospitals and health centers free of charge in the ten provinces of Turkey where the camps are located.374
371 AFAD Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Syrian refugees in Turkey, 21. 372 Ibid. 373 Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Directorate (AFAD). Accessed January 12, 2016. https://www.afad.gov.tr/TR/IcerikDetay1.aspx?IcerikID=747&ID=16.
Although the Turkish government has permitted registered Syrians legal access to free medical care at any state hospital and immunizations at family health centers, multiple interviewees stated that Syrians nonetheless are frequently turned away from such hospitals, either on the basis of discrimination or the misinformation of staff regarding Syrians’ legal right to access medical care for free. Syrians’ ability to access Turkish medical support for free is however also an additional source of tension within Turkish society, in which Syrians are perceived as taking ‘everything for free,’ including healthcare. Just as there is a shortage of housing, of schools and of teachers, there is also a shortage of doctors and nurses, making these resources a source of tension between the groups. In general, host countries guarantee the rights of refugees to health services as provided to citizens but the reasons for the problems of access are due to the lack of coordinated government policy that recognizes and incorporates the special needs of asylum seekers and refugees, such as trauma counseling and comprehensive medical screenings. Language problems are one of the most cited problems in the health service delivery for refugees and asylum seekers (Gong-Guy et. al. 1991, 643-644; Kennedy et. al. 1999, 471; Uba 1992, 544; Belvedere et. al. 2008, 251; Betancourt et. al. 2003, 296.
CHAPTER III
3.1. European Union Perspective About Syrian Immigration Wave
With the starting of Arab Spring, lots of countries have been affected from the Wave of uprising. Syria is one of them and this situation still continues since the mid of 2011. The Syria conflict has triggered the world’s largest humanitarian crisis since World War II. Approximately 7.6 million people internally were displaced and 12.2 million people in need of humanitarian assistance.
(http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/infographics/infographic_syriancrisis_en.pdf#view=fit)
The EU and its member states have made large amounts of donate to refugees. More than ‘ 3.6 billion have been mobilized for relief and recovery assistance to Syrians (http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/syria_en.pdf#view=fit) who stayed in their country and escaped to neighboring countries. According to UNHCR, over 3.8 million refugees have fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and North Africa (European Commission, 2015). The humanitarian situation has continued to deteriorate with violence and conflict from Government forces and Armed Opposition Groups (European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, 2015, p.2). People do even meet the most basic needs such as shelter, sanitation and food and they need all kinds of aid. Especially women and children have affected badly from the situation. Lots of children can not go to school for three years and international community have worried about the lost generation. Most of Syrians have to flee neighboring countries because of security concerns but the host countries cannot meet the requirements. The EU is a leading donor in the response to the Syria crisis with around ‘3.6 billion of total budget mobilized by the Commission and Member States collectively in humanitarian, development, economic and stabilization assistance (European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, 2015, p.3). However, it is not enough for hosting countries. They need a more active assistance such as re-settle and temporary protection. The burden of people above the hosting countries has reached a terrible level.
That is to say, EU member states should put their hands under the stone about the burden sharing. From the beginning of Syrian crises, lots of people made an asylum application to European countries.
Figure2: The Evolution of Asylum Applications from 38 European Countries which Provided Monthly Data from UNHCR.
However, EU countries are very reluctant about the accepting of Syrian refugees to Europe. UNHCR has wanted from countries to open their borders to Syrian refugees but except for some countries, most of them don’t want to Syrian refugees.
3.2. European Union’s Perspective
The process, which are named as an Arab Spring has affected especially Middle East and all countries in the region. Syrian crisis has started in the middle of 2011 and has claimed lots of people. When the Syrian crisis started, international community has begun to make something for innocent people. Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission, made a statement: ‘I condemn the use of brutal force against demonstrators across Syria, which is resulting in high numbers of victims. The Syrian authorities must immediately stop their violent response and fully respect citizens’ right to peaceful demonstrations.’ (EU, 23 April 2011) She called the Syrian government make the political reforms. With the Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP (EU, 9 June 2011), the Council imposes restrictive measures against Syria and persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria and those associated with them. On the escalation of violent, EU has reached political agreement on the addition of twenty Syrian individuals or entities to list of those targeted by an asset freeze and travel ban (EU, 19 August 2011). In addition to these developments, EU has started to make an embargo on the import of Syrian crude oil. European countries have believed that the only solution of this problem is a political. However, the conflicts have continued to deteriorate and EU has added 15 Syrian individuals and five entities to the list of those targeted by an asset freeze and travel ban pursuant to decision 2011/273/CFSP (Council of the European Union, 23 August 2011). When the UN Human Rights Council on Syria gathered, Catherine Ashton says she warmly welcome the outcome of the special session of the Human Rights Council on Syria. European Union has supported the UN’s attempts.In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria; the Council imposed a ban on the import of Syrian oil to the EU (Council of the European Union, 2 September 2011). The prohibitions concerns purchase, import and transport of oil and other petroleum products from Syria. The Council also banned the delivery of Syrian-denominated bank notes and coinage produced in the EU to the Syrian Central Bank (Council of the European Union (23 September 2011). At the beginning, EU only condemned Syrian regime because of the violation on Syrians. However, it did not a constructive solution and it did not help to end the violence. The EU has warned Syrian regime and authorities at every turn to stop the violation and using gun above innocent people.
