It is the year 2016, and pictures of drowning children trying to cross the sea to Europe, fleeing war, circulate the Internet. It is the year 2016, and millions of people no longer have access to basic human necessities: healthcare, security, water, or even a roof over their heads. These people have done nothing but exist in a country that has ceased to protect or provide for them, and have committed the crime of trying to seek a place to suitably raise their families. These people are the millions uprooted by the Syrian conflicts.
Unimaginable violence has had a widespread effect on the region. People have been forced to abandon their homes because there simply are no longer opportunities and resources to continue survival: schools have been closed and healthcare is basically nonexistent (Syrian refugee response). Children are being heavily affected due to lack of schooling, malnourishment and other forms of abuse, and exploitation. They have become target victims for recruitment to fight. Overall, their countries’ no longer have a stable economy, functioning government, or infrastructure in place (World Vision, 2016). Civilians are fleeing these uninhabitable areas in hopes of a better life in another country. Most have left Syria for other Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq (Doctors Without Borders, 2016). These surrounding countries have shouldered tremendous strain from major influxes of refugees (Ostrand, 2015). However, about ten-percent of refugees have braved the trip to Europe, where they took a great risk for a better payoff. Unfortunately, Europe, with dwindling resources, has not been as inviting as refugees had hoped (Doctors Without Borders, 2016). As things get worse, and as people lose more hope, Syrian refugees are beginning – in increasing numbers – to seek asylum outside the Middle East, with Germany and Sweden accepting the most thus far. Both the Middle East and Europe are feeling the toll of unprecedented numbers of people flooding in, and the regions are shakily trying to hold it together (Ostrand, 2015).
These people – innocent civilians – are not receiving adequate treatment and care that is supposedly ensured to them via international law. This seems obvious by the horrific death toll that is rising everyday; the number of people dying from starvation and dehydration, the sheer mass of people without access to basic healthcare, jobs, nor education; and the ways in which some states have limited their access to sanctuary. It is the responsibility of the international community to supply these needs to these people, basic necessities which are abundantly dispersed in wealthy countries such as Japan or the United States.
There are many actions that need to take place to even begin to correct the humanitarian disaster in which the world has found itself throughout the Syrian refugee crisis. The first of these has to be enforcement of the all-encompassing right to resettle, afforded by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which states that “everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum” in the comfort and safety of another country (UNHCR, 2016). As simple as this may sound, many countries have closed their borders and left refugees stranded in limbo with nowhere to retreat, and no one to whom they can turn for protection. Of course, the countries are not doing this out of aggression but rather their ability to house more people. They feel forced to either shut their borders or severely restrict who may come in (Doctors Without Borders, 2016). While nations have varying legislation and procedures on admitting refugees (Ostrand, 2015), they are required by law to protect these people. They are not, however, legally bound to the resettlement of refugees and it is seldom that states actually do provide this service. Refugees are allowed the choice to go back to their home state, to remain in their asylum country, or to be resettled into a third country; but less than 1% of refugees choose the latter (UNHCR, 2016).
It is important to note that returning to one’s home country should be voluntary, and absolutely cannot occur if it would comprise the refugee’s life, except in the case that they are “a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or . . . a danger to the community of that country” (Bidinger et al., 2014). This is the concept of nonrefoulement provided for in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which still exists (with some additions, including the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees) as the primary international treaty governing refugees’ rights (Bidinger et al., 2014). Asylum can only be considered legitimate and legal if it abides by nonrefoulement principles (Ostrand, 2015).
Proper resettlement has proven difficult because of the unprecedented burden placed on the countries surrounding the crisis, straining these countries’ economies and societies. Poor, urban areas have been most dramatically affected, particularly in northern Jordan and Lebanon’s border with Syria. Even though these areas were struggling economically before the crisis, they have been forced to welcome more people to the point where access to electricity, water, housing, and sanitation has been compromised. Refugees in Lebanon – the state with the highest rate of refugees per capita – have a devastating lack of shelter. Those in Turkey face immense societal tensions as more and more Syrians flood in. Unstable political conditions in Egypt and Iraq have left Syrians with empty promises of protection and social services (UNHCR, 2016).
