We didn’t need the heart-wrenching image of a drowned child to alert us to the magnitude of the refugee crisis in Syria. Nor the images of chaos across Eastern Europe as those refugees lucky enough or wealthy enough to reach Europe tried to get to Germany, which has committed to taking 800,000 refugees.
We’ve known for years, as literally millions of Syrians have sought sanctuary from war in neighbouring countries. There are now nearly 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, over 1.1 million in Lebanon, 630,000 in Jordan and even a quarter of a million in Iraq. It is those countries that have borne the responsibility of dealing with the results of a civil war in which Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russia’s Putin regime and the Iranian theocracy, slaughtered his own population while fighting a collection of Islamist militants, including Islamic State.
There is one group of regional countries that has failed to make any contribution to dealing with the refugee burden: the Gulf states. As the Lowy Institute’s Dr Rodger Shanahan correctly pointed out this week, Gulf States like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have, while happy to take in millions of poor foreign workers, accepted exactly zero Syrian refugees — a remarkable outcome given these states have been enthusiastic funders of opposition groups in the civil war, including Islamic State.
Of course, even if the Gulf states did something approaching their fair share it would not resolve the issue. The only solution can be a global one, in which Syrians are given sanctuary while a political solution is negotiated to end the civil war and establish a government that isn’t hell-bent on murdering its own population. That means countries such as Australia should be offering to share some of the burden of caring for displaced Syrians until they can return to their homeland.
Absolutely agree with your suggestion that every country who is able should be involved in providing TEMPORARY protection for Syrians and other people fleeing war zones.
Didn’t Australia do that for some hundreds of people during the Serbian war some years ago? And didn’t all those people go home once the war had ended?
Even with the best will in the world, all the western nations combined could not possibly take on the millions of people currently seeking safety on a permanent basis, without wrecking their own countries on an economic, social and cultural level. That is the truth of the matter.
Good one, Crikey!
Will our air transport alliance with the Gulf States come back to bite us? I had no idea they were IS supporters. But agree with others who advocate that we should be taking Syrian refugees – through the front door please. There are heaps of Syrians already in Australia – many of those I know were in 2 minds about emigration believing the ME chaos would spare Syria. Those here are the lucky ones despite our current Government.
A remarkably naive editorial. You might have noted for example that one of the major reasons the Gulf states do not accept Syrian refugees is that they are shi’ite, and the gulf states are major funders of sunni militant groups.
You might also have mentioned that the US is a principal armer, financier, trainer and supporter of the groups fighting the Assad government, as multiple sources have confirmed.
You might also note that the refugees flooding Europe at the moment have a large proportion coming from Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan. What do they all have in common? Oh yes, the US, with the enthusiastic support of successive Australian governments has bombed, invaded and otherwise destroyed those societies.
Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe what we have done, are doing, and if Abbott and Bishop are to be believed about to continue doing in Syria, with our customary disregard for international law.
This is sinister sophistry from Crikey. First, while of course we should take refugees, and lots of them–we are the emptiest rich country in the world–it would be far better to end the wars that are driving them out! But you smug chardonnay socialists–not real socialists, they have principles–want to blame this conflict on Assad and Russia, probably to justify that fraud Obama’s continuation of the Bush-Cheney neo-con regime change agenda by another name. The bottom line is that millions of Syrians weren’t fleeing Assad before the US, UK, Turkey and Saudi Arabia set out to topple Assad under the guise of the Arab Spring, and were happy to use the most monstrous exponents of Saudi-funded Sunni Wahabbi Islam to do so. The 2012 US DIA documents prove it, and DIA director Flynn’s recent interview with Al Jazeera confirmed it was a “wilful decision” by Obama to create this mess. So re-write your lying editorial to replace “Assad” and “Russia” with Obama et al. to restore some credibility, or join the ranks of media propagandists in the proud tradition of News Corp, going back to the Iraq WMD farce, who share responsibility for this humanitarian disaster.
James and Robert – While everything you both say may well be true, just how does playing the blame game help those flooding into adjacent countries and Europe from the war torn Middle East?
I heard on ABC radio this morning that diplomatic efforts to bring about a cease fire in Syria, have been stepped up. But there are profound differences between the USA and Russia on how to achieve this. Apparently the USA has been criticised for insisting that any diplomatic solution must include the removal of Assad, which other parties to the discussions believe is not realistic.
In the meantime, surely the ‘Front Page of the Day’ in this edition of Crikey should prompt us all to gain a little perspective on what is happening to ordinary civilians in the Syrian conflict and other warzones.
This carnage of innocents, particularly children, has to be stopped by any means possible.