The EU condemned the Syrian regime’s restrictions on freedom of expression and access to the internet, as well as the intimidation and arrest of bloggers and other human rights defenders (EU, 14 December 2011). Catherine Ashton emphasized that the Arab League has demonstrated important leadership in the Syrian crisis and she underlined their strong support to the Arab League’s efforts to ending the crisis with political solution (EU, 1 February 2012). As the Syrian regime continued use of violence against civilians, the Council increased measures against the Syrian regime. Trade in gold, precious metals and diamonds with Syrian public and the central bank will no more be permitted. Catherine Ashton stressed that as long as the repression continues, the EU will keep imposing sanctions (Council of the European Union, 27 February 2012). As the violence has increased, the numbers of Syrians escaping into neighboring countries increases and thus numbers fleeing to Europe are also on the rise. Asylum applications filed by Syrians in Europe as a whole have significantly increased. From January to May 2012 alone, 5.370 asylum applications have been filed throughout EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland (Fandrich, 2012). However, there are no rules to comply with all EU members about Syrian refugees. As activating temporary protection status for Syrian nationals within the EU seems highly unlikely, the EU could choose a common response to harmonies the receiving conditions and the protection of Syrian nationals in EU member states.
‘ EU institutions could commit themselves to the following:
‘ Ensure that no Syrian nationals are brought back to Syria or pushed back at the EU border,
‘ Ensure that Syrian nationals have the possibility to apply for asylum when they
‘ enter an EU territory,
‘ Facilitate the application procedures to reduce delays,
‘ Ensure that Syrian applicants all receive a protection status (Fandrich, 2012, p.2).
‘ Most European officials say that they want to stop the bloodshed, but without the use of force it does not seem possible. Some European countries talk about military intervention but Russia and China stand against them so they have to talk about political solution. In this context, the EU’s members have prioritized three objectives vis-”-vis Syria:
‘ To convince Assad government to enter into serious negotiations with theopposition aimed at achieving a ‘peaceful and democratic transition’.
‘ To persuade or pressure the government to desist from violence against civilians.
‘ To maintain the maximum possible regional and international support for these goals (Gowan, 2012).
The EU want to use UN Security Council to stop this situation but Russia and China refused to allow any European-backed resolution on Syria. The EU Council sanctions on Assad regime are very important but it is controversial that it works and does not work. The humanitarian situation has deteriorated dramatically as violence has intensified and fighting has continued to spread throughout the entire country. Most of the people in need of assistance and firstly EU members and Council, as well as other regional countries, have made humanitarian aid to Syrian people. The EU members have send money to aid agencies and hosting countries (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq). Because people needs food, shelter, sanitation and lots of things. Especially women and children need a special interest. Most of children lost their family and they need a protection. Over 30.000 people have lost their lives inside Syria (European Commission, 6 November 2012, p.1). More than 2.5 million people are in need of immediate assistance. When the EU sends money, it is used for emergency health care, food assistance, livelihood support, logistics, water and sanitation. All of this implemented by the Red Cross, by UN organizations like the World Food Program and the High Commissioner for Refugees, and by NGOs (European Commission, 6 November 2012, p.2). However, to reach places of the help needed is a problem. Because none of them does not comply with International Humanitarian Law, both government-controlled and rebel-controlled or disputed areas are not safe for humanitarian aid workers. However, it is an obligation on all parties to the conflict. While the bulk of the European Commission’s humanitarian aid is dedicated to Bringing relief inside Syria, a substantial part is helping Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan cope with the influx of refugees (European Commission, 27 September 2012, p.1). Lack of information has also prevented the international community from analyzing and monitoring the overall extent of the situation and thereby hampering a full and comprehensive humanitarian response. However, UN observers can help about this situation to international community.The Syrian Arab Red Crescent has been the main organization involved in the assessment of needs with the financial aid from EU and other international actors. To find a political solution, UN and Arab League gave a special mission to Kofi Annan. This process is fully supported by the EU and its member states. Kofi Annan prepared a peace and negotiation plan which known as Annan’s six point plan for Syria. This plan includes these points (Akg”n, 2012, p.8):Commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process  to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people,  Commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations  supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect  civilians and stabilize the country;
‘ To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop
‘ movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population
‘ centers, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around
‘ population centers
‘ Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition
‘ and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring
‘ about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties
‘ with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism
‘ Ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the
‘ fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two
‘ hour humanitarian pause,
‘ Intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including
‘ especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities,
‘ Ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a nondiscriminatory visa policy for them;
‘ Respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.