In order for resettlement to be what is intended in international legislation, there needs to be a greater number of asylum countries in order to spread the burden. The Middle East and some European states are being flooded with people and simply cannot keep up. The countries that have the most refugees as of now are struggling with their own issues, including being relatively poor. Many countries have yet to offer resettlement programs, including wealthy states such as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India (Ostrand, 2015). Countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey have met and exceeded their reasonable capacity for population intake and clearly need international assistance, not in the means of funding, per say, but simply the relocation of bodies. They cannot provide adequate services and protections for the refugees, as they have many domestic issues they need to sort out for themselves (Bidinger et al., 2014). This expansion of asylum countries has to be facilitated by some international entity, because people are dying just trying to swim their way to Europe. Development of a transit system to deliver refugees across the sea to the Americas and further east into Asia will be crucial in easing the burden on Middle Eastern countries. It is a moral obligation for all developed countries to concern themselves with this crisis and do their part.
The second priority for the refugees is to find a place to live, and then have an overhead system/government that will provide them with security. These people have been abandoned by their home state government, left to defend themselves against terrorism. The UNHCR stands to protect refugees from infringement on their human rights and personal rights, including protection from physical, legal, or sexual harm (the latter of which is prevalent even in asylum countries.) These people need legal help, particularly when threatened with returning to an unsafe home nation. The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention makes sure that refugees are represented and protected against this undesirable outcome, and many others that can result from being a refugee (UNHCR, 2016). However, some things simply cannot be controlled by international law. Russia, despite its claims of ‘error’, has continuously bombed dense populations of civilians, including medical facilities. It has been difficult for anyone to get aid inside Syria’s borders due to the extreme level of risk, which is unprecedented for Doctors Without Borders, whose website states that this inability to truly enter the state is highly unusual, indicative of Syria’s extreme hostility. Where they have been able to establish makeshift hospitals, many of their locations have been destroyed by bombs in a violation of international humanitarian law (Doctors Without Borders, 2016).
In order for anything positive to happen, comprehensive humanitarian access absolutely must be allowed. As of now, it is extremely difficult to get resources into areas of Syria where people are suffering. In order to do so, there must be peace talks between involved nations (particularly concerning Russia) and a hardened effort to eliminate bombings in civilian areas.
Because of these extreme conditions limiting ground support, most international support has been through financial assistance. The United States and the United Kingdom are the largest single-state contributors (Ostrand, 2015), and the US is hoping for at least 10 more governments to promise regular contributions to Syria. Monetary donations have been beneficial to the crisis, but have been unable to halt the situation. This level of humanitarian disaster calls for a political solution to be reached in order for supplies and aid to get on the ground in Syria (Syrian refugee response). International legislation has been adopted, but nothing has been sufficient. Even the UN Security Council, in December, adopted a resolution essentially stating that their previous resolutions have not been effective in helping this situation (Doctors Without Borders, 2016). The international community has an obligation to make reasonable, wage-earning jobs, which CSR51 ensures (Bidinger et al., 2014), and schooling available to these displaced peoples in the states they seek refuge (Syrian refugee response).
This situation has become less about a war on terrorism and more about a war on innocents. It is incredulous that in the year 2016, people are dying in a fight for bread and water, and no one has truly stepped up to help. It seems unreal that something like that could happen, especially to those so sheltered in first-world countries; no one would let them die these deaths. Syrian refugees have essentially no person nor entity to whom they can turn for assistance in a situation beyond their control. No one asked to be forced to leave behind their homes and hope that their family will survive a trip to a foreign country that may or may not give them food or water, much less a house or employment. If it is true that the way in which refugees are taken care of is an illustration of proper international functioning between states, as Ostrand states, then this crisis – ongoing for nearly six years – shows a complete lack of well-being in today’s international community (2015).