The EU is deeply concerned about the continued violence in Syria, because nobody can see the end of situation. Catherine Ashton underlines most of times that the violence in the country requires urgent and united action by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and international community. When we looked at countries which detect the EU’s policy direction such as United Kingdom, France and Germany, we can say that their policies about Syria are similar. Cameron’s government supports Syrian opposition and they said that Assad’s regime immediately must have halted violence against own people (Erdo”an, 2012, p.18). However, a military operation is not an option to Syria for UK. France has always a strong historical relationship with Syria but N. Sarkozy has clearly blamed Assad (Erdo”an, 2012, p.18). Finally, Germany has given a similar reaction about Syria. Nonetheless, we cannot say that the EU develops an effective policy on Syria. Their reaction can only be called symbolic against Assad. EU participated meetings ‘Group of Friends of Syrian People’. First conference made in Tunis and second conference made in Istanbul. In the meantime, Catherine Ashton made an explanation on behalf of EU that Syrian National Council will be addressed (Erdo”an, 2012, p.19). Syrian asylum applications within Europe have increased since the beginning of the conflict, but remain small. EUROSTAT reported that in 2012, 4.390 out of 4.765 applications were positively granted protection- 1.595 refugee status and 2.755 subsidiary protections- meaning that almost all were granted some form of protection (Fandrich, 2012, p.3). Levels of protection vary across Europe. For example, Germany gives a subsidiary protection but Sweden gives a temporary residence permit for three years (Fandrich, 2012, p.3). However, most of Syrians have not made application to asylum and so they have crossed the border illegal ways to reach the EU countries. Refuges have three different ways to Europe: land route to Greece or Bulgaria, air route to any EU member state and sea route across the Mediterranean to Greece, Cyprus, Malta or Italy (Fargues and Fandrich, 2012/2014, p.5). Because of these reasons, EU has started to work for enhanceborder security. The EU and its Member States have taken various measures to simultaneously maintain and secure European borders from Syrians. Member States have been implementing several forms of border control and asylum protection based on their individual national security needs. European Commission prepared a mission to secure their borders with European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and Frontex (Fargues and Fandrich, 2012/2014, p.12).
Especially Greece border has opened Syrian refugees so additional 1.800 border guards sent to Greek-Turkey Evros border. According to Frontex, the total numbers of migrants crossing the Greek-Turkish land border dropped from over 2.000 a week in the first week of August (Fargues and Fandrich, 2012/2014, p.12).
3.3. European Union Non-Governmental Organizations’ Perspective
European countries and people really concerned about Syrian civil war. They have tried to help innocent people. Lots of international and local NGOs work to help people. People in Syria and neighboring countries have needed emergency humanitarian aid. Nearly 7.6 million people internally displaced and 12.2 million people, 5 million of which children, need of humanitarian aid inside Syria European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, 2015, p.1). Especially women and children have effected badly from this civil war, because they need a protection from abuses. Approximately 3.961.704 number of refugees registered and awaiting registration. All of them need shelter, security, food and sanitation. Hosting countries try to provide every requirement of Syrian refugees in refugee camps but they don’t have enough money and they need financial support. Especially international and local NGOs work for help to Syrian refugees who are in need of assistance. EU gives financial supports UN and UN’s associations such as UNICEF, UNHCR, WFP and World Health Organization (WHO). By the end of 2013, the EU contribution to UNICEF’s operations in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey reached more than ’74 million (European Commission, 24 September 2013). Some international NGOs have been chosen from EU report about assistance of NGOs. Human Care Syria, Syria Relief, Norwegian Refugee Council and International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) are the main of them. The IFRC is the world’s largest humanitarian organization, providing assistance without discrimination as to nationally, race, religious, beliefs, class or political opinions. The IFRC comprises 189 members Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies (http://www.ifrc.org/en/who-we-are/vision-and-mission/).The IFRC carries out relief operations to assist victims of disasters, and combines this with development work to strengthen the capacities of its member National Societies.
The IFRC’s work focuses on four core areas: promoting humanitarian values, disaster response, disaster preparedness and health and community care.  Because of these reasons Syrian civil war and the people who are affected from this war are important for IFRC. The IFRC, together with National Societies and the International Committee of the Red Cross, make up the InternationalRedCross and Red Crescent Movement.
(http://www.ifrc.org/en/who44 we-are/vision-and-mission/)
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement calls international community for an end to the humanitarian tragedy in Syria. Especially Syrian refugees, who live in neighboring countries, don’t have sustainable infrastructure and resources. Most of them have not accessed to health care, schools and essential supplies. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement call all the parties of the conflict to observe their responsibilities under International Humanitarian Law.
3.4. European Public Opinion
European countries do not want to interfere into the issue of Syria because the public of European countries also do not want Syrian refugees in their borders. However, the Syrian civil war is a matter of humanity to all over the world and they have to do something about this human tragedy. After four years when the Syrian civil war start, the solution has not close yet and the situation of Syrian people has become very bad. The international community talks about military intervention but nobody wants to put their hands under the stone. The Huffington Post’s seven international editions shows striking public opposition to military intervention on Syria (Goodman, Hasan, Boudet, 2013, p.1). A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found only 29% in favor of a strike. In France, where President Hollande has promised to join the United States in taking on Syria, public support for military intervention has been reaching at 45%, according to recent CSA survey (Goodman and others, 2013, p.1). In Britain, where polls have not changed and the people have shown opposition to any form of intervention in Syria.
A ComRes poll for the independent newspaper found that only 29% of people believe Britain should join the United States in launching air strikes against Assad (Goodman and others, 2013, p.1). In Germany, public opinion has been running 58% against striking Syria according to public television. In Italy, the poll conducted by the IPR Institute found that 52% of the public opposed an attack on Syria (Goodman and others, 2013, p.2). Consequently, the European people think that the Syrian civil war is not on their business and they do not think as a threat directly. Hawkins, the ComRes chairman described ‘two key requirements’ for public support to military intervention. First, a credible threat to British citizens and second a reasonable prospect of success (Goodman and others, 2013, p.3). ComRes conducted the poll of 500 UK adults aged 18+, 500 French adults aged 18+ and 500 German adults aged 18+ online on 30th August 2013 (ComRes, 2013, p.2). When we looked at the poll, we can see that the French are more willing than the British or the German to start an assault to Syria. More than half of Germans (55%) backed the tightening economic sanctions while 46% of British people and 39% of French people did (ComRes, 2013, p.4). However, if the UN found any evidence about chemical weapons, half of British people supported military intervention. Many polls have been conducted in UK, France and US. Most of them say that if chemical weapons were used, it is necessary to respond. Especially the people of Middle East have preferred to flee to European countries which have democracy, the respect for human rights and better life conditions. When the Transatlantic Trends asked respondents whether they approved of their own government’s handling of immigration from other countries. 60% of Europeans said they disapproved, 71% of Americans disapproved as well (GMF, 2014, p.5). Disapproval in Europe was most pronounced in Spain (77%), Greece (75%), the United Kingdom (73%), Italy and France (both 64%). These results have not changed much when the compared to 2013 results. In 2013, 58% of Europeans said that they did not approve their governments work about refugees (GMF, 2014, p.5).
Figure 3: The European Government’s Handling of Immigration from GMF
When we look at this graph, we can see a very big disapproval from European Union countries. Especially border countries such as Greece and Spain do not approve their countries work about immigration policies. However, 67% of Russians and 60% of Swedish said their government has made a good job about immigration. When Transatlantic Trends asked respondents why immigrants come to country, answers varied widely from one country to another, but most of them agree that immigrants come to their country to work.
Figure4: The reasons of Immigration to EU and U.S. from GMF
In addition, to seek social benefits was the next most frequent cited reason, by 41 in Europe and by 45% in the United States. To seek asylum was the third most frequent motivation attributed to immigrants in Europe (40%), but only 18% of Americans agreed (GMF, 2014, p.8). We can learn from Transatlantic Trends that 40% of Europeans wanted their country’s policy should be more restrictive about refugees, whereas only 34% said policies were right now. Among respondents most in favor of more restrictive refugee policies, Italy (57%) and Greece (56%), followed by the United Kingdom (48%) (GMF, 2014, p.8)
3.5. The Eu-Turkey ‘Refugee Deal’: Historical Overview Of Readmission Agreements, Turkey-European Union Readmission Agreement
Readmission policy is not a new concept; they are actually one of the oldest instruments employed by Member States to control migratory flows. (Bouteillet 2003, pp.359’377).The origins of readmission agreements go back to seventeenth century on which the unwanted individuals were expelled without any cooperation with other states, however the traces of today’s readmission agreements date back to to the nineteenth century (Coleman, 2009, pp. 12-14). Many bilateral agreements were signed from the early nineteenth century until the Second World War to deal with the readmission of persons, who were displaced during the war. A characteristic of the conclusion of readmission agreements during this period is that it served primarily to enable the expulsion of undesirable persons to their countries of nationality, or former nationality (Coleman, 2009, p. 11). The fight against migration flows gained significance in the middle of 1950’s and the conclusion of readmission agreements for the purpose of regulating migration flows started (Coleman, 2009, p. 11). Since the internal borders of EU have not yet been abolished, those earliest generation of readmission agreements addressed the irregular movement of persons between European States in the pre-schengen area instead of with the third countries (Bouteillet- Paquet 2003, p.362). At that period of time migration was not perceived as a problem, therefore the conclusion of readmission agreements was not considered quite as essential as it would from the early nineties onwards (Coleman 2009, p. 16). With the abolition of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and opening of the borders with the Central Eastern European Countries (CEEC), the CEEC’s served increasingly as a transit road for illegal immigration from Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union. Accordingly the EU which lifted the internal borders in accordance with Schengen Convention started to sign second generation of bilateral agreements with CEECs (Roig & Huddleston, p. 367). The main objective of the second generation of readmission agreements was to create a ‘cordon sanitaire’ along the EU’ eastern border through bilateral readmission agreements covering nationals and non nationals (Crepeau 1995, p. 285). The inclusion of non-nationals was imported to the next set of readmission agreements with all third countries, known as the third-generation readmission agreements. (Roig and Huddleston 2007, p. 368) Until today, many readmission agreements both at the national and EU level were signed with third countries which are countries of origin or transit. In the last two decades as an important instrument to combat with irregular migration, readmission agreements gained more importance and a common readmission policy was embedded in the European Immigration policy.The beginning of a policy at the EU level regarding the readmission of third country nationals dates back to early nineties. This early common policy concentrated on the conclusion of bilateral readmission agreements by the Member States with third countries. In the early 1990s through some policy papers the foundations of a common readmission policy was laid. In 1991, the Commission adopted Communications ‘on immigration’ and on ‘the right of asylum’. The Communication on immigration was the first call for a common readmission policy (Coleman 2009, p. 19). In 1994 to facilitate the readmission of third country nationals to their country of origin, the council adopted an EC specimen agreement to be used by a member state wished to establish a common readmission agreement with a third country. Yet, it was not until 1999 that the EU gained competence to conclude readmission agreements at the EU level (Roig and Huddleston 2007, p. 368). With the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force in May 1, 1999, EU gained competence to conclude readmission agreements and the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009 reaffirmed in a more explicit and unquestionable manner the shared competence of the Union in the field of readmission. Art. 3 and 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) respectively list the areas of exclusive and shared competences.
Art. 79 of TFEU, which amended Art. 63(3) of the TEC, clarifies in points 2(c) and 3 the competence of the Union in the field of readmission: Art 79, ” 3 TFEU reads:
‘The Union may conclude agreements with third countries for the readmission to their countries of origin or provenance of third-country nationals who do not or who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, presence or residence in the territory of one of the Member States’. With the new competence in mind, the Tampere Summit Conclusions, October 1999, called on the Council to integrate either readmission clauses covering nationals into cooperation agreements or conclude readmission agreements with third countries or a group of third countries.4  Moreover The European Pact on Migration and Asylum, which was adopted by European Union heads of state and government at the European Summit of October 2008, endorses and recommends the conclusion of readmission agreements by the European Union. More recently, through the ‘Stockholm Programme adopted in December 2009, EU reiterated the significance of the readmission agreements as an important element in European Union migration management and stressed that the Council should define a renewed, coherent strategy on readmission on that basis, taking into account the overall relations with the country concerned, including a common approach towards third countries that do not co-operate in readmitting their own nationals’.5  Since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam (ToA), which empowered the European Commission to negotiate and conclude EU readmission agreements with third countries, so far Agreements with with Russia, Morocco, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, the Chinese Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao, Algeria, Turkey, Albania, China, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Moldova, Georgia, Cape Verde, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey has been concluded.6
4 European Council, Presidency Conclusions, Tampere, SN 200/99, 15-16 October 1999 (paragraphs 26 and 27). 5 European Council, The Stockholm Programme ‘ An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens, OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 34.6The information Retrieved, May 16, 2016, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/search.html?qid=1401788810144&text=readmission%20agreement&scope=EURLEX&type=quick&lang=en&DTS_SUBDOM=INTER_AGREE
Readmission agreements are favorite tools of the European Council when it comes to illegal immigration. The soul of readmission agreements mean that a country would agree to admit back any person that had made an illegal entry into another country from her territory. Thus, in the case of illegal immigrants that use Turkey as a transit route to EU countries which form the focus of this study, Turkey would have to readmit these people in accordance with a Turkey-EU readmission agreement. Turkey has long resisted pressures from the EU to start negotiations towards such an agreement but finally in March 2004 she agreed to open negotiations on this issue, albeit very reluctantly.
Despite the fact that Turkey seems to have yielded in the face of EU pressure, a readmission agreement between these parties can still be considered as a source of clash. When the determinacy with which Turkish authorities had resisted the EU’s demands, opening of negotiations may be part of a strategy employed to convey to EU Turkey’s concerns and demands. Given the pace with which developments have been taking place under cooperation in justice and home affairs and consistent emphasis by the Union to sign a readmission agreement before further progress could be achieved may have directed Turkish officials to seek alternative means to talk to the Union in the absence of membership negotiations. The main concern of Turkey on that subject has been the fear of being a dumping ground for unwanted immigrants.Turkey points at the reluctance of countries of origin to sign readmission agreements themselves with Turkey. The example of Czech and Slovak Republics demonstrate how dependent readmission agreements are on one another. The Czech Republic was unwilling to take back deportees from Germany until she secured readmission agreements with her neighbors and Slovakia, in turn, was reluctant to implement her agreement with the Czech Republic until she secured agreements with Hungary, Ukraine and Romania (Collinson, 1996: 86). Turkey points at the discrepancy that would occur in case European Union can easily send back illegal migrants to Turkey while Turkey is devoid of the tools and resources to send them back to their countries of origin. Instead, Turkey put forward that she has a constitutional requirement to accept Turkish nationals or aliens with legal residence permit from Turkey in any event. Secondly, Turkey expressed a readiness to receive back any third country illegal migrants as long as they were returned to Turkey promptly and without delay (Kiris”i, 2004a: 7).Thus, one can conclude that Turkey does not cause any difficulty to the European Union in terms of an immigrant creating country. Rather, when the EU’s perspective is taken into account Turkey comes forward as a transit country. Immigration lawyer David Martin says that a country of transit (as distinguished from a country where the individual had enjoyed a significant period of lawful residence) is not obligated by general international law to accept return of someone who passed through that territory, or even that remained for a fairly lengthy period (2003: 42). One example of the good will demonstrated by Turkey is the bilateral readmission protocol with Greece. Greece is one of the first points of entry to the EU from Turkey and hence, the significance of this protocol can be evaluated. Although there have been some difficulties in the implementation of this protocol, it is nevertheless the longest standing readmission agreement Turkey has had with an EU member country (Kiris”i, 2004a: 8).Turkey’s main concern is the possibility of having to sustain unwelcome illegal immigrants to European Union. In case Turkey-EU readmission agreement is completed before completion of similar agreements with migrant creating countries Turkey may have to house illegal immigrants for unknown periods of time. Turkey emphasizes the risk to her domestic security and financial burden that these illegal immigrants would create. The main point to consider here is that Turkey is not the target country for the illegal immigrants in question. As a result, readmitting them to Turkey would not solve the problem but aggravate it. These people sometimes pay huge sums of money to organizers to arrange for their run and usually risk their lives in the search for a better life. It would be naive to assume that they would wait helplessly in Turkey until the day they would be returned to home countries. Many would try making illegal entry to Europe again. Besides, this would push these people to work illegally during their stay in Turkey. Consequently, this situation increases the risk for such people to fall victim to human traffickers.
3.6. The Question of Responsibility-Sharing for a Durable Solution to the Syrian Displacement Crisis
The international community was not successful at stopping the armed conflict in Syria, and the regional actors’ political agendas have further aggravated the situation130.The widespread displacement did not only cause a humanitarian crisis in the region (and beyond the region) but has also reached an unprecedented level, exposing the failure of international humanitarian governance. The overlong debate on EU’s failure to demonstrate solidarity in responsibility-sharing with Turkey, the major host country for Syrian refugees, is now further heated by the ‘Refugee Deal’. In 2011, when the Syrian civil war started, both international community and neighboring countries work for help to Syrian people. Approximately 7.6 million people internally were displaced and 12.2 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. In this crisis, most of the burden has remained on neighboring countries and they have to open their border to Syrian refugees. Especially Turkey, Iraq and Jordan hosted many of them.
Most of Syrians have to flee neighboring countries because of security concern but the host countries cannot meet the requirements. Consequently, all of the countries have to do something to meet the needs of the Syrian people. From 2011 to now, the expenditure was made by Turkey has surpassed $3 billion according to the United Nations standards. However, the EU is a leading donor in the response to the Syria crisis with around ‘3.6 billion of total budget mobilized by the Commission and Member States collectively in humanitarian, development, economic and stabilization assistance. When we compared the founding was given by the EU and Turkey, the EU which has 28 member countries gives a very restricted budget. This situation of Syrian people is very important humanitarian crisis and both EU members and countries in the region should make everything to help them. Firstly, they need a safe zone and basic human needs. In order to help them, this crisis must be resolved immediately.
4.CHAPTER IV  CONCLUSION
In 2010, the Arab Spring which has affected all the Middle Eastern countries started and it still continues to spread in the region. In 2011, the demonstrations started in Syria and the people of Syria wanted to overthrow the Assad regime. When the events in Syria started, Turkey warned the Assad regime to make democratic reforms but he did not change his stance against demonstrations. When the violence in Syria started to increase, the Syrian people began to flee other countries. Turkey which has a very long border with Syria is one of them. From the first day, Turkey has implemented ‘open door policy’ and none of the Syrian refugees was sent back to Syria as a humanitarian responsibility. Turkish government and AFAD established 22 camps (16 tent cities and 5 container towns) in 10 provinces. According to recent data of AFAD, total number of Syrian refugees in Turkey is approximately 1 million 645 thousand people. According to AFAD 18.09.2017 2017 update, 25.000.000.000 USD billion has been spent for humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees. Turkey has created its policy formed as to Assad will go but when the Assad regime continues to remain in the management of Syria, Turkey is losing prestige. Meanwhile, this policy of Turkey actually led to isolation in her region. The March of 2012, Turkey emphasized that the options of safe zone should be assessed. Nonetheless, Turkey’s words were in the air due to the absence of needed support. The Syrian civil war still continues with the support which Syria has taken. Turkish government has taken Assad a little more undervalues. However, opposition groups have been overestimated in our eyes but they do not have a smooth cooperation in their selves.The number of Syrian refugees continues to increase exponentially in every day. These people were named as ‘refugee’ by press and local people but they are not legal refugees according to Turkish law. Due to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Turkey only gives the refugee status to the people who escaped from Europe. Refugees who came from non-European zones are only allowed to stay in Turkey on temporary basis until the completion of the process of inserting in a third country.
Consequently, the Syrian refugees are named as a ‘guest’ by Turkish government. However, the government thought that they should be given a new status so the Prime Minister’s Office published circular letter which is recognized the temporary protection status to Syrians in the April of 2012. According to this circular letter,
‘ It will continue the ‘open door policy’
‘ It will not apply the forcibly refoulement
‘ The Syrian refugees will be recorded and their needs will be fulfilled  by           Turkish government.
Afterwards, Turkish government started to work on  identity and work permit to Syrian refugees. However, these works have not been finished. Turkish government should make new and constructive policies about Syrian refugees because the civil war still continues and the people of Syria seem to live in Turkey during a long time. The refugee camps have been managed by AFAD on behalf of the Turkish government. However, AFAD is not alone about the working of aids. AFAD has conducted these works in collaboration with Turkish Red Crescent. According to 2013 Turkey Development Aid Report, the aids made to Syrian refugees constituted 93.95 million dollars of the said figures so the 33% of all NGO’s assistance are made to Syrian guests. According to this report, the most aid was made by the coordination of Red Crescent and NGO with 58.86 million dollar. With 35.74 million dollars Religious Foundation of Turkey, with the 33.64 million dollars Turkish Red Crescent Society, with the 32.93 million dollars The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (”HH) follows. Consequently, Turkish NGOs have worked together with Turkish government to help the Syrian refugees who live in Turkey and Syria. Turkish NGOs have made lots of aid campaigns, ‘A Bread and A Blanket for Syria’ and ‘I Need you’ is only two of them. The president of AFAD emphasizes that they are making joint works with the local NGOs which applied to them and the importance of making joint works. However, NGOs have faced with many disadvantages about the distribution of aids. The Turkish government sometimes hampers the initiatives of NGOs due to the privacy and security but the government should be worked to facilitate the NGOs’ businesses.
Some control mechanism should be there as a matter of course but these mechanisms should not cause disruption of these aids. Turkish public have approached with tolerated the Syrian refugees from the beginning and they tried to help the Syrian refugees in every way. However, the smooth situation has changed over time because the number of refugees has increased too much. Many refugees have left the camps and they have started to live in rental houses. The local people were extremely disturbed from Syrians who carried their own culture to here. The Syrian refugees have scattered to all provinces of Turkey except for 8 provinces and their number has increased in every day. Especially, the border provinces have under the burden of refugees. The local person who lives in the border provinces has been impressed from the presence of Syrian refugees. Syrians’ cultures, languages and life styles have completely different from Turkish people. These differences have led to difficulties about social integration. For example, the polygamy is widespread in Syria but it is not accepted as a legitimate in Turkey. However, this situation has started to increase in Turkey thus the rate of divorce has raised. In addition to polygamy, the rate of illegal workers has started to increase with the Syrian refugees and the rate of unemployment has reached at 10.1. The Syrian refugees have worked with low wages therefore Turkish workers think that they lose their jobs due to the Syrian refugees. Consequently, the daily lives of people are badly affected and the government should be made something as soon as possible. We can see the people’s unrest from the public opinion polls. Some survey companies such as EDAM, HUGO and GMF have made a research about the people’s approach to Syrian refugees. According to EDAM survey, Turkish people do not want further Syrian refugees and 86% of the participants argue that no further Syrian refugees should be allowed in the country. According to GMF survey, 66% of Turks said that their country’s policies towards refugees should be more restrictive. According to HUGO survey, 64.6% of participants said that the adoption of Syrian refugees regardless of their religion, language and ethnicity is the duty of humanity. However, 70.7% of Turkish people think that Turkish economy has damaged due to the refugees. In addition, 76.5% of Turks think that Syrians will lead to major problems if they remain in Turkey. Despite everything, Turkish society seems to have accepted the Syrian refugees.
Since the Turkish people approached to this issue as a humanitarian mission, the acceptable levels of the Syrian people is greater than anticipated. However, the government should be worked about this issue with taking into consideration of process to change of perspectives in a positive direction against Syrians. Moreover, emergency measures should be taken about some issues in the province of border. Otherwise the ethnic problems in Syria could spill over to Turkey. When we looked at the European Union member countries, the situation seems very grave. On the contrary to Turkey, the number of Syrian refugees who lives in Europe is very low. The EU and its member states have made large amounts of donate to refugees. More than ‘3.6 billion have been mobilized for relief and recovery assistance to Syrians who stayed in their country and escaped to neighboring countries. From the beginning of Syrian crises, lots of people made an asylum application to European countries. However, EU countries are very reluctant about the accepting of Syrian refugees to Europe. UNHCR has wanted from countries to open their borders to Syrian refugees but except for some countries, most of them do not want to Syrian refugees. In 2011, when the Syrian crisis started, the EU has begun to warn the Assad regime. However, the violation has continued to increase so EU has started make an embargo on the import of Syrian crude oil. European countries have believed that the only solution of this problem is a political. The EU has warned Syrian regime and authorities at every turn to stop the violation and using gun above innocent people. As the Syrian regime continued use of violence against civilians, the Council increased measures against the Syrian regime. However, the EU member states have not a common stand against Syrian civil war. Most European officials say that they want to stop the bloodshed, but without the use of force it does not seem possible. The EU want to use UN Security Council to stop this situation but Russia and Chine refused to allow any European-backed solution on Syria. The EU Council sanctions on Assad regime are very important but it is controversial that it works and does not work. To find a political solution, UN and Arab League gave a special mission to Kofi Annan. The EU has supported Annan’s plan but he did not succeed. Consequently, we cannot say that the EU develops an effective policy on Syria.The EU members wanted to protect the EU borders so they have increased the border control. Most of Syrians have crossed the border illegal ways to reach the EU countries. However, the European countries do not want any Syrian refugees so they work to hamper the Syrian refugees. Many human rights violations are experienced throughout European borders to ensure their borders protection. The EU must; increase support for hosting communities, support a political settlement and increase close cooperation with international community and NGOs. Syria Relief, Human Care Syria, Norwegian Refugee Council and International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are the main European NGOs which work about the aid to Syrian refugees. All of them have mobilized huge resources throughout the region to respond to the vast humanitarian needs both inside Syria and neighboring countries. European NGOs work with a great desire to help Syrian refugees. The all of NGOs are doing their best about humanitarian aid even risking their lives. However, the hosting countries sometime hinder the NGOs works and they do not complete their mission very well. At this point, local government has very important mission about facilitate the works of NGOs.European countries do not want to intervention the issue of Syria because the public of European countries also do not want Syrian refugees in their border. According to GMF survey 2014, 60% of Europeans said they disapproved of their government’s handling of immigration. In addition, 40 % of Europeans wanted their country’s policy should be more restrictive about refugees. When the international community started to talk about military intervention on Syria, none of them supported this idea. For example, only 29% of people believe Britain should join the United States in launching air strikes against Assad. In Germany, public opinion has been running 58% against striking Syria according to public television. In Italy, the poll conducted by the IPR Institute found that 52% of the public opposed an attack on Syria. Consequently, the European people think that the Syrian civil war is not on their business and they do not think as a threat directly. Europeans concern about immigration and refugees so they do not want to intervene Syrian issue. However, they do not escape from this issue because millions of Syrian refugees trying to cross the European borders every day. Especially, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria have been affected by this refugee wave. The EU which talks about human rights in every opportunity was ineffective in this regard. The EU members should share the burden of refugees with the hosting countries. The EU gives the money to NGOs and international organization to help Syrian refugees but it is not enough. They have to take Syrian refugees to protect or resettlement.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Approaches to humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/politics-essays/approaches-to-humanitarian-aid-to-syrian-refugees/> [Accessed 28-03-24].

These Politics essